News & Press
The EBA outlines next steps on supervisory reporting simplification and extends implementation timelines following consultation feedback on the ITS
The European Banking Authority (EBA) today outlines the way forward for the finalisation of proposals to simplify EU supervisory reporting, following extensive dialogue with the banking industry and feedback received during the public consultation. The package that is currently being finalised will introduce additional simplification measures, greater proportionality and extended implementation timelines, reducing reporting costs while preserving the information necessary for effective supervision. The final report on the draft Implementing Technical Standards (ITS) on supervisory reporting will be published by the EBA in December 2026.
Final Q&As
Question ID: 2026_7830
For synthetic securitisations where the originator:
- retains certain securitisation tranches (e.g. senior or mezzanine tranche),
- obtains funded credit protection for part of the junior risk, and
- obtains unfunded credit protection for another part of the junior risk,
how should the geographical location of the originator’s remaining exposures be determined for purposes of CCB calculation?
Specifically:
- Should all exposures arising from the securitisation—whether securitisation exposures or CRM‑transformed exposures—be allocated according to Article 4 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 1152/2014, based solely on the obligors of the underlying exposures?
- Or should the following differentiated approach apply:
- retained securitisation exposures: allocation under Article 4 DelVO 1152/2014.
- funded protection: no remaining exposure → no CCB geographical allocation;
- unfunded protection: exposure is no longer a securitisation exposure but a CRM‑transformed credit exposure;
- Should the geographical allocation follow
- the logic of Q&A 2016_3050 (pre‑CRM exposure = underlying obligors = allocation according to Article 4 DelVO 1152/2014 the same as for the retained securitisation exposure), or
- the standard CRM logic for credit exposures (location of the protection provider instead of location of the underlyings)?
- Should the geographical allocation follow
Question ID: 2026_7945
For the purpose of defining the perimeter of application of the permanent exemption under Article 495a (3) CRR – whereby an institution, subject to the conditions specified therein, is permitted not to deduct from its own funds a shareholding held in an insurance undertaking – can such exemption, when applied by an institution on a standalone basis:
- extend also at consolidated level to the group of which such institution is a member?
- transfer, within the same group, to an institution to which the shareholding in the relevant insurance undertaking is assigned?