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

Dropdown lists are invalid

Dear Sir/Madam  We have noticed that in the templates published by the EBA, the name manager reference for templates containing dropdown fields shows a #REF! error, causing the dropdown lists to be invalid. If possible, could you please provide us with the correct version of the template?  Kind Regards

  • Legal act: Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) 2025/2303 - ITS on Resolution Planning Reporting

Deduction of goodwill included in the valuation of significant investments in entities included in prudential consolidation

For the purposes of calculating own funds on an individual basis and a sub-consolidated basis, are institutions subject to supervision on a consolidated basis required to deduct goodwill included in the valuation of significant investments of the institution, for holdings in such entities that are included in the scope of consolidated supervision?

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

Clarification on the application of Article 215.2(b) of the CRR

Can guarantees issued by a central government for residential mortgages, that covers losses resulting from the non-payment of interest and other types of payments which the borrower is obliged to make, be used for unfunded credit protection if the final guarantee value is determined based on the residual value between an executive sale of underlying residential mortgage collateral and a max guaranteed amount?

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

Request for Clarification on the Interpretation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1338/2001 of 28 June 2001 laying down measures necessary for the protection of the euro against counterfeiting, and Decision of the European Central Bank of 16 September 2010 on the authenticity and fitness checking and recirculation of euro banknotes (ECB/2010/14) (2010/597/EU)

we request clarification regarding the interpretation and applicability of Council Regulation (EC) No 1338/2001 of 28 June 2001 laying down measures necessary for the protection of the euro against counterfeiting. 1. Application of Article 6(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1338/2001 «Article 6(1) — Obligations of institutions involved in the processing and delivery of banknotes and coins to the public 1. Credit institutions and other payment service providers when making payments, as well as entrepreneurs involved in the processing and delivery of banknotes and coins to the public, including: — institutions whose activities involve the exchange of banknotes and coins of different currencies, such as money exchange offices, — cash carriers, — other operators, such as merchants and casinos, should also be required to check this when, among other things, they process banknotes and deliver them to the public using automated teller machines (ATMs) (banknote dispensing machines), but this obligation would only apply to such additional activities, are obliged to ensure the authenticity of euro banknotes and coins that they have received and intend to re-circulate, and to detect counterfeit banknotes and coins» The term “received banknotes” is not explicitly defined in either Regulation 1338/2001, its amendments, or ECB Decision 2010/14. In view of the above, we kindly request clarification on the following points: Can such a banknote be considered as “received” within the meaning of Article 6(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1338/2001?  Can a banknote rejected by the device be considered as “received”? Which specific European Union legislative act provides a legal definition or authoritative interpretation of the term “received banknotes”, as used in the context of the handling, processing, and authenticity verification of euro banknotes under the EU legal framework?

  • Legal act: Other
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable

CoRep Template - C13.01 - Guidance regarding the treatment of the 'Before Cap' column (Column 0890)

As per the CRR Article, the final RWA is required to be derived after applying additional risk weight due to non compliance of due diligence requirement as defined in Article 270a and maturity mismatch for synthetic securitization as per Article 252. However, this additional risk weight RWA is applied on the RWA only after application of the Cap as per Article 267, 268 and 269a. Hence the Final RWA can be higher than the Before CAP RWA due to application of additional risk weight due to Article 270a or Article 252.As per COREP instruction, the "Before Cap" (column 0890) RWA requires us to report all RWA before applying Cap and the difference between the Before Cap and After Cap Final RWA is only driven by impact of Cap. This creates a conflict to the actual CRR articles and hence requires further clarification.

  • 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)

v22914_m_0

Is v22914_m_0 correct. In our it includes incorrect parameters that needs to be replaced.

  • 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 Template C.08.05 and Pillar 3 EU CR9

In the latest update of the instructions for completing the COREP reports, a change has been introduced in report C.08.05 regarding the PD range, by which the substitution effect due to the application of credit risk mitigation (CRM) techniques shall be considered, unlike previous versions. On the other hand, the Pillar III instructions keep the previous criterion of reporting the PD range corresponding to clients before applying substitution. This leads to a contradiction in the EBA mapping tool, according to which table CR-9 derives its values from COREP C08.05. With the latests modifications, hence, PD range reported in C.08.05 does not match table CR-9. Is it possible that the previous criterion, as shown in the Pilar III instructions, should still be applicable for the C08.05 template, and the word "without" in the COREP instructions was inadvertently deleted?

  • 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 C14.00, columns 0140-0225, validation rules v11650_m, v11651_m and v7347_m

Pursuant to para (a) of the definition of originator, the submitter qualifies as the sole originator as an entity which itself or through related entities, directly or indirectly, was involved in the original agreements which created the obligations of the debtors giving rise to the exposures being securitized.  The securitized exposures/obligations were not on the submitter’s balance sheet.  However, given the definition of originator (in particular para (a)) we understand that the presence of the securitized exposures/obligations on an entity’s balance sheet, is not a condition for such entity to qualify as an originator (including as the sole originator). We further understand that in the templates C14.00, the section securitized exposures, columns 0140-0225: apply to an originator of securitization positions which were securitized from such originator’s own balance sheet (‘own portfolio’); do not apply to an originator where the securitization positions were not on such originator’s own balance sheet. If our understanding is correct, please confirm that the submitter, as a sole originator which did not have the securitized exposures/obligations on its balance sheet, should not be required to populate section Securitised Exposures, columns 0140-0225?

  • 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

Combination of methods for CCR

As per Article 273(1)(3) "Institutions may use in combination the methods set out in Sections 3 to 6 on a permanent basis within a group. A single institution shall not use in combination the methods set out in Sections 3 to 6 on a permanent basis." For this scenario assume that the conditions of Article 273(a)(1) and Article 273(a)(2) are met, thus the all methods outlined in Part Three Title II Chapter 6 Sections 3 to 6 can be used According to the above, we understand that an institution can apply more than 1 methods outlined in Sections 3 to 6 for a time period. Please (i) confirm our understanding that more than 1 method can be used simultaneously and (ii) how long can this 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

Reverse solicitation

The reverse solicitation is where a client or counterparty approaches an undertaking established in a third country at its own exclusive initiative for the provision of banking services, including their continuation, or banking services closely related to those originally solicited.   A TCB is often invited with an invitation letter sent by one or several commercial banks or investment banks (known as arrangers) in different Member States, to provide loans together with a group of lenders domiciled in various Member States for a borrower or a borrower group that might operate in several Member States. The TCB as a lender does not have direct contact with the borrower. The invitation letter is sent by the arranger bank to invite the TCB to provide a portion of the loan for the borrower. Is the invitation letter sent by the arranger a sufficient supporting document to evidence that a client approaches us through an arranger at its own exclusive initiative? If not, is an independent statement from the borrower to certify that it has approached the TCB through an arranger adequate?   

  • Legal act: Directive 2013/36/EU (CRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable

Template C 34.10 : Scope of exposures to be included in this template

Which of the below is the scope of exposures to be included for reporting in Template C 34.10: Option 1: Exposures to CCPs and exposures from CCP-related transactions; or Option 2: Only exposures to CCPs If the response is Option 1, please could you clarify in which rows should the exposures from CCP-related transactions be reported?

  • 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

Sign convention of the Weighted Average Maturity in J 05.00

Should a negative Weighted Average Maturity be permitted for derivative instruments in template J 05.00 (both contractual and behavioural)?

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

Article 12 of Regulation (EU) 2024/857 - non-performing exposures (NPEs) exceeds the 2% threshold.

Could the EBA clarify, in relation to the applicable reporting reference dates, from which point in time institutions are expected to implement and apply the corresponding model adjustment in their IRRBB reporting once this 2% threshold has been breached? Specifically, should the model change be reflected from the reporting period during which the threshold was exceeded, or from the beginning of the next full reporting period following the breach?

  • Legal act: Directive 2013/36/EU (CRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) 2024/857 - RTS on the IRRBB standardised approach

Definition of Subordinated Debt holdings in Finrep vs COREP under CRR3

Could you please confirm whether, following the implementation of Regulation (EU) 2024/1623 of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (Capital Requirements Regulation 3 – CRR3), institutions will be required to report subordinated debt holdings differently in FINREP and COREP.

  • 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

Deduction of participations and Corep reporting

For the deduction under article 17 (1)(e), of RTS 241/2014, what is the correct COREP row for reporting this item? Is reporting under row 0529 “CET1 capital elements or deductions – other” appropriate? 

  • 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

Foreign Exchange Vega Risk Factors Definition

Shall the foreign exchange vega risk factors to be applied by institutions to instruments in the CVA portfolio sensitive to foreign exchange volatility be the implied volatilities of foreign exchange rates between the contractual currency pairs (i.e., no triangulation with respect to the institution’s reporting currency is required)?

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

Question regarding minimum requirements for Risk Committee attendance

Is there a minimum number of administrators required to be present for a risk committee dedicated to internal control to validly hold its meetings ? 

  • Legal act: Directive 2013/36/EU (CRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: EBA/GL/2021/05 - Guidelines on internal governance under CRD - repealing EBA/GL/2017/11

Clarification Request Regarding Validation Rule 6514_m for LDR Template T.04 and Its Comparison of Own Funds with Outstanding Principal Plus Accrued Interest

For example, for financial instrument measured at fair value, the inclusion of hedge adjustments (which may either increase or decrease the measured value) may cause the amount recognized as own funds to be higher than the simple sum of outstanding principal and accrued interest. This could lead to a breach of Validation Rule 6514_m.Given these developments, discrepancies may now arise due to the inherent variability introduced by the updated valuation adjustments.

  • Legal act: Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Draft ITS on the provision of information for the purpose of resolution plans

Z 09.04 FMI 4 - Multiple alternative providers

Regarding the final ITS for Resolution Reporting there's an additional Template for FMI module: Z 09.04 FMI 4.In case of multiple alternative providers, should all of them be included? If not, which is the supervisor criteria to select only one of the alternative providers?

  • Legal act: Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable