In the case described below, in individual level of reporting, should exposures to the SPVs be treated as "Speculative Immovable Property Financing" and be risk weighted at 150% under Article 128 of the CRR, or should they be RW at 100% which reflects the RW of the property included in the Consolidated level of reporting (intercompany balances are eliminated and the asset remaining in the consolidated balance sheet is the property held for sale)?
Article 4(1)(79) of the CRR states that "Speculative Immovable Property financing" means loans for the purposes of the acquisition of or development or construction on land in relation to immovable property or of an in relation to such property with the intention of reselling for profit.
A Bank that has an extension of its banking activities proceeds with Debt-for-Asset Swaps (DFAS) and creates separate legal entities (SPVs) to carry these assets until they are sold. By doing this in the SPV's balance sheet an asset (property) and a liability (loan from the Bank) is created. At the same time in the Bank's books there is a loan to the SPV shown as an asset. In the Bank's books, the loan was given out not for property financing with the intention of reselling for a profit, but with the intention of cutting its losses.
Article 4(1) point 49 of the CRR statement "with the intention of reselling for a profit" in conjunction with the true risk underlying these loans i.e. the property held by the Bank at consolidated level for sale.
The intention of the bank is not to buy properties and sell them for a profit but to cut the losses as part of its de-risk and deleveraging actions.
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.