“The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS) and the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) released today a consultative document on Criteria for identifying simple, transparent and comparable securitisations. The purpose of these criteria is to identify – and to assist the financial industry’s development of – simple, transparent and comparable securitisations structures, as well as to help parties involved in a securitisation transaction evaluate the risks of a particular securitisation as part of their due diligence on securitisations. Criteria promoting simplicity refer to the homogeneity of underlying assets with simple characteristics, and a transaction structure that is not overly complex. Criteria on transparency provide investors with sufficient information on the underlying assets, the structure of the transaction and the parties involved in the transaction, thereby promoting a more comprehensive and thorough understanding of the risks involved. The manner in which the information is available should not hinder transparency, but instead it should support investors in their assessment. Criteria promoting comparability could assist investors in their understanding of such investments and enable more straightforward comparison across between securitisation products within an asset class. The proposed criteria have been mapped to key types of risk in the securitisation process: (i) generic criteria relating to the underlying asset pool (asset risk); (ii) transparency around the securitisation structure (structural risk); and (iii) governance of key parties to the securitisation process (fiduciary and servicer risk). The proposed approach is a modular one. The criteria published today may be supplemented or expanded (eg with criteria related to credit risk of the underlying securitised assets) based on specific needs and applications, such as investor mandates, regulatory applications or central bank collateral frameworks. The implementation of such criteria, including its potential impact on regulation, is not within the scope of this consultation.”