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

Financial Sector Entity qualification for entity that assumes a loan in order to acquire an aircraft asset which then enters into a financial leasing agreement with an airline / aircraft operator

Should an entity that assumes a loan in order to acquire an aircraft asset which then enters into a financial leasing agreement with an airline / aircraft operator be treated as object finance / specialised lending or does it in addition need to be viewed as an exposure to a financial institution (and therefore a financial sector entity (FSE)) given the entity enters into a finance leasing arrangement that is an activity set out in point 3 of Annex I of Directive 2013/36/EU?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2024_7120
  • Topic: Credit risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 28/03/2025

Treatment of leasing residual values under the standardized approach for credit risk

May the ‘’1/t*100%* residual value” formula introduced by CRR article 134.7 for the risk-weighted exposure amounts be applied to all leasing residual values? 

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2024_7195
  • Topic: Credit risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 27/03/2025

EBA publication on hard test results

Does EBA plan to publish information related to loss rates for immovable property markets in third countries? If yes, when is such a publication to be expected and which third countries will be covered?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2024_7197
  • Topic: Credit risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 27/03/2025

Can the Article 122a adjustment be combined with the Article 501 SME-adjustment?

The Article 122a paragraph 3  letter c subletter ii CRR says, that if all the criteria are met, there can be a factor of 80 % applied. But it can't be combined with the 75 % adjustment of Artikle 501a. But can it be combined with the adjustment for SMEs due to Article 501?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2024_7186
  • Topic: Credit risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 19/03/2025

Remaining maturity of the transactions for collateralised transactions

As per CRR Article 162(2)(c)& (d)- This states (as per below). Can the term "remaining maturity" in the below paragraphs be defined as Margin Period of Risk for collateralised transactions and Contractual maturity for un-collateralised transactions? (c)  for exposures arising from fully or nearly-fully collateralised derivative instruments listed in Annex II and fully or nearly-fully collateralised margin lending transactions which are subject to a master netting agreement, M shall be the weighted average remaining maturity of the transactions where M shall be at least 10 days; (d)  for repurchase transactions or securities or commodities lending or borrowing transactions which are subject to a master netting agreement, M shall be the weighted average remaining maturity of the transactions where M shall be at least five days. The notional amount of each transaction shall be used for weighting the maturity;

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: EBA/GL/2016/11 - Guidelines on disclosure requirements under Part Eight of CRR
  • ID: 2024_7204
  • Topic: Credit risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 07/03/2025

Validation rules taxonomy V4.0 C09.02 v23650_h

According to the formulae v23650_h : {r0030} = {r0050} + {r0051} in c0010, c0030, c0040, c0050, c0055, c0060, c0070, c0105, c0110, c0120, c0121, c0122, c0125, c0130 in C09.02 “CR GB 2”.This control makes the comparative between r0030 “Corporates” and the sum of lines r0050 “Of Which: SME” and r0051 “Of Which: Large Corporates" in CR GB 2.However, in Annex 2, the instructions for line 0030 refer to Article 147(2), point (c), of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 which classifies Corporates as the following : i)General Corporate, ii) Specialized financing exposures and iii)Purchased receivables. The control seems incoherent since lines r0050 and r0051 expect "of which" items.To be compliant with the corporate categories defined in Article 147, line 0030 should be compared with the totalization of lines 0052 "Specialized lending", 0057 "Purchased receivables" and 0058 "Others".Could you please therefore confirm that the control needs to be modified?

  • 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
  • ID: 2025_7323
  • Topic: Credit risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 26/02/2025

Validation rules taxonomy V4.0 C09.02 v6052_m

According to the formulae v6052_m : {r0150} = {r0010} + {r0011} + {r0012} + {r0013} +{r0020} + {r0030} + {r0060} + {r0132} +{r0140} in c0010, c0030, c0040, c0050, c0055, c0060, c0070, c0105, c0110, c0120, c0125, c0130 in C09.02 “CR GB 2”.This control ensures that the sum of exposures declared in line 0150 "Total exposures" is equal to the sum of lines 0010 "Central governments or central banks", 0011 "Of which: Regional governments or local authorities", 0012 "Regional governments or local authorities", 0013 "Public sector entities", 0020 "Institutions", 0030 "Corporates", 0060 "Retail", 0132 "Collective investments undertakings (CIU)" and 00140 "Equity" in CR GB 2.However, the line 0011 is an "of which" of the line 0010 which is also in the formula, this means that it will be doubly taken into account in the totalization.Could you please therefore confirm that the line 0011 should be deleted from the formula?

  • 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
  • ID: 2025_7324
  • Topic: Credit risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 26/02/2025

Validation rules taxonomy V4.0 C08.01 v4769_m

The formula v4769_m specifies that for C08.01, the total sheet is the sum of all the IRB Advanced sheets, including the memorandum items.However, Final ITS instructions specify that memo subcategories must be reported separately as a subclass of exposure, not linked to the total IRB exposures classes. Also, in the C02.00, lines with reference to memorandum items are shaded and not included in the totalization.The control seems incoherent.Could you please therefore confirm that sheets  with reference to memo items should not be taken into account in the formula?

  • 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
  • ID: 2025_7325
  • Topic: Credit risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 26/02/2025

Validation rules taxonomy V4.0 C08.01 v4770_m

The formula v4770_m specifies that for C08.01, the total sheet is the sum of all the IRB Foundation sheets, including the memorandum items.However, Final ITS instructions specify that memo subcategories must be reported separately as a subclass of exposure, not linked to the total IRB exposures classes. Also, in the C02.00, lines with reference to memorandum items are shaded and not included in the totalization.The control seems incoherent.Could you please therefore confirm that sheets with reference to memo items should be removed from the formula?

  • 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
  • ID: 2025_7326
  • Topic: Credit risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 26/02/2025

Interaction of the risk drivers employed to define the structure of the PD model and the requirement to avoid the excessive cyclicality of own funds requirements.

Is considering the requirement of CRR Article 170 4(c) to incorporate the ‘delinquency’ risk driver in the structure of rating systems possible, to avoid a potential excessive cyclicality of own funds requirements via the use of appropriate calibration techniques in line with the Entity’s chosen calibration philosophy?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: EBA/GL/2017/16 - Guidelines on PD estimation, LGD estimation and the treatment of defaulted exposures
  • ID: 2024_7083
  • Topic: Credit risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 05/02/2025

Interaction of the structure of the rating system and homogeneity requirements with conservatism in the application of risk parameters

Considering a rating structure defined according to article 170 of CRR, would the consideration of conservatism in the application of risk parameters alter such structure? In particular, do homogeneity analyses need to be conducted before or after the consideration of the conservatism in the application of risk parameters described in section 8.1 of the EBA/GL/2017/16?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: EBA/GL/2017/16 - Guidelines on PD estimation, LGD estimation and the treatment of defaulted exposures
  • ID: 2024_7044
  • Topic: Credit risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 05/02/2025

Supervisory delta for commodities with negative prices

Article 279a (1), (a) of the CRR establishes the formula to be used for calculating the supervisory delta of options mapped to all risk categories except for the interest rate category. Can such formula be made compatible with market conditions in which commodities may have negative prices?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2021_5747
  • Topic: Credit risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 31/01/2025

Fair value adjustments that arise as a result of applying fair value hedge accounting

This question is a reformulation of the Q&A 4406, with two examples for clarify the problem and some possible answers. Should fair value adjustments which arise as a result of applying fair value hedge accounting to mitigate interest rate risk be treated under the CRR credit risk framework or under a different risk framework? And if under a different risk framework, which risk framework should that be?

  • 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)
  • ID: 2023_6930
  • Topic: Credit risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 24/01/2025

Supervisory Factor for Credit Derivatives with underlying securitization for SA-CCR

The supervisory factor for the credit risk category add-on is to be assigned based on the rating assigned to the issuer of the underlying credit derivative.For securitisations, should the rating of the SPV issuing the various tranches be used or can the rating of the tranche be used? If the SPV is not rated but the tranches are, should the exposure be considered unrated?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2024_7216
  • Topic: Credit risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 20/01/2025

Collateral Valuation

My question is in respect to the need for independence of valuers. Should a Bank' procedure allow customers to propose valuers subject to acceptance of the Bank and fulfilment of the independence criteria mentioned in the guidelines, would the Bank be considered as fulfilling the need for independence of valuer?

  • Legal act: Directive 2013/36/EU (CRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: EBA/GL/2020/06 - Guidelines on loan origination and monitoring
  • ID: 2024_7057
  • Topic: Credit risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 20/11/2024

Determination of exposure value cap for netting sets subject to a margin agreement.

The final answer to EBA Q&A 2023_6962 states that when capping the exposure value of a margined netting set at the exposure value of the same netting set not subject to any form of margin agreement “The term NICA, included in the formula set out in Article 275(1) and defined in Article 272(12a), does not include the variation margin posted or received.”   We believe that this is an incorrect reading and could lead to significant under estimation of RWAs whenever the institution is posting significant excess collateral to its client. This can happen particularly when trades with a large MTM unwind at maturity and the collateral balance is exchange back only on T+1 basis.   Take the following example scenario. If calculating the EAD per the margined methodology the variation margin posted to the client offsets some of the MTM of the derivatives and the add-on is fully added to EAD as the multiplier remains 1.    However under the unmargined methodology if I disregard the posted collateral then the negative current replacement cost works to significantly offset the add-on and can actually result in an EAD below the EAD incurred on only the actual replacement cost/current exposure (in this example 140).   Example Scenario       MTM of Derivatives -50 Variation Margin posted to client 150 Replacement Cost (Margined) 100 Add-on (pre multiplier) 100 Multiplier 1 EAD per margined methodology 280     MTM of Derivatives -50 Variation Margin posted to client (ignored as not NICA) 0 Replacement Cost (Unmargined ignoring VM posted) 0 Add-on (pre multiplier) 100 Multiplier 0.78 EAD per unmargined methodology 109     Final capped EAD to unmargined 109   Our understanding is that the wording in Article 274(3) which says “the exposure value of a netting set that is subject to a contractual margin agreement shall be capped at the exposure value of the same netting set not subject to any form of margin agreement” instead of meaning that there is no variation margin and hence this should be completely removed in the unmargined cap calculation should actually be read in conjunction with Article 272(12a) to define that in the absence of a margin agreement there can be nothing classed as “variation margin” and therefore all collateral is part of NICA – “NICA means the sum of the volatility-adjusted value of net collateral received or posted, as applicable, to the netting set other than variation margin”.   If we follow the previous Q&A answer then we will see significant reductions in RWA which we feel are unwarranted vs the counterparty risk for netting sets which exhibit the same portfolio dynamic as in the example above. The purpose of the cap is only to ignore exposure from large threshold amounts and not to avoid exposure from large amounts of posted collateral which are still owed back 

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2024_7109
  • Topic: Credit risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 23/10/2024

Calculation of loss rates for income producing real estate (IPRE) under the standardized approach for credit risk under the CRR III (Regulation (EU) 2024/1619)

What is the correct calculation of loss rates for the purposes of Articles 125 para. 2 subpara. 3 and 126 para. 2 subpara. 3 CRR (as amended by regulation (EU) 2024/1623, ie. CRR III)?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2024_7190
  • Topic: Credit risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 23/10/2024

Regulatory Reporting treatment in COREP of credit risk exposures linked to participated loans

Should exposures linked to loans participated in by other parties and de-recognised under IFRS 9 3.2.5 be reported as ORIGINAL EXPOSURE PRE CONVERSION FACTORS and mitigated by the amount received as the price paid for the participation or shall de-recognition allow the institutions to report ORIGINAL EXPOSURE PRE CONVERSION FACTORS equal to zero. 

  • 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)
  • ID: 2024_7019
  • Topic: Credit risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 16/10/2024

Regulatory Reporting treatment in COREP of credit risk exposures linked to participated loans

Should exposures linked to loans participated in by other parties and de-recognised under IFRS 9 3.2.5 be reported as ORIGINAL EXPOSURE PRE CONVERSION FACTORS and mitigated by the amount received as the price paid for the participation or shall de-recognition allow the institutions to report ORIGINAL EXPOSURE PRE CONVERSION FACTORS equal to zero. 

  • 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)
  • ID: 2024_7014
  • Topic: Credit risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 16/10/2024

Counting of days past due in factoring arrangements.

As for non-recourse factoring, is it correct to start the counting of days past due based on the payment schedule defined or implied in the contractual terms with the client (i.e., the party from which the factor purchases the receivables)?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: EBA/GL/2016/07 - Guidelines on the application of the definition of default under Article 178 CRR
  • ID: 2024_7108
  • Topic: Credit risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 30/09/2024