Search QAs

Applying the look-through approach as in Scheme S.06.03.04, we do not have information on the sector to which the corporate-type constituents belong (“Underlying Asset Category” = 2). With reference to Sections F.10.4 and F.13.4 of the RFR Technical Documentation, should I consider these exposures as corporate exposures, even though the sector is not specified? And, if so, should I exclude them from allocation to the sector by distributing the respective share between the “financial” and “non-financial” asset categories, as with the credit quality steps (F.14.2)?

My question is in relation to the reporting of the s.06.04. Prior guidelines have explicitly stated that the QRT does not apply to Unit-linked funds. We were just wondering why unit-linked funds were omitted from this QRT?

We are wondering if there is any additional information regarding the classification according to NACE. Previously, NACE 2.0 was the standard from 2008 to 2024, but as of 2025, the EU has updated to the new version, NACE 2.1 (Eurostat). We would like to know whether the reporting of PF Quarterly ECB individual follows the previous standard (NACE 2.0) or if it has been adapted to the new one (NACE 2.1).

The look-through in S0603 should identify at least 90% of the total value of the funds less CIC 8 and 9 with regards to countries and 90% of the total value of funds with regards to currencies. Therefore, we have two questions: 1) Which country should be applied for CIC 0 assets, e.g. physical commodities (gold), crypto currencies (bitcoin) or artworks (paintings)? 2) Which currency should be applied for such assets?

Regarding C0140 - Issuer Name regarding CIC category 4. In the guidance it says "the issuer name is the name of the fund manager". Very often there is an investment manager of the fund that is not the same company as the fund manager, often the "brand name" of the fund is the same as the name of the investment manager. Example: GQG Partners Global Equity Select Fund. Investment Manager is GQG Partners, The Manager is Bridge Fund Management. Should Issuer be Bridge Fund Management?

According to your answer on question 3196, we need to determine if we should use the national or international rating scale for our bank deposits in the local currency. I cite relevant parts from the definitions below: International Credit Ratings: - "International credit ratings relate to either foreign currency or local currency commitments and, in both cases, assess the capacity to meet these commitments using a globally applicable scale",

Is EIOPA responsible for debt collection agencies and their practices? If yes, how so? If not, do you know if there is an EU agency and/or EU legislation regarding the matter?

Please provide us the list options for cell C0010/R0090 on table PFE.01.02.30.01 for Hotfix 2.9.0.

Deposits to cedants (CIC 75) are reported on a single line in template SE.06.02. Do deposits to cedants have to be detailed in template E.01.01, or do they have to be reported globally, as on report SE.06.02, on a single line?