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

COREP C22.00 reporting of positions in the reporting currency

Can EBA provide some examples of cases where positions in the reporting currency contribute to the calculation of the capital requirements according to Article 354 CRR?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) 2024/3117 - ITS on supervisory reporting of institutions

C_ 08.01.a - qx 2068 – “Retail exposures - Secured by residential real estate”

Should the retail exposures secured by residential real estate to a natural person and the retail exposures secured by residential real estate to an SME both be assigned to the exposure class of “Retail exposures secured by residential real estate” in C_08.01.a qx 2068?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) 2024/3117 - ITS on supervisory reporting of institutions

C02 Own Funds Requirements CA2 - Row 0050 - inconsistent requirements for securitisation positions

The ITS for row 0050 states: "CR SA and SEC SA templates at the level of total exposures", information that hasn't changed between DPM 3.2 and DPM 4.0. The validation rule v0205_m with {tC_02.00.a, default: 0, interval: true}: {r0040} = {r0050} + {r0240} + {r0460} + {r0470} is inactive starting with 3/10/2025 and so far the securitisation positions reported on row0470 column 0010 were considered in the calculation of the row0040. Considering the ITS, are the securitisation positions from row 0470 requested on row0050 in regards of each column 0010 TREA and 0020 S-TREA?

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

Validation rules v23509_h and v23510_h appear incorrect

Are validation rules v23509_h and v23510_h correct?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Draft ITS on Supervisory Reporting of Institutions

Inconsistency between Annotated table CODIS Pillar III and Mapping_tool_including_step_2_tc (incl equity) + Rev 4.1 review_tc

How should we interpret and implement the differences between the Annotated table and the Mapping Tool referring to template CCR4 - K04.00?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) 2021/637 - ITS with regard to disclosures of information referred to in Titles II and III of Part Eight CRR

v23509_h and v23510_h

Are the validation rules v23509_h and v23510_h correct when reading the reporting instruction of the ITS. In our view the reporting instruction of the ITS is not clear enough.

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) 2024/3117 - ITS on supervisory reporting of institutions

C17.01 - v23508_h - Sum of number of events by Basel Business Line

Is the aggregation logic assumed by the control v23508_h applicable in this context?

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

C17.01 - v23507_h - Sum of number events by Basel Business Line

Is the aggregation logic assumed by the control v23507_h is not applicable in this context.

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

C07.00 - v23338_m - RW of 70% empty

The EBA Validation Rule v23338_m applicable to C07.00 COREP template states that the line 210 that concerns the RW of 70% must be empty. Should this control should be applicable?

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

C06.02 - v23688_s - Non negative control

The control indicates that the following columns have to be positive :   c0360 = consolidated own funds   c0370 = of which : common equity Tier 1   c0390 = oh which: contribution to consolidated result Should this control be applicable?

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

Validation rule v23688_s requiring only non-negative amounts appears incorrect

Is validation rule v23688_s incorrect? 

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Draft ITS on Supervisory Reporting of Institutions

Pillar 3 Disclosure: Template EU CQ1: Credit quality of forborne exposures (Col e & f; R090 Loan commitments given ) - Clarification on Mapping Logic

According to the EBA mapping: (Col e & f ; R0090) for row “Loan commitments given” under impairment section are mapped to template F19, which is presented as a positive value in CR1. However, our understanding is that impairment values should be disclose as negative figures in CQ1. Please confirm whether this interpretation is correct. 

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

Pillar 3 Disclosure: Template EU CR1: Performing and non-performing exposures and related provisions (Column g-l; R150-210 Off balance sheet exposure) - Clarification on Mapping Logic

According to the EBA mapping, columns g to l (rows R150–R210) for off-balance sheet exposures are mapped to template F18, which would be presented as a positive value in CR1. However, our understanding is that impairment values should be disclose as negative figures in CR1. Please confirm whether this interpretation is correct.  

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

Clarifications about the new column 65 “Offsetting Group” in template C06 under DPM 4.0

Should column 65 (Offsetting Group) in template C06 be reported in 202506?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) 2024/3117 - ITS on supervisory reporting of institutions

Validation rules taxonomy V4.0 C06.02, v23688_s

The EBA Validation rules taxonomy v23688_s seems not relevant.  

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) 2024/3117 - ITS on supervisory reporting of institutions

Reporting of losses from lending collateralised by immovable property (C_15.00)

For loans secured by real estate property with any of the credit history scenarios below, should losses, and in case of scenario iii., exposures, be reported in COREP template C 15.00?  If yes, for which default event or events should the estimated losses be included in the reporting (i.e. is it correct to assume that under scenario ii. only losses estimated for the last default event in the reporting period should be included)?  Also, which default event should be used as a reference date for the reported exposures under scenario i. (the reporting period or the year prior to it) and under scenario ii. (exposure value at the first or at the last default event during the reporting period)? i. scenario:  The loan secured by real estate property had defaulted in a year prior to the reporting period, subsequently it exited/cured from the default state in the reporting period, but later it defaulted again during the same reporting period, and it stayed in the default state until the end of the period. ii. scenario:  The loan secured by real estate property had defaulted in the reporting period, later it exited/cured from the default state in the same reporting period, but still in the same period it defaulted again and stayed in the default state until the end of the period. iii. scenario: The loan secured by real estate property had defaulted in the reporting period and subsequently in the same period the institution stopped recognising the real estate property as CRR-eligible collateral (the real estate property ceased to meet the eligibility criteria).

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) 2024/3117 - ITS on supervisory reporting of institutions

Credit institutions should not consider as outsourcing

Within Title II, Section 3, Recital 28 Guidelines on outsourcing an exemption what should not be considered an outsourcing is given. Under this exemption can we consider that purchases of goods e.g., standard software or hardware without customization or integration into critical processes, are not outsourcing? For example if the SaaS application is used solely for non-critical, non-banking functions (e.g., HR training platforms, marketing tools), and does not impact the institution’s operational resilience or critical functions, can it be treated from a bank perspective as purchase of goods that fall outside the EBA guidelines on outsourcing arrangements scope?

  • Legal act: Directive 2013/36/EU (CRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: EBA/GL/2019/02 - Guidelines on outsourcing arrangements

Clarification on Q&A 2024_7073: Treatment of two-leg derivatives with respect to rate type and currency

Example 1: Fixed IR asset changed to floating with an IRS – IRS floating receiver and fixed payer - Representation in J 05.00, J 06.00 and J 07.00   Let us consider a scenario where the fixed rate asset (hedged item) is a mortgage loan that perfectly matches, in terms of notional amount and financial characteristics, the receive leg of an interest rate swap (IRS).  According to the Q&A:  For the receive leg, the notional amount must be reported in column 0260, under rows 0140 to 0170. The weighted average yield should be reported with a positive sign in column 0300, and the corresponding repricing cash flows should be reported with a positive sign in columns 0320 to 0390, all under rows 0140 to 0170.  For the payer leg, the notional amount should not be reported. The weighted average yield must be reported with a negative sign in column 0050, and the associated repricing cash flows must be reported with a negative sign in columns 0070 to 0250, again under rows 0140 to 0170.  Could you please clarify how potential asymmetries should be addressed in cases where the notional amount of the payer leg of the IRS is not reported, which may lead to both the fixed rate exposure of the hedged item and the floating rate leg of the hedging derivative being simultaneously recognized, potentially distorting the risk exposure at the total assets level? Example 2: Floating IR liability changed to fixed with an IRS – IRS floating receiver and fixed payer - Representation in J 05.00, J 06.00 and J 07.00  Let us consider a scenario where the floating rate liability (hedged item) is a debt security that perfectly matches, in terms of notional amount and financial characteristics, the receive leg of an interest rate swap (IRS).  According to Q&A:  For the receive leg, the notional amount must be reported with a positive sign in column 0260, under rows 0140 to 0170. The weighted average yield should be reported with a negative sign in column 0300, and the corresponding repricing cash flows should be reported with a negative sign in columns 0320 to 0390, all under rows 0140 to 0170.  For the payer leg, the notional amount should not be reported. The weighted average yield must be reported with a positive sign in column 0050, and the associated repricing cash flows must be reported with a positive sign in columns 0070 to 0250, again under rows 0140 to 0170.  Could you advise on how institutions should address potential asymmetries arising in cases where the notional amount of the receive leg of the IRS is reported with a positive sign, while the notional of the payer leg is not reported (i.e., reported as zero), potentially resulting in the simultaneous recognition of both the floating rate exposure of the hedged item and the floating leg of the hedging derivative?  Example 3: Other Interest rate derivatives not designed as accounting hedges – IRS floating receiver and fixed payer - Representation in J 05.00, J 06.00 and J 07.00   Could you provide guidance on how institutions should address potential asymmetries arising in cases where only the receiver leg of an IRS transaction is reported, potentially resulting in an incomplete representation of the associated risk exposure? Example 4: Fixed USD asset changed to fixed EUR with a CCS USD fixed payer / against fixed EUR receiver - Representation in J 05.00, J 06.00 and J 07.00    In this example, we report the same observations as in Example 1, considering the fixed exposure represented in EUR and USD templates.  In addition, we would appreciate confirmation regarding the appropriate representation of the average yield. Specifically, should the yield of the payer fixed USD leg be reported under template J 05.00 in EUR, as indicated in the official Q&A, or under J 05.00 in USD?

  • 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 (repealed)

CoRep Template C07.00 - Clarification on “of which: Exposures to central banks”

As part of COREP template C07.00, Banks are required to disclose counterparties subject to Standardised risk weight split by Asset Classes such as 'Central Government or Central Banks', 'Regional Government', 'Public Sector Entities'. The template also requires additional data points to be disclosed including “of which: Exposures to central banks” – Row no. 0011. The COREP guidance for the above Row 0011 refers Article 112 (a) of CRR. However this article refers to Asset Class as “Exposures to Central Government or Central Banks”. This leads to an ambiguity in the disclosure. The firm is currently disclosing only exposures to 'Central Banks' even though the article reference is to Exposure to Central Government or Central Banks. We seeking to confirm the treatment to be applied. 

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) 2024/3117 - ITS on supervisory reporting of institutions

CoRep Reporting C07.00 Template - Clarification regarding Default in Equity Exposures

The COREP template C07.00 requires institutions to report all counterparties treated under the Standardised risk weight approach to be split by Asset Class. These 'Asset Classes' are defined under Article 112 of CRR. The template clearly calls out that for the 'Exposure in Default' Asset Class, any exposure that is not subject to 'Equities' (under Article 133) should be included, hence the Equities exposures positions are not reported under Exposure in Default Asset Class.  The COREP template has a specific section to report Default in Equity Exposures – Row 0015. However, there is no definition of Equity Exposures at Default from a standardized risk weight perspective, hence we are seeking clarity on how this should be managed/disclosed. For example, we are now needing to disclose counterparties that have had loan restructuring and as part of this, equities have been issued and hence, this is where the Equity exposure position is classified as default.   

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) 2024/3117 - ITS on supervisory reporting of institutions