- Question ID
-
2025_7556
- Legal act
- Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD)
- Topic
- BRRD Reporting
- Article
-
10
- COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs/Recommendations
- Regulation (EU) 2018/1624 - ITS on the provision of information for resolution plans
- Article/Paragraph
-
II.7
- Type of submitter
-
Credit institution
- Subject matter
-
Onboarding capacity - Number of applications from new customers over 1 working day
- Question
-
If the bank has a central team managing all account openings within the group, with colleagues assigned to a specific Member State. E.g. two colleagues are dedicated to opening accounts in Luxembourg, how should we clarify the “Onboarding Capacity”, which is defined as the highest number of applications where the institution has validated the request for a bank service?
We seek guidance on which of the following approaches would be most relevant:
- Real statistics-based calculation: if the average daily number of new accounts opened in Luxembourg is 1 (handled by 2 colleagues in the central team), should the onboarding capacity be reported as 1? And if it takes 15 days to onboard new client (handled by 1 colleague or 2 colleagues in the central team) in Luxembourg then should we report 0 or 0.1 (1 application /10 days)?
- Full Central Team Capacity (Single Country): if the entire central team were assigned exclusively to Luxembourg, the average daily onboarding capacity could increase to 5. Should this theoretical highest number of 5 be considered for Luxembourg ? Kindly note that in the capacity of the capacity for every other country would be zero as a consequence. How then to report for the remaining countries?
- Full Central Team + Project Support (Single Country): If the central team had the additional project support (e.g. temporary resources), the average daily capacity for Luxembourg could reach a higher level, e.g. 50. Should such scenarios be considered for “Onboarding Capacity”?
- Background on the question
-
A new data field ‘Onboarding Capacity’ has been introduced in the ITS on overhauling the EBA resolution planning reporting framework. However, the EBA instruction published on 7 May 2025 is not very clear to us for the reporting of this new position next year and we would like to seek more explainations.
- Submission date
- Rejected publishing date
-
- Rationale for rejection
-
This question has been rejected because it is considered that EBA guidance or clarification is not needed with regard to the issue that it raises. This can be the case where it is considered that the existing regulatory framework is sufficiently clear and unambiguous, or where the Q&A may pre-empt policy work currently in progress on Level 2 and 3 measures.
The Single Rule Book Q&A tool has been established to provide explanations and non-binding interpretations on questions relating to the practical application or implementation of the provisions of legislative acts referred to in Article 1(2) of the EBA’s founding Regulation, as well as associated delegated and implementing acts, and guidelines and recommendations, adopted under these legislative acts.
For further information on the purpose of this tool and on how to submit questions, please see “Additional background and guidance for asking questions”.
- Status
-
Rejected question