Question ID:
Legal Act:
Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
Liquidity risk
COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs/Recommendations:
Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/61 - DR with regard to liquidity coverage requirement
Disclose name of institution / entity:
Type of submitter:
Competent authority
Subject Matter:
LCR treatment of deposits received as collateral

Should deposit received as collateral for a facility, in the case where a credit institution’s client has an option for early termination of this facility, which could lead to an outflow of the collateral during the next 30 calendar days, be assigned an additional outflow corresponding to 100% in accordance with Article 30(6) of Delegated Regulation (UE) 2015/61?

Background on the question:

In accordance with Article 30(7) of Delegated Regulation (UE) 2015/61 deposits received as collateral should not be treated as liabilities for the purposes of Article 24, 25, 27, 28 or 31a but shall be subject to the provisions of paragraphs 1 to 6 of Article 30, where applicable.

In our view deposits received as collateral in principal fall under letters (a) and (b) of Article 30(6) of Delegated Regulation (UE) 2015/61, according to which the credit institution shall add an additional outflow corresponding to 100 % of:

(a) the excess collateral the credit institution holds that can be contractually called at any times by the counterparty;

(b) collateral that is due to be posted to a counterparty within 30 calendar days

(c) (…)’.

The amount of deposit exceeding collateral the credit institution holds that can be called at any times by the counterparty would fall under Article 30(6)(a) of Delegated Regulation (UE) 2015/61.

The amount of deposit which becomes due during the next 30 calendar days because of the contractual maturity of the facility would fall under Article 30(6)(b) of Delegated Regulation (UE) 2015/61.

There remains a situation in which the amount of deposit could fall due during the next 30 calendar days if a client utilizes  the option for early termination of the facility.

Date of submission:
Published as Rejected Q&A
Rationale for rejection:

This question has been rejected because the matter it refers to has been answered in Q&A 2828 and  it is considered that EBA guidance or clarification is not needed with regard to the issue that it raises. For example, this can be the case where it is considered that the existing regulatory framework is sufficiently clear and unambiguous, or where different practices may be possible but it is not currently necessary to harmonise these further through the Q&A process.

The Single Rule Book Q&A tool has been established to provide explanations and non-binding interpretations on questions relating to the practical application or implementation of the provisions of legislative acts referred to in Article 1(2) of the EBA’s founding Regulation, as well as associated delegated and implementing acts, and guidelines and recommendations, adopted under these legislative acts.

For further information on the purpose of this tool and on how to submit questions, please see “Additional background and guidance for asking questions”.

Rejected question