<ESMA_QUESTION_MMFST_17> TYPE YOUR TEXT HERE <ESMA_QUESTION_MMFST_17> : Do you consider that the parameters used for the 2018 EBA scenario cover all the needed for the purpose of the MMF scenario on interest rates and exchange rates, and the scenario on hypothetical widening or narrowing of spreads among indices to which interest rates of portfolio securities are tied? If not, which parameters should be added? <ESMA_QUESTION_MMFST_18> TYPE YOUR TEXT HERE <ESMA_QUESTION_MMFST_18> : Do you have views on which factors are relevant for the determination/calibration of shocks? <ESMA_QUESTION_MMFST_19> TYPE YOUR TEXT HERE <ESMA_QUESTION_MMFST_19> : Do you agree with the proposed approaches: a self-assessment on the maximum size of outflows the fund can face without distorting portfolio allocation; a comparison of stressed outflows with available weekly liquid assets? <ESMA_QUESTION_MMFST_20> TYPE YOUR TEXT HERE <ESMA_QUESTION_MMFST_20> : Reverse stress test: do you have views on how to assess the capacity to comply with the weekly liquid assets requirements specified in Article 24(1)? <ESMA_QUESTION_MMFST_21> TYPE YOUR TEXT HERE <ESMA_QUESTION_MMFST_21> : Do you think there should be differentiated outflows assumptions for retail and investors (e.g. higher outflows from institutional investors). <ESMA_QUESTION_MMFST_22> TYPE YOUR TEXT HERE <ESMA_QUESTION_MMFST_22> : Do you have views on the weights that should be attributed to weekly liquid assets? <ESMA_QUESTION_MMFST_23> TYPE YOUR TEXT HERE <ESMA_QUESTION_MMFST_23> : Do you agree with the additional stress test scenario simulating outflows from the two main investors?
<ESMA_QUESTION_MMFST_17> TYPE YOUR TEXT HERE <ESMA_QUESTION_MMFST_17> : Do you consider that the parameters used for the 2018 EBA scenario cover all the needed for the purpose of the MMF scenario on interest rates and exchange rates, and the scenario on hypothetical widening or narrowing of spreads among indices to which interest rates of portfolio securities are tied? If not, which parameters should be added? <ESMA_QUESTION_MMFST_18> TYPE YOUR TEXT HERE <ESMA_QUESTION_MMFST_18> : Do you have views on which factors are relevant for the determination/calibration of shocks? <ESMA_QUESTION_MMFST_19> TYPE YOUR TEXT HERE <ESMA_QUESTION_MMFST_19> : Do you agree with the proposed approaches: a self-assessment on the maximum size of outflows the fund can face without distorting portfolio allocation; a comparison of stressed outflows with available weekly liquid assets? <ESMA_QUESTION_MMFST_20> TYPE YOUR TEXT HERE <ESMA_QUESTION_MMFST_20> : Reverse stress test: do you have views on how to assess the capacity to comply with the weekly liquid assets requirements specified in Article 24(1)? <ESMA_QUESTION_MMFST_21> TYPE YOUR TEXT HERE <ESMA_QUESTION_MMFST_21> : Do you think there should be differentiated outflows assumptions for retail and investors (e.g. higher outflows from institutional investors). <ESMA_QUESTION_MMFST_22> TYPE YOUR TEXT HERE <ESMA_QUESTION_MMFST_22> : Do you have views on the weights that should be attributed to weekly liquid assets? <ESMA_QUESTION_MMFST_23> TYPE YOUR TEXT HERE <ESMA_QUESTION_MMFST_23> : Do you agree with the additional stress test scenario simulating outflows from the two main investors?
esma34-49-138_cp_mmf_stress_test_2018_response_form_.docx