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.

Final Q&As Q&As under review Rejected Q&As Archived Q&As All Q&As

List of Q&A's

C 67.00, Concentration of funding by counterparties- third party mandates

Banks are receiving funds from third party institutions under asset management agreements. The agent banks therefore may include these funds under their on balance sheet liabilities. Accordingly, shall third party funds be considered for the calculation of this metric if they are included in the agent’s balance sheet? Moreover, may these funds be considered as funding and reported per single counterparty?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) No 680/2014 - ITS on supervisory reporting of institutions (repealed)
  • ID: 2017_3086
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - Liquidity (LCR, NSFR, AMM)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 12/01/2018

C 67.00 Concentration of funding by counterparties- Cash collateral received for derivatives

In the context of CSA collateral agreements, banks can receive collateral in the form of cash or securities in order to mitigate the counterparty credit risk coming from derivative transactions. In the case that cash collateral is received, this amount should be reported in bank’s liabilities even if the associated derivative is reported as off balance sheet. In the aforementioned case, shall cash collateral be considered as a source of funding?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) No 680/2014 - ITS on supervisory reporting of institutions (repealed)
  • ID: 2017_3085
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - Liquidity (LCR, NSFR, AMM)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 12/01/2018

Partial and Total-Write-Offs in FINREP IFRS 9 templates F 04.03.1 and F 04.03.2

FINREP Forms F.04.03.1 and F.04.03.2 require the disclosure of partial and total-write offs in columns 080 and 090. Reference is made to IFRS 9.5.4.4 and B5.4.9 and Annex V.Part 2.72-74.Both references are however silent, as to how long the disclosure about in particular total write-offs is required. Is the disclosure of total write-offs only required in the year, when the total-write off has occurred? (Rationale: A (total) write-off constitutes a derecognition event - a disclosure for instruments no longer recognised does not make sense in the following year).Alternative view: Guidance in Part 2.72 is equally valid for partial and total write-offs. This means, the amounts in columns 080 and 090 ‘shall be reported until the total extinguishment of all the reporting institution’s rights by expiry of the statute-of-limitations period, forgiveness or other causes, or until recovery’, i.e. as long as ‘they are subject to enforcement activities’. This would mean, that partial write-offs would NOT be required to be reported, if a certain amount (e.g. 50%) was forgiven and therefore written off and is therefore also no longer enforced. Simultaneously, even total-write-offs would have to be reported, as long as enforcement activities are undertaken, also in later years. This view however seems to be somewhat in contradiction with IFRS 9.B.5.4.9, which stipulates that write-offs should only occur, ‘if the entity has no reasonable prospects of recovering any further cash flows from the financial asset’. Thus, the column would have to be filled in only in the very rare cases, where ‘the entity has no reasonable prospect of recovering any further cash flows from the financial assets’, but still undertakes enforcement activities.Is this interpretation correct?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) No 680/2014 - ITS on supervisory reporting of institutions (repealed)
  • ID: 2017_3082
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - FINREP (incl. FB&NPE)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 04/08/2017

Valuation of immovable property performed by statistical model

Does the reference to the independent valuer in Article 229(1) and Article 208(3)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR), permit the recognition of a statistical model of property valuation, the outcomes of which are periodically verified by other independent valuer, as independent valuer?Does the reference to the independent valuer in Article 229(1) and Article 208(3)(b) CRR permit that before a credit decision, a property would be evaluated by a statistical model, the outcomes of which are periodically verified by another independent valuer, without additional confirmation by an independent valuer for each property valuation made by a model?Does the reference to the independent valuer in Article 229(1) and Article 208(3)(b) CRR permit that before a credit decision, a property would be evaluated by a statistical model, where outcomes of a model are periodically verified by another independent valuer, and there is an additional confirmation or correction for the each statistical valuation, after a credit decision by another independent valuer? 

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2017_3078
  • Topic: Credit risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 12/05/2017

Instrumenty w Tier II / Tier 2 instruments and incentives to redeem or repay subordinated bonds prior to their maturity.

Original questionArtykuł 63 lit. h) Rozporządzenia Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady (UE) nr 575/2013 z dnia 26 czerwca 2013 r., stwierdza, że aby instrumenty kapitałowe i pożyczki podporządkowane mogły zostać zakwalifikowane do kapitału Tier II „przepisy regulujące dane instrumenty lub pożyczki podporządkowane, stosownie do przypadku, nie zawierają żadnej zachęty do wykupu lub spłaty – stosownie do przypadku – kwoty głównej tych instrumentów lub pożyczek przez daną instytucję przed terminem ich zapadalności”. Równocześnie art. 20 Rozporządzenia Delegowanego Komisji (UE) Nr 241/2014 z dnia 7 stycznia 2014 r., określa formę i charakter zachęt do wcześniejszego wykupu do celów art. 63 lit h) Rozporządzenia nr 575/2013. Czy przepisy regulujące pożyczkę podporządkowaną, w których zapisano, że emitent po uzyskaniu zgody Komisji Nadzoru Finansowego, ma prawo, ale nie obowiązek dokonać wcześniejszego wykupu przedmiotowych obligacji, nie wcześniej jednak niż w terminie 5 lat po dacie emisji oraz, iż w okresie ostatnich 5 lat przed terminem wykupu obligacji, będzie sukcesywnie podnosił oprocentowanie wyemitowanych instrumentów, zawierają zachętę do wcześniejszego wykupu lub spłaty? Jeżeli tak, to czy zgodnie z zapisami art. 20 ust. 2 Rozporządzenia Delegowanego Komisji (UE) Nr 241/2014, oznacza to, że w przepisach regulujących wskazaną wyżej pożyczkę podporządkowaną zawarta jest „opcja kupna połączona ze zwiększeniem spreadu kredytowego instrumentu w przypadku nieprzeprowadzenia wezwania do sprzedaży” lub inna forma zachęt określona w Rozporządzeniu Nr 241/2014? Jeżeli tak, to czy formalny brak zgody Komisji Nadzoru Finansowego (art. 78 ust. 1 Rozporządzenia nr 575/2013) na wcześniejszy wykup wskazanych wyżej obligacji podporządkowanych jest równoznaczny z anulowaniem zachęty do wcześniejszego wykupu lub spłaty?English translation:The provisions regulating a specific subordinated loan that has been issued in 2012 state that, having received the consent of the Competent Authority, the issuer is entitled to, but not required to, redeem the bonds in question prior to their maturity date, and that, within the final five years prior to the bond redemption date, the issuer shall successively increase the interest rate for the instruments issued.Q1: Are the corresponding provisions deemed to include any incentive to redeem or repay prior to the maturity date despite the need to obtain first the consent from the Competent Authority? Said otherwise, is a formal lack of consent of the relevant Competent Authority (Article 78(1) of the CRR) for redemption of the aforementioned subordinated bonds prior to their maturity equivalent to cancelling an incentive to redeem or repay them prior to their maturity?Q2: What would be the regulatory status of the subordinated bonds in the case where the relevant Competent Authority does not give its consent for the redemption of such instruments prior to their maturity?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) No 241/2014 - RTS for Own Funds requirements for institutions
  • ID: 2016_3076
  • Topic: Own funds
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 14/07/2017

Leased assets residual value under standardised method

With regards to the risk-weighted exposure on residual value of leased assets, CRR article 134 (7) states that it shall be computed as follows: “1/t * 100 % * residual value”, where t is the greater between 1 and the nearest integer corresponding to the remaining maturity of the lease.The institution's understanding of the aforementioned CRR reference is that the Initial Exposure shall correspond to the residual value of the leased assets and that the EAD value shall be applied a 1/t discounted factor.According to the institution, the treatment does not seem to fit the Corep logics nor its structure since it raised the same blocking errors as those referred to in item 1) [submitter probably refers to Q 3064 and v0010_h, v0306_m, v0307_m, v0308_m, v0312_m].In order to bypass the blocking errors, we have made the decision to align the EAD values with their respective Initial Exposure amounts.

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) No 680/2014 - ITS on supervisory reporting of institutions (repealed)
  • ID: 2016_3072
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - COREP (incl. IP Losses)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 04/10/2019

Minority Interests

How should the calculations, needed for the minority interests’ calculation under Article 81 CRR, be converted into Euros where the local currency of the subsidiary is different from the parent’s currency?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2016_3070
  • Topic: Own funds
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 14/07/2017

Template C 105.01 for 2017 exercise (end 2016 data)

According to the 2017 exercise related to “Low Default Portfolios”, entities shall submit Template C 105.01. Given the specific characteristics of these portfolios (low default), information regarding to “default rate”, “cure rate”, etc. is not used in the estimation. Therefore, estimation is based on external information. Overall, are these fields mandatory to report in Template C 105.01? And if so, which ratios should be included?

  • Legal act: Directive 2013/36/EU (CRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Draft ITS on Supervisory Reporting of Institutions (for benchmarking the internal approaches)
  • ID: 2016_3069
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - Supervisory Benchmarking
  • Date of submission:

RWA Standardised (c180 of C 102.00 and C 103.00)

According to Article 7 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/2070 of 14 September 2016: “As a derogation from Article 2 and until 31 December 2016 an institution shall not be required to report c180 of templates 102 and 103 of Annex III where that institution does not compute the own funds requirements for credit risk resulting from the application of the standardised approach”. Are RWA Standardised exempted from the reporting by 11 April 2017 in Template C 102.00, given that information is referred to 31 December 2016?

  • Legal act: Directive 2013/36/EU (CRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) 2016/2070 - ITS on Supervisory Reporting (for benchmarking the internal approaches) (as amended)
  • ID: 2016_3068
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - Supervisory Benchmarking
  • Date of submission:

Funded and unfunded credit protection

In cases when a contract has funded and unfunded credit protection, should any of them take precedence over the other? For example, a contract with an exposure of 100, a funded credit protection of 50 and unfunded of 70. If there is no preference, the sum of credit protections is more than exposure, but if funded credit protection takes precedence over unfunded, the result is the next: funded credit protection of 50, 35 unfunded (70% of 50) and 15 without credit protection. In the last case, the sum is the exposure. How should we treat these guarantees?

  • Legal act: Directive 2013/36/EU (CRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Draft ITS on Supervisory Reporting of Institutions (for benchmarking the internal approaches)
  • ID: 2016_3067
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - Supervisory Benchmarking
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 11/02/2022

Report of Type of Facility

Definition of Low Default Portfolios in C 102.00 requires classifying portfolios by Type of Facility. In order to do this we evaluate two main options.The first one consists of assigning each value of Type of Facility in accordance with the global product, so an entire contract will be classified into a unique value of that field.The second one consists of assigning on-balance amount of a contract as “Drawn” and the off-balance amount in any of the 6 remaining options for “Undrawn facilities”.What is the more adequate way to operate?

  • Legal act: Directive 2013/36/EU (CRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Draft ITS on Supervisory Reporting of Institutions (for benchmarking the internal approaches)
  • ID: 2016_3066
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - Supervisory Benchmarking
  • Date of submission:

Exposures towards QCCPs under CRR Art. 306(c) under standardised method

Under Article 306(c) CRR, client transactions facing QCCPs where the institution is not liable to the client if said QCCP defaults, should have Exposure Value (C 07.00, column {200}, rows {100}, {120})of zero. Our understanding of the ITS on Supervisory Reporting is that the Original exposure pre conversion factors (C 07.00, column {010}, rows {100}, {120}) of the transactions in question should hence also be zeroed out. The institution is currently reporting the Original exposure pre conversion factors as non-zero. To avoid the blocking errors mentioned below, the institution reports the Exposure Value also as non-zero, which is contrary to Article 306(c) CRR. Could you please confirm if our understanding of the ITS is correct?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) No 680/2014 - ITS on supervisory reporting of institutions (repealed)
  • ID: 2016_3064
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - COREP (incl. IP Losses)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 07/04/2017

Multiplier of 1.25 to the asset value correlation

In case of an exposure to a regulated financial sector entity which does not meet the requirements to be treated like a large financial sector entity (with total assets of less than 70 billion of euros), but which is owned by a regulated large financial sector entity which meets those requirements, does the multiplier of 1.25 to the asset value correlation apply for that exposure?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2016_3057
  • Topic: Credit risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 08/06/2018

Basis of risk exposures to take in consderation for calculation of the countercyclical buffer (CcyB)

Should the risk exposure basis to take in consideration for calculation of CCyB be limited to the "relevant exposures" (as defined in Article 140(4) of Directive 2013/36/EU (CRD)) which are considered for assessment of the institution-specific CCyB rate?

  • Legal act: Directive 2013/36/EU (CRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2016_3055
  • Topic: Other issues
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 21/04/2017

Calculation of the Countercyclical Capital Buffer

Consider a corporate (geographical location DE) exposure guaranteed by a sovereign (geographical location NL).1) Do the CRM techniques with substitution effect (e.g. guarantees) impact the scoping of relevant exposures for the purposes of the Countercyclical Buffer? E.g. should a corporate exposure with a sovereign guarantee be considered a relevant exposure as sovereign exposures are not considered relevant in accordance with Article 140 of the Directive 2013/36/EU (CRD).2) If the exposure is considered relevant, should CRM techniques with substitution effects be taken into account for the purposes of the calculation of the capital requirements for the purposes of the determination of the weighted average referred to in Article 140(1) CRD? E.g. can a sovereign guarantee be taken into account in the calculation of the capital requirement for a corporate exposure with a sovereign guarantee?3) Article 84 of the (draft) ITS 2014/680 Annex 2 (as revised on 8 March 2016) requires geographical allocation on immediate obligor basis, i.e. any CRM (e.g. cross-border guarantee) should not change the geographical location to the location of the CRM provider. The BCBS FAQ on the Basel III Countercyclical Capital Buffer requires the usage of ‘jurisdiction of ultimate risk’, which substitutes the exposure to the location of the CRM provider. Can you please clarify which geographical location should be used for calculation and reporting of the CCyB and template C09.04?

  • Legal act: Directive 2013/36/EU (CRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) No 1152/2014 - RTS on the identification of the geographical location of relevant credit exposures for institution-specific countercyclical capital buffer rate
  • ID: 2016_3050
  • Topic: Other issues
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 16/06/2017

Use of bona fide estimates for the determination of the size of a corporation

Is it allowed to use bona fide estimates for the determination of the size of a corporation for the purposes of Articles 153(4) or 162(4) CRR (identification of SMEs) analogous to Article 4(3) of the Annex Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC? 

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2016_3049
  • Topic: Credit risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 30/06/2017

Treatment of central bank reserves in third countries

What is the treatment of central bank reserves in third countries held by a branch?Does the eligibility of those reserves for the purpose of the LCR strictly depend on the existence of an agreement between the competent authority of the reporting institution and the central bank in which the conditions of a withdrawal have been specified?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/61 - DR with regard to liquidity coverage requirement
  • ID: 2016_3048
  • Topic: Liquidity risk
  • Date of submission:

Template C 47.00, rows 270 and 280 (Validation rule v4452_s) – treatment of Cash Flow Hedge reserves

The validation rule v4452_s requires that the rows 270 and 280 of the template C 47.00 are always non-positive. This appears to be incorrect. In case of prudential filters increasing the Tier 1 capital, the amounts reported on these rows can be positive as well. Can you please confirm and amend the rule?Should the leverage exposure be adjusted for the complete cash flow hedging reserve or should the reserve be split to parts relating to assets/liabilities and only the part relating to assets be adjusted for (even though the full reserve is filtered from capital)?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) No 680/2014 - ITS on supervisory reporting of institutions (repealed)
  • ID: 2016_3043
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - Leverage ratio
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 07/04/2017

Recapitalization

Are capital increases of a subsidiary meeting the conditions for early intervention by the mother company covered by the BRRD provisions on intragroup financial support?

  • Legal act: Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2016_3042
  • Topic: Intra-group financial support
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 11/02/2022

Exception to the scope of the bail-in tool (Article 44(2)(g)(iii))

Is the exception to the scope of the bail-in tool provided for in Article 44(2)(g)(iii) of Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD) restricted to social security contributions, or does it also extend to deposits and reserves of a social security authority?

  • Legal act: Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2016_3041
  • Topic: Resolution tools and powers
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 21/01/2022