<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Danes, Germans push LCR change despite split fears</title>
	<atom:link href="http://news.coveredbondreport.com/2011/01/danes-germans-push-lcr-changes-despite-split-fears/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://news.coveredbondreport.com/2011/01/danes-germans-push-lcr-changes-despite-split-fears/</link>
	<description>News, analysis, data</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2015 13:50:27 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Richard Kemmish</title>
		<link>https://news.coveredbondreport.com/2011/01/danes-germans-push-lcr-changes-despite-split-fears/#comment-2</link>
		<dc:creator>Richard Kemmish</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Jan 2011 07:08:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.coveredbondreport.com/?p=202#comment-2</guid>
		<description>&quot;....change the haircuts they face from 15% or more proposed under Basel III to haircuts corresponding to those used by central banks...&quot;.

A flat 15% haircut for all covered bonds is clearly a fatally flawed methodology.  But then so is an arbitrary core/periphery distinction based purely on nationality of issuer. 

But surely using market value (as opposed to notional) as a basis for the haircuts - as the ECB already does in its repo operations - ensures that the relevant quality measures, including liquidity, are already taken into account in the value of the bond.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;&#8230;.change the haircuts they face from 15% or more proposed under Basel III to haircuts corresponding to those used by central banks&#8230;&#8221;.</p>
<p>A flat 15% haircut for all covered bonds is clearly a fatally flawed methodology.  But then so is an arbitrary core/periphery distinction based purely on nationality of issuer. </p>
<p>But surely using market value (as opposed to notional) as a basis for the haircuts &#8211; as the ECB already does in its repo operations &#8211; ensures that the relevant quality measures, including liquidity, are already taken into account in the value of the bond.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
