The ICMA Covered Bond Investor Council has responded to feedback by the UK RCBC on its template for European transparency standards in covered bonds, with the investor group stating its hope that the template achieves a balance that will satisfy the UK RCBC’s desire for flexibility.

The CBIC’s response, published yesterday (Tuesday), comes after the investor group on 23 January commented on feedback provided by Crédit Foncier de France (CFF) on the proposed transparency standards template.

Comments raised by the UK Regulated Covered Bond Council (UK RCBC) called for clarification and dealt with issues including: a preference for any transparency standards to retain flexibility to “accommodate and adjust as appropriate for what remains a dynamic funding environment”; considerations regarding the provision of non-public and unaudited information; and a mismatch with existing reporting practices in terms of frequency.

In its response to the comment about the need for flexibility the CBIC noted that only issuers using its template will be allowed to post on a dedicated webpage to ensure standardisation and comparability of the data received, but stressed that it does not expect all issuers to fill in all data fields. The investor group later said that its members consider the template “as a guideline for an ever improving transparency regime”.

“The template has been agreed on a pan-European basis and caters for a wide range of investors’ needs,” it said, “hopefully the template achieved a balance that the UK RCBC feels is flexible enough.”

The UK RCBC also asked for clarification of certain requirements referred to in the CBIC template, with the investor group noting that it is in a second round of consultation to ensure that detailed questions raised in an initial consultation period are answered.

“It came to light that indeed certain requirements may not have been as clear, and all CBIC responses are available online,” it said. “This second round will inform the new template. The CBIC will remain open to detailed questions should there be a need.”

The CBIC also said that it is keen to get clarification from the UK RCBC on the areas where the issuer group itself needs further clarification.

With respect to UK RCBC’s comment about a mismatch with the frequency of existing reporting practices, CBIC noted that the frequency and timing it envisages for its data template – to be filled in on a half-yearly basis and shortly after issuers’ results are published – are “in fact quite a flexible approach to reporting data compared to other existing reporting requirements”.