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

Specialised Lending - Interpretation of contractual arrangements that give the lender a substantial degree of control

How shall Article147 (8)(b) CRR be interpreted when identifying ‘contractual arrangements that give the lender a substantial degree of control over the assets and the income that they generate’ in the context of real estate financing?

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

C 06.02 – Reporting of branches

Are branches in the scope of the template C 06.02 (Group Solvency: information on affiliates)? If yes, should information on them - i.e. their contribution to the group solvency - be computed within the subsidiary which they are branches of? Or should they be reported in separates rows?    

  • 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

Consideration of STS in synthetic securitisations

When a synthetic securitisation fulfills STS criteria (Article 243(2) CRR), are all its tranches considered STS in the RWEA calculation and in COREP reporting, or only the senior tranche?  

  • 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

validation rule eba_v2708_m

In template F 18.00, the following validation rule is applied: sum({F 18.00.d, (r0005-0335, r0920, r0923, r0930, r0933), c0200}) + sum({F 18.00.c, (r0005-0335, r0920, r0923, r0930, r0933), c0210}) <= sum({F 18.00.a, (r0005-0335, r0920, r0923, r0930, r0933), c0060}) + sum({F 18.00.b, (r0005-0335, r0920, r0923, r0930, r0933), c0150}). We have a problem understanding regarding r0005-0335: In the formula, we have to take the sum from row 0005 to row 0335, but these cells correspond to the sum of the detail cells, with the detail cells and the cells of 'of which'. That seems abnormal as rule, and in the rest of the formula, the 'of which'-cells r0920, r0923, r0930 duplicated.

  • 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

v10672_m for C 08.01 not relevant

Is EBA validation rule v10672_m for template C 08.01 (CR IRB 1) relevant?

  • 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

Interaction between (i) CET1 deduction for minimum coverage on NPE and (ii) REA calculated under IRB-Advanced

In accordance with CRR art. 36(1)m and 47c the amount of insufficient coverage for non-performing exposures is to be deducted from CET1. Simultaneously the CRR requires institutions to calculate risk weighted exposure amounts (REA). This may result in a situation whereby for a given exposure the underlying risk is double-counted, once through available funds (deduction of CET1) and once through required funds (REA). Such double-counting is not intended, as also recognized in art. 67 of the ‘EBA REPORT ON STATUTORY PRUDENTIAL BACKSTOPS’. W.r.t. exposures under the IRB-Advanced approach the ‘EBA REPORT ON STATUTORY PRUDENTIAL BACKSTOPS’ further states in art. 69 that ‘In this respect Article 151(1) CRR clarifies that no own fund requirements should be imposed on parts of exposures that have already been deducted from CET1 while parts of exposures that have not yet been deducted from capital should still be risk-weighted to address any unexpected losses.’ While based on CRR art. 151(1) it appears clear that in theory only the exposure remaining after partial CET1 deduction (due to CRR art. 47c) is still to be risk weighted, clarification is sought on how exactly the risk weight on parts of a non-performing exposure is to be calculated in practice under the IRB-Advanced approach. Assume an exposure of 1000, under IRB-Advanced. Both the provision and the ELBE are equal to 300 (30%), while the LGD is equal to 500 (50%). In accordance with Art. 153(1) and 154(1) the REA is then calculated as 1000 * max(0, 12.5 * (LGD – ELBE)) or a REA of 2500. Now assume a minimum coverage expectation in line with art. 47c of 70%, i.e. 700. The resulting insufficient coverage thus equals 400, which is deducted from CET1. Remaining exposure to be risk weighted is 600. How to calculate the REA on this 600 given that ELBE and LGD were modelled based on an original exposure of 1000? Is our understanding correct that the REA on the remaining exposure is intended to be zero as provisions and CET1 deduction combined already exceed the (downturn) LGD? I.e. REA is only required for the 

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

Exclusion of intragroup transactions with entities in third country from the CVA risk charge

May a transaction towards an entity of the group be excluded from the CVA own funds requirements under Article 382(4)(b) CRR, when such entity is established in a third country, and for that third country, an equivalence decision under Article 13(2) of Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 has been adopted by the Commission only in relation to certain part of respective requirements?

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

Treatment of multi-seller securitisations in CRR

It is not clear from the provisions of the CRR how to treat multi-seller securitisations.  Multi-seller securitisations are those securitisations where there is more than one originator. That is, the underlying pool of the transaction comes from more than one single entity and the originators retaining the securitisation positions are exposed to the risk of the joined portfolio and not only to the risk of the portfolio they have transferred to the SSPE.  In those cases: Should  each originator be considered as such and consider that the significant credit risk associated with its securitised exposures has been transferred to third parties in accordance with Article 244(1)(a), and therefore originators should treat their retained securitisation positions as a positions subject to the securitisation framework? Or should all the originators be considered as investors in the securitisation due to the fact that the proportion of the assets that each originator has transferred to the SSPE represents a minimum share of the overall portfolio in the SSPE?   Would that treatment also apply in those cases where the originators retain all the asset backed securities issued in the securitisation (liquidity purpose securitisation)?   Would the originators be considered as such for the purpose of the overall cap under Article 268?   Should any dominant entity contributing with a majority of assets in the pool be subject to the general SRT rules and the rest of originators be considered as investors? Which percentage should be considered to trigger such a dominant position?

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

Treatment of Non Retail deposits (with a residual maturity of less than 30 days where payout has been agreed) on the LCR outflows template.

We would like to confirm where Non-Retail deposit balances, with a residual maturity of less than 30 days where payout has been agreed, should be reported on the LCR outflows template?  There is no specific row on the outflows template for these balances to be reported. In order to receive 100% outflow weighting should they be included with the Retail balances in Row 1.1.1.2?

  • 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

Template 1: banking book (prudential disclosures on ESG risks)

Is the reporting requirement of L – Real estate activities also covering residential immovable property or is it only commercial immovable property? We are uncertain since it is stated in point 7 on page 10 in Annex XL that it is exposures to non-financial corporations. However, in reporting according to the Disclosure Delegated Act residential immovable property is included.

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

Validation rule v09762_m, checks that the LGD (c0070) should be less or equal to 100% in template C 08.03 (CR IRB 3)

According to the formulae v09762_m : {c0070} <= 1 in C08.03 “CR IRB 3”. This control checks that the LGD (c0070) should be less or equal to 100% in C08.03 “CR IRB 3”. However, according to the art.132 - EBA/GL/2017/16 - 20/11/2017 the process of quantifying LGDs, does not allow for the explicit consideration of discounting effects and recovery costs in the calibration. It is normal to obtain LGD levels higher than 100% in the riskiest buckets, taking into account the recovery costs and the discounting effect. So the formulae rule cannot be respected. Could you please therefore cancel this rule? According to the formulae v09762_m : {c0070} <= 1 in C08.03 “CR IRB 3”. This control checks that the LGD (c0070) should be less or equal to 100% in C08.03 “CR IRB 3”. However, according to the art.132 - EBA/GL/2017/16 - 20/11/2017 the process of quantifying LGDs, does not allow for the explicit consideration of discounting effects and recovery costs in the calibration. It is normal to obtain LGD levels higher than 100% in the riskiest buckets, taking into account the recovery costs and the discounting effect. So the formulae rule cannot be respected. Could you please therefore cancel this rule?

  • 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

Template 1: banking book (prudential disclosures on ESG risks)

Is it correct that the institutions shall only use NACE codes to classify the gross carrying amounts, and this is different from the scope in the reporting according to Article 8 of the Disclosures Delegated Act where the reference to NACE sectors is only indicative?

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

The question concerns the definition of payment services and in particular the definition of execution of payment transaction.

1. Is an (international) non-profit association, acting as netting centre in the framework of a multilateral netting agreement entered into between its members, that receives and forward funds to and from its members through a bank account opened in its name deemed to carry out payment services falling within the scope of Article 4 (3) of Directive (EU) 2015/2366 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on payment services in the internal market, amending Directives 2002/65/EC, 2009/110/EC and 2013/36/EU and Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010, and repealing Directive 2007/64/EC ("PSD2") (e.g. the execution of payment transaction or money remittance)? 2. If the netting center is deemed to carry out payment services, can the netting centre rely on exclusion of Article 3(n) of PSD2, i.e. "payment transactions and related services between a parent undertaking and its subsidiary or between subsidiaries of the same parent undertaking, without any intermediary intervention by a payment service provider other than an undertaking belonging to the same group"?

  • Legal act: Directive 2015/2366/EU (PSD2)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable

Netting of FSE holdings

Scope of EBA Q&A 2019_4517 with respect to trading book positions.

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

Netting of Financial Sector Entity (FSE) holdings

Is there a requirement to establish an additional credit risk exposure in case FSE deduction amounts are reduced by netting with eligible short FSE positions?

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

Netting of Financial Sector Entity (FSE) holdings

Is there a requirement to establish an additional credit risk exposure in case Financial Sector Entity (FSE) deduction amounts are reduced by netting with eligible short FSE positions?

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

Section 3: Delta Plus Approach

I’m using the delta-plus approach to calculate our own funds requirement for gamma risk which seems to be generating an excessive capital requirement relative to the overall notional value of the option contract. Using the example of a short call commodities option. Position:        -1000 K Strike ($):     3490 Delta:             -0.4072933 Gamma:         -0.005789126 Underlying ($): 3319 The formula to apply is as follows: VU: for commodity options or warrants is equal to the market value of the underlying, multiplied by the weighting indicated in point (a) of Article 360.1 of Regulation Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 Weighting:  15% VU = (1000 x -0.4072933) x 3319 x 0.15 = -$202,770 Gamma Risk = 0.5 x -0.005789126 x 202770^2  = $119,013,043 Notional Value of Contract = -1000 x 3490 = $3,490,000 GR/NVC Multiple = 34.1 or 3410% Please can you confirm my application of Annex1 – Formula to be used for the purposes of Article 5(2).

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) No 528/2014 - RTS on non-delta risk of options in the standardised market risk approach

Capital increase without the issuance of new shares

Is a capital increase without the issuance of new shares in scope of article 26(3)?

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

French “EU General Fund” instruments issued by Life Insurance companies: Application of Financial Collateral Comprehensive Method and implication for Large Exposures.

How should EU General Funds instruments issued by Life Insurance Companies in France, characteristics of which are described in background section, be treated in relation to: Credit Risk Mitigation (CRR Part 3, Title II, Chapter 4); Large Exposure Framework (CRR Part 4).

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

Cross-gamma impact included in the gamma impact?

In determination of the Own funds requirements for gamma risk according to the Delta-plus approach, should institutions take account of cross-gamma effect?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) No 528/2014 - RTS on non-delta risk of options in the standardised market risk approach