Question ID:
2013_607
Legal Act:
Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
Topic:
Supervisory reporting - FINREP (incl. FB&NPE)
Article:
99
COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs/Recommendations:
Regulation (EU) No 680/2014 - ITS on supervisory reporting of institutions (as amended)
Article/Paragraph:
Table 5
Disclose name of institution / entity:
No
Type of submitter:
Credit institution
Subject Matter:
Template 5 - Missing Validation Rule
Question:

German Question (Deutsche Frage): Während die nun verbal formulierte Zuordnung der “balances receivable on demand classified as cash balances at central banks“ zu Tabelle 5 (alt 9) in den alten Validation Rules ausdrücklich als Formelbezug angegeben war (F 09.00, r010, c010 = F 01.01, r030, c010), ist diese Verbindung in den aktuellen Validation Rules nicht mehr angegeben. Wie ist dies zu interpretieren? English Question: Whereas the now verbally formulated assignment of the ‘balances receivable on demand classified as cash balances at central banks’ to table 5 (prev. 9) was given expressly as a formula in the old validation rules (F 09.00, r010, c010 = F 01.01, r030, c010), this connection is no longer given in the current validation rules. How should this be interpreted?

Background on the question:

Validation Rule Interpretation.

Date of submission:
02/12/2013
Published as Final Q&A:
27/06/2014
Final Answer:

German Answer (Deutsche Antwort):

Der Entfall der Validation Rule die ({F 01.01, r 030, c010} mit {F 05.00, r010, c010} vergleicht war nicht beabsichtigt, da beide Zellen exakt den selben Betrag abfragen.

 

English Answer:

The exclusion of the validation rule that links ({F 01.01, r 030, c010} = {F 05.00, r010, c010} was not intended as both cells ask exactly the same amounts.

 

 
Status:
Final Q&A
Answer prepared by:
Answer prepared by the EBA.
Image CAPTCHA