Question ID:
Legal Act:
Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
Market risk
Article 384,162 (2) g, 162 (2) b
COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs/Recommendations:
Not applicable
Not applicable
Disclose name of institution / entity:
Name of institution / submitter:
AFME - Association for Financial Markets in Europe
Country of incorporation / residence:
Type of submitter:
Industry association
Subject Matter:
Interpretation of EADitotal and Mi in the standardised CVA charge.

Where there are several trades with the same counterparty but there is no regulatory netting agreement in place: Is one EADitotal and one Mi applied per counterparty within the formula? If one EADitotal and one Mi is applied per counterpart, can the Mi be calculated as the weighted average notional? (ambiguity arises because the CRR guidance referred to on maturity only references trades in a netting set for the calculation of a weighted average notional (article 162 (2) b)) If in the above case it is determined that individual trades are to be treated separately with no weighted average notional maturity calculated, is each EAD and M applied and treated as a separate counterparty within the formula?

Background on the question:

Exposure Per article 384, EADitotal is defined as the total counterparty credit risk exposure value of counterparty “i” (summed across its netting sets) Maturity With respect to Mi, for exposures not using the internal models approach to calculate maturity, Mi is defined as average notional weighted maturity as referred to in point (b) of Article 162(2). Article 162 (2) b only refers to the calculation of average notional weighted maturity for trades that are part of a netting agreement and does not refer to the calculation of an average where there are several trades with one counterparty but no netting agreement in place. For exposures following the internal Model method, the maturity per netting set is calculated according to the formula in article 162.

Date of submission:
Published as Rejected Q&A
Rationale for rejection:

Please note that as part of adjustments to the Single Rulebook Q&A process, agreed by the EBA and the European Commission, it has been decided to reject outstanding questions submitted before 1 January 2020, when the Q&A process was updated as part of the last ESAs Review. In particular, the question that you have submitted has now regrettably been rejected and will not be addressed.

If you believe your question would still benefit from clarification, you are invited to resubmit your question, adapting it to reflect any legislative, regulatory or other relevant developments that may have occurred since the initial date of submission. The EBA will aim to address resubmitted questions as a matter of priority. When considering to resubmit, you are kindly requested to observe the updated admissibility criteria agreed in the context of the adjustment of the Q&A process, available in the Additional background and guidance for asking questions. We hope for your understanding.

For further information please refer to the press release and the updated Q&A page.

Rejected question