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

Possibility to remove a Tier 1's call options to make the securities Tier 2 compliant

Based on the answer to question 2013_16, if a step-up Tier 1 bond’s terms were changed (which had a call date in, say, 2016) so that all call options were removed, this could not prolong its grandfathering as Tier 1, if that were the sole rationale for removing the calls. However, if a removal of calls is to make the Tier 1 bonds count as eligible Tier 2 (as there is no call feature), then could they be reclassified as Tier 2?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2013_49
  • Topic: Own funds
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 06/12/2013

Treatment of Tier 1 securities with calls every 5 years (as opposed to quarterly calls)

Could a Tier 1 security with an incentive to redeem and a first call date post January 1, 2014 (say, in 2016) and which is callable every 5 years after the first call date count as Tier 2 if not called at the first call date? This question is partly based on the answer to the question 2013_15, where the EBA gives clarity on the fact that non-called Tier 1 cannot count as Tier 2 post the first call date, as they are callable every quarter on so do not comply with Tier 2 requirement - which is not the case here.

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2013_48
  • Topic: Own funds
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 31/01/2014

Treatment of non-grandfathered amount of bonds

1. As of January 1, 2014, if an innovative Tier 1 security has more than 5 years to the first call date (e.g., a first call in 2020), does the non-grandfathered amount of bonds (i.e. 100%-80% = 20% in 2014) have any regulatory value? Could this be Tier 2 until 2015, given it will have at least 5 years to the first call date as per Article 63 Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)? 2. In a similar vein, can the non-grandfathered part of non-innovative Tier 1 with no incentive to redeem count as Tier 2, either pre- or post-first call date?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2013_47
  • Topic: Own funds
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 20/12/2013

Old-style Tier 1 requalifying as CRR Tier 2 capital

When an old-style Tier 1 instrument with an incentive to call passes its step-up date and ceases to be recognised as grandfathered Tier 1 capital under Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR), can it qualify as Tier 2 capital going forward if it were to meet all the requirements of Article 63 of CRR? For many existing instruments, the quarterly calls following the first call date of the Tier 1 instrument would prevent the inclusion in Tier 2 capital under CRR. If an old-style Tier 1 instrument had the Issuer's Call entirely removed from the instrument's documentation by the Issuer or Trustee, could it theoretically requalify as Tier 2 if it met all the other provisions for Tier 2 capital (Article 63 etc) after the removal of the Call provision?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2013_46
  • Topic: Own funds
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 29/11/2013

Grandfathering, cascading and phasing out limits

In the case of an issuer whose outstanding Tier 2 instruments as at December 2012 are fully CRR compliant (ie bullet Tier 2 bonds), should Article 486(4) apply? To put it simply: can an issuer still have some disqualfied parts of Tier 1 instruments (for limit reasons) cascaded into Tier 2 even if the issuer has no phased out Tier 2 amount as at December 2012 (and hence no phased out limits for Tier 2) ?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2013_44
  • Topic: Own funds
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 29/11/2013

Preferential risk weight of covered bonds containing securitisation positions of sovereign exposures as cover pool assets

Would UCITS compliant covered bonds containing public sector securitisation exposures qualify for preferential risk weights under Article 129 of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2013_42
  • Topic: Securitisation and Covered Bonds
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 31/10/2013

Treatment of non-step Tier 1 hybrids post grandfathering

This query concerns “non-innovative” (i.e. non step) hybrid Tier 1 instruments that fully qualified as original own funds which are now callable every quarter, which do not meet the requirements of Article 52 but are eligible for grandfathering under Article 484 of Regulation (EU) No. 575/2013 (CRR). Once they cease to be eligible (in part or in full) as AT1 due to the grandfathering limits, is the de-recognised amount eligible as Tier 2?"

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2013_40
  • Topic: Own funds
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 15/11/2013

Local Regulations versus the CRR

Will national regulations, maintained by domestic regulators (such as those in the Capital Principal Circular (7/2012) of the Bank of Spain, as an example) which set requirements for Tier 1 instruments compatible with, but in excess of, those set in Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR) for Additional Tier 1 instruments, continue to have force after the date (1st Jan 2014) at which CRR itself comes into force?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2013_39
  • Topic: Own funds
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 31/10/2013

Application of the Discretion outlined in Article 99 (6) of the CRR to non-IFRS institutions

We wish to clarify whether, in exercising the discretion afforded to it in Article 99 (6) of the CRR, a competent authority may consult the EBA in order to extend the (new FINREP) reporting requirements outlined in Article 99 (2) to non-IFRS banks, but not to non-IFRS investment firms in its jurisdiction.

  • 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: 2013_38
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - Other
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 31/10/2013

Applicability of Own Funds Reporting Requirements to Investment Firms Out of Scope

Should the reporting requirements of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR) for institutions be interpreted to include reference to both investment firms and firms referred to in point (2)(c) of Article 4(1) that provide the investment services and activities listed in points (2) and (4) of Section A of Annex 1 to Directive 2004/39/EC that are excluded from the definition of investment firm, yet subject to Pillar 1 capital requirements under Article 95(2)?

  • 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: 2013_37
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - COREP (incl. IP Losses)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 31/10/2013

Grandfathering of Tier 1 instruments

In your response to the following question "What will be the treatment of an Additional Tier 1 (AT1) instrument structured with a first call date and one step up after 5 years prior to 1 January 2013, callable quarterly thereafter at every interest payment date without any step up (subject to supervisory approval)? Is the instrument eligible for grandfathering if not called at the first call date? If the instrument is derecognized as AT1 on 1 January 2013, can it be included into Tier 2 and, if so, what amount will be eligible (full amount or gradually phased out amount)?”, you mention that: "because in particular of the quarterly call, the instrument would not meet the eligibility criteria for inclusion in fully eligible Tier 2 capital. It would also not meet the eligibility criteria for inclusion in grandfathered Tier 2 capital as foreseen under Article 484 (5) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013." Does that mean that an existing non-innovative (i.e. non-step) Tier 1 instrument with quarterly calls will also not be grandfathered in Tier 2 capital because of the quarterly calls?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2013_31
  • Topic: Own funds
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 15/11/2013

Grandfathering limit

Once applicable percentages in the range are specified by the local regulator, would it be applied: (1) at the beginning of the period; (2) at the end of the period or (3) on a straight-line basis throughout the 12 months period?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2013_30
  • Topic: Own funds
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 29/11/2013

Recognised amount as regulatory capital for an Additional Tier 1 with a write-down mechanism

According to Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR) Article 54(3): “The amount of Additional Tier 1 instruments recognised in Additional Tier 1 items is limited to the minimum amount Common Equity Tier 1 items that would be generated if the principal amount of the Additional Tier 1 instruments were fully written down or converted into Common Equity Tier 1 instruments”. Given the fact that a write-down may be seen as a profit under local accounting GAAP, and hence taxable (NB: true should the issuer be supposed to pay taxes at this time. However, it is unlikely that the issuer records a profit at a time where a write-down is operated), one can think that the recognized amount as Additional Tier 1 at the issue date is the nominal amount less the foreseeable paid tax amount in case of write-down. What's the final view of EBA? Can the entire nominal issue amount be recognized as Additional Tier 1 at the issue date or only a reduced amount (i.e. the nominal amount - the foreseeable paid tax amount in case of write-down)?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2013_29
  • Topic: Own funds
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 29/11/2013

Grandfathering of capital instruments

This question concerns two types of non-innovative Hybrid Tier 1 instruments (both issued before 31 December 2011): -- Type A: securities with first call date occurred in year 5, and before 31 December 2012; -- Type B: securities with first call date occurred in year 5, and after 31 December 2012. Questions: 1. For both A and B, is it correct to follow Article 484(4) & Article 486(3) for grandfathering guidelines? 2. For both A and B, is it correct to assume that the amount in excess of the applicable Tier 1 grandfathering percentage limit will be treated as grandfathered Tier 2 capital, i.e. being subject to the Tier 2 cap, as per Article 487(2)? 3. Alternatively, for both A and B, can the amount in excess of the applicable Tier 1 grandfathering percentage limit be treated as Tier 2 in full from 1 January 2014? Since they are meeting all the criteria for Tier 2 capital under Regulation (EU) No. 575/2013, as per Article 63 post the call date?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2013_28
  • Topic: Own funds
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 15/11/2013

Definición de PYME - SME definition

¿Qué criterios debe reunir una empresa para considerarse que es "PyME"? Translation to EN: SMEs - What are the defining criteria?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2013_27
  • Topic: Credit risk
  • Date of submission:

FINREP Date of initial application

As mentioned in Article 521 of the CRR the regulation shall apply from 01 January 2014, with the exception of the provisions of this Regulation that require the ESAs to submit to the Commission draft technical standards and the provisions of this Regulation that empower the Commission to adopt delegated acts or implementing acts, which shall apply from 31 December 2014. Does this means that provisions described in Article 99.4 CRR are postponed until 31.12.2014 which includes the requirements regarding FINREP?

  • 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: 2013_26
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - FINREP (incl. FB&NPE)
  • Date of submission:

First reporting date / reporting period

Given that the application date of Directive 2013/36/EU (CRD) / Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR) has now changed from 1 January 2014 to 31 December 2013 (see Directive 2013/36/EU, Article 162, Paragraph 1), what is the first reporting date / reporting period, specifically for the LCR and NSFR returns (Regulation (EU) No 575/2013, Part Six, Title II and Title III, respectively), but also for other returns such as COREP? Supplementary question: If the first reporting date is 31 December 2013, i.e. the first reporting period for the LCR return, for example, is December 2013, this would mean that most of the reporting period lies outside the application date of the legal provisions (CRD and CRR) underpinning the reporting. Do you see any legal complications in this fact?"

  • 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: 2013_25
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - Other
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 15/11/2013

Anerkennung der Kapitalrücklage "zugehörig zu" deutschen Vorzugsaktien als Kernkapital - Recognition as Tier 1 equity of share premiums related to German preference shares

Sind deutsche Vorzugsaktien nach der Aktienrechtsnovelle kernkapitalfähig, so dass auch das Agio, das mit dem Instrument "verbunden" ist, im Kernkapital anerkannt werden kann?Translation to EN: Do German preference shares qualify as Tier 1 capital under the amended Companies Act, which would mean that share premium accounts ‘linked to’ the instrument may be recognised as part of Tier 1 capital?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2013_24
  • Topic: Own funds
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 29/11/2013

Credit risk mitigation techniques - independent, written and reasoned legal opinions

Must lending institutions always obtain a written reasoned legal opinion in order to rely on their credit protection techniques for the purposes of Article 194(1) of the CRR? If so : a) must such opinion be obtained from external legal counsel? b) must such opinion be specific to the relevant transaction and techniques in respect of which the institution seeks to rely upon such opinion, or can lending institutions rely on generic opinions for particular types of transactions? If the latter, how often should the generic opinions be updated?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2013_23
  • Topic: Credit risk
  • Date of submission: