Search for Q&As

Enquirers can use various factors to search for a Q&A:

  • These include searching by the Q&A ID; legal reference, date submitted, technical standard / guideline, or by keyword if known.
  • Searches can be extended to more than one legal act, topic, technical standard or guidelines by making multiple selections (i.e. pressing 'Ctrl' on your keyboard, and selecting the relevant ones from the drop-down lists by left mouse-click).

Disclaimer:

Q&As refer to the provisions in force on the day of their publication. The EBA does not systematically review published Q&As following the amendment of legislative acts. Users of the Q&A tool should therefore check the date of publication of the Q&A and whether the provisions referred to in the answer remain the same.

Please note that the Q&As related to the supervisory benchmarking exercises have been moved to the dedicated handbook page. You can submit Q&As on this topic here.

List of Q&A's

Treasury shares – how to report them in Own Funds and in the NSFR

In CA1 (own funds), should treasury shares (holdings of own shares that were bought back with the prior permission from the CA) be reported in as ‘(-) Direct holdings of CET1 instruments’ (row 80) or should they be reported as part of the ‘Accumulated other comprehensive income’ (row 180) or ‘Other reserves’ (row 200) if they are already included in one of these accounts according to the accounting rules? In case treasury shares are to be reported as a deduction in row 80 in CA1 (hence this deduction is reversed in the NSFR own funds - see Q&A 2021_6016), should treasury shares require any stable funding?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable

PD calibration sample

Given the definition of PD calibration provided in EBA/GL/2017/16 section 2.4 paragraph 8, and the requirements for the calibration sample provided in section 5.3.5, paragraph 88 of the same guidelines, for developing a TTC model, clarification is needed on the expectation on the implementation of the back-testing performed in the validation phase.: Shall the back-testing at portfolio level verify that the average PD over historical observation period is aligned with LRA DR or, instead, shall the comparison be made between PD estimates current at the validation date and the LRA DR? Does it change according to the rating philosophy? Shall the back-testing always be performed on a 1-year validation sample, regardless the type of TTC calibration philosophy and regardless the length of the calibration sample? How shall the rating philosophy be taken into consideration when assessing the outcome of back-testing at grade level? Provided that the main aim of the calibration is to reflect the LRA DR, is the any case where the alignment to 1-year default rate should get a higher weight in validation assessment, although in a TTC calibration philosophy?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: EBA/GL/2017/16 - Guidelines on PD estimation, LGD estimation and the treatment of defaulted exposures

Correlation parameter for Intra-bucket correlations for credit spread risk for non-securitisations

In the first subparagraph of Article 325m of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR) it is stated that institutions apply a risk factor per issuer and per maturity, irrespective of whether these credit spread rates of the issuer derive from debt instruments or credit default swaps. However, the correlation factor linked to the basis risk is present in article 325ai of (CRR). Must this value always be equal to 1 since there is no longer a division between the two types of curve as regards risk factors or does this basis risk refer to another type of risk? In this second case to which?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable

Back-to-Back in regulatory threshold

How should back-to-back trades that net off perfectly when calculating the size of their on- and off-balance-sheet business that is subject to market risk be accounted for? Should both positions be considered in absolute value, both the short and the long position, or should they not be included as the positions perfectly offset each other and do not generate capital requirements for market risk?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable

Service Downtime

The question refers to the case that an incident with a duration of two hours that disrupts transaction processing occurs around the daily cut off time of same-day transactions processing. Thus, the incident may be of a short duration, but as a result, transactions are booked one day later. Considering this example, what service downtime should the payment service provider (PSP) indicate in the PSD2 notification? Just the net time of the failure or the total time any payment service users are affected by delayed transactions, i.e. one day?

  • Legal act: Directive 2015/2366/EU (PSD2)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: EBA/GL/2021/03 - Guidelines on major incident reporting under PSD2 - repealing EBA/GL/2017/10

Application of the retention requirements to situations where the retained exposure is transferred to a third-party after losses associated with the relevant exposure

Can a retention holder under Article 6(3)(c) (so-called random selection) of Regulation (EU) 2402/2017 (“Securitisation Regulation”) transfer the retained exposure to a third party if the transfer occurs after crystallisation on the retention holder’s accounts of the losses associated with the relevant exposure?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 2017/2402 (SecReg)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable

Risk retention obligation in case of voluntary liquidation of an Alternative investment fund (“AIF”) acting as retention holder under Article 6(3) of the Securitisation Regulation

Assuming an alternative investment fund (“AIF”) set up to disburse loans to be subsequently securitised acts as retention holder under Article 6(3) of Regulation (EU) 2402/2017 (hereinafter, the “Securitisation Regulation”), should it be resolved to voluntarily liquidate the relevant AIF, what would be the appropriate modality to continue to retain the relevant net economic interest? Would the retained net economic interest be distributed to AIF’s unit-holders, pro quota to their holdings, or would AIF’s liquidator be obliged to wait and complete the liquidation process only after the retention obligation has ceased to exist?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 2017/2402 (SecReg)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable

Retention obligations

An alternative investment fund (“AIF”) managed by an alternative investment fund manager (“AIFM”) pursuant to Directive (EU) 61/2011, is set up to disburse loans to be subsequently securitised. According to Regulation (EU) 2402/2017 (hereinafter, the “Securitisation Regulation”), we believe that the AIFM and the AIF could fall within the definitions of, respectively, “originator” and “original lender”. According to Article 6(1) of the Securitisation Regulation the retention obligation can be fulfilled by either the originator, the original lender or the sponsor (if there is one) of a securitisation: in the above mentioned securitisation, can the retention obligation be therefore assumed alternatively by (i) the AIF as original lender, using the funds made available to it by investors or (ii) the AIFM as originator, using its own funds (i.e. not those of the AIF it manages)?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 2017/2402 (SecReg)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable

EBA mapping tool deviation CR7-A column "Total exposures"

Following EBA ITS 2020/04, the instruction to fullfill CR7-A first column - Total exposures- recommands to disclosure :  "Exposure value (post conversion factors) in accordance with Articles 166 to 167 CRR Exposures shall be disclosed in accordance with the exposure class applicable to the obligor, without taking into account any substitution effects due to the existence of a guarantee."  => According to our understanding, we select EAD post conversion factor before credit risk mitigation (CRM) and not after CRM

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable

Display of provision during substitution approaches

Due to the future application of the CRR3, the used of the IRB model will be limited. As example, some expositions (Corporates SME especially) considered with IRB method (and so displayed in C08A – CR IRBA form in COREP), are currently guaranteed by an institution or a sovereign which are also today considered with the IRB method. With CRR3, the debtor will probably stay with the IRB method (so still displayed in CR IRBA form in COREP), but there will be an outflow to the CR SA because the Basel method of the guarantor will be standard model. There will be an inflow in CR SA to display the metrics of the expositions after taking into account the characteristics of the guarantor (CRM). Around September 2021, we asked to your team, some precision about the “display of the provision during the substitution approach” under the reference 2021_6220. Our question result from the Q&A 2017_3335 which confirm the possibility to apply the substitution approach when the exposure and the guarantor are treated by the institution under different basel methods. Our Q&A has been rejected considering that the issue it deals with is already explained in section 3.1.1 of Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 2021/451 (ITS on Supervisory Reporting). Without mistake of our part and conversely of your affirmation, we are still considering the display of the provision non taking into account by the Q&A 2017_3335. For reminder, the display of the provision in COREP forms is different according to the Basel method applied: The value is displayed in column 0020 of C07 - CR SA uses the Basel method of the debtor Inversely for the C08 - CR IRB, the value is displayed in column 0290 (as memorandum item) uses the Basel method of the guarantor (if there is any)

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) 2021/451 – ITS on supervisory reporting of institutions

Fixed overheads - deduction of expenses related to exchange rate differences for money belonging to clients and for which investment firms provide custody services according to MIFID

Can expenses related to exchange rate differences, only for the money (with amounts in foreign currency) belonging to the clients and for which the investment firm provides custody services according to MiFID, also be deducted from the total expenses even though they are included under total expenses in accordance with the relevant accounting framework?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 2019/2033 (IFR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable

Definition of domestic for reporting collateral by type

For the purposes of populating the C 34.08 of Annex 1 to the Regulation (EU) 2021/451 it asks for cash to be split by domestic currency and other currencies and sovereign debt to be split into domestic and other. In this context, how should domestic be interpreted? We can think of three possible options: 1) Domestic refers to the country of incorporation of the institution. 2) Domestic refers to the country of incorporation of the client against which the institution has the CCR exposures. 3) Domestic refers to the country of incorporation of the issuer of the debt with respect to the sovereign debt (although this would then seem to conflict with domestic for cash if it is a valid option).

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) 2021/451 – ITS on supervisory reporting of institutions

Identify when EMD2 needs to be applied to vouchers/gift cards issued by an electronic money institution.

Do vouchers/gift cards issued by an electronic money institution (EMI) to top-up an e-money account (managed by the EMI itself) in order to purchase on an e-commerce platform: i) goods and services sold directly by companies belonging to the same corporate group of the EMI (thus falling out of the scope of PSD2, encompassing the exemption provided for intra-group transactions in Article 3(1)(n) of the PSD2); ii) goods and services of third-party merchants,  have to be qualified as e-money at the time of issuing (i.e.sale) or - given the possible indefinite use of the funds - they acquire that status only at the moment they are used to purchase goods and services from third-party merchants on the e-commerce platform? 

  • Legal act: Directive 2009/110/EC (EMD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable

Requirement for STS securitisations to involve a securitisation special purpose entity (SSPE) which acquires title to the underlying exposures by means of a true sale or assignment or transfer with the same legal effect

Can securitisations where the seller sells the underlying exposures directly to the funding party (typically a bank) rather than involving an SSPE also qualify as 'simple, transparent and standardised’ (STS) securitisations?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 2017/2402 (SecReg)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable

Clarification on use of prearranged and highly reliable funding arrangements

If a CSD-banking service provider has routine credit at a central bank of issue in the EU, are the requirements in Article 11, paragraph 1, subparagraphs (b) and (d) simultaneously met?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 909/2014 (CSDR) - only RTS 2017/390
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) 2017/390 - RTS on prudential requirements of CSDs (CSDR-related)

Clarification on the need for a prearranged and highly reliable funding arrangement to liquidate collateral referred to in Article 11, paragraph 2

What type of arrangement is required under Article 11, paragraph 2, subparagraph (c), point (i)?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 909/2014 (CSDR) - only RTS 2017/390
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) 2017/390 - RTS on prudential requirements of CSDs (CSDR-related)

Perimeter of CSRBB

Should such investment products (such as bonds) accounted at amortised cost be included in the CSRBB perimeter when the management intention is to hold the asset until maturity?

  • Legal act: Directive 2013/36/EU (CRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: EBA/GL/2022/14 - Guidelines on interest rate risk arising from non-trading book activities

Net interest income measure plus market value changes

Should products accounted at fair value be included in the net interest income measure plus market value change when the fair value of the product is based on expert say and is therefore independent of the level of interest rates ?

  • Legal act: Directive 2013/36/EU (CRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: EBA/GL/2022/14 - Guidelines on interest rate risk arising from non-trading book activities

Net interest income measure plus market value changes

Should Mutual Funds which capitalise interests (no payment of interest and accounted at fair value) be taken into account for the net interest income measure plus market value changes ?

  • Legal act: Directive 2013/36/EU (CRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: EBA/GL/2022/14 - Guidelines on interest rate risk arising from non-trading book activities

Net interest income measure plus market value changes

Could you please confirm that fair value variations of financial products accounted at amortised cost (as the management intention is to hold them until maturity) are not to be accounted for the net interest income measure plus market value changes ?

  • Legal act: Directive 2013/36/EU (CRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: EBA/GL/2022/14 - Guidelines on interest rate risk arising from non-trading book activities