1a. Can mortgages that are secured by non-owner occupied residential real estate and mortgages that are secured by mixed-use real estate properties considered to be both residential mortgages and thus can a combination of these two types considered to be homogeneous in accordance with article 1(a)(i) of the RTS on homogeneity?

1b. Could alternatively buy-to-let mortgages, in this case consisting of both mortgages that are secured by non-owner occupied residential and mortgages that are secured by mixed-use real estate properties, be considered as an asset type within the meaning of article 1(a)(viii) of the RTS on homogeneity?

In the EBA Guidelines on the STS criteria for non-ABCP securitisation the following is stated:
“For the purposes of Article 21(10) of Regulation (EU) 2017/2402, provisions of the transaction documentation that ‘facilitate the timely resolution of conflicts between different classes of investors’, should include provisions with respect to all of the following:
a) the method for calling meetings or arranging conference calls;
b) the maximum timeframe for setting up a meeting or conference call;
c) the required quorum;
d) the minimum threshold of votes to validate such a decision, with clear differentiation between the minimum thresholds for each type of decision;
e) where applicable, a location for the meetings which should be in the Union.“

In a transaction where there is one class of external investors (e.g. senior loan noteholders, bank X and bank Y) and where there is the retention holder that holds a subordinated loan (e.g. the originator), should this be considered as two different classes of investors and should therefore the specific items in the guidelines all be included in the transaction documentation? Or should this be considered as only one class of investors, ignoring the retention holder and therefore the items mentioned in the guidelines are not relevant?

Where a counterparty reports on T+1:
• a repo, buy/sell back (sell/buy back) or securities lending transaction concluded on date T with a maturity date of T+1 (namely “overnight transactions”); or
• a repo, buy/sell back (sell-buy back) or securities lending transaction concluded and terminated on the same day (namely “intraday transactions”),
should counterparties send valuation and collateral updates on the last day of overnight transactions and for intraday transactions?
More generally, should counterparties send valuation and collateral updates on the last day of an SFT?

How should TRs take into consideration the maturity date of SFTs transactions for the construction of the Trade State Report?

In certain instances the reporting under Article 4 of SFTR is affected by events linked to the settlement of the respective SFT or of either of its legs. For this purpose, ‘settlement fail’ follows the definition included in Article 2(15) of Regulation 909/2014 and it means “the non-occurrence of settlement, or partial settlement of a securities transaction on the intended settlement date, due to a lack of securities or cash and regardless of the underlying cause”.

a) When is a settlement fail reportable?
b) How should a settlement fail on the closing leg be reported?
c) By when should a settlement fail be reported?
d) Is a settlement fail reportable, where the Counterparties have been unable to modify the maturity date of an SFT due to a failed settlement that takes place after the day following the maturity date (S+1)?
e) Contractually there is a difference between a settlement fail of the closing leg between securities borrowing and lending transaction and (reverse) repo transactions. Does this mean that the reporting of a settlement fail of the closing leg of a (reverse) repo transaction follows the contractual termination date?
f) How should a settlement fail on the closing leg of a CCP-cleared SFT be reported, where the settlement is on a net basis?