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

Disclosure on the basis of consolidated situation of EU parent financial holding company

According to Article 13(2) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR), institutions controlled by an EU parent financial holding company shall comply with the obligations laid down in Part Eight on the basis of the consolidated situation of that financial holding company. In the case where a parent financial holding company has control over two separate institutions in different member states (without any equity holdings between these two institutions), are both of these institutions obliged to disclose information laid down in Part Eight on the basis of consolidated situation of the parent financial holding company? If yes, is there possibility that one of aforementioned institutions can “outsource” disclosure obligations on the basis of consolidated situation of the parent financial holding company to the other?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2014_1502
  • Topic: Transparency and Pillar 3
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 24/04/2015

Removal of Senior Management

We would like clarification on Article 28 of Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD) envisaging the possibility to remove the senior management and also with regard to individuals. This seems the same power that is already envisaged in Article 27(1)(d) providing for the removal of managers that are unfit to perform their duties albeit linked to a different trigger; therefore different triggers could end up with the same early intervention measures.

  • Legal act: Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2015_1862
  • Topic: Early intervention
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 17/04/2015

Solvency in the context of Article 32(4)(d)

What is a solvent institution in the context of Article 32(4)(d) of Directive 2014/59/EU(BRRD)?

  • Legal act: Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2015_1777
  • Topic: Resolution objectives and triggers
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 17/04/2015

Definition of the exposure portfolio for which permanent partial use of standardised approach can be applied for by a credit institution using the IRB approach

Can an IRB credit institution have the standardised approach applied to type of clients to whom the IRB approach is being used? I.e. if the standardised approach is approved for a specific portfolio of exposures, can this portfolio be defined by the type of client only or may it also be defined by the type of business?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2014_1678
  • Topic: Credit risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 10/04/2015

Disclosure requirement on individual basis

What is the connection between the provisions of Article 13 and Article 433 of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)? When shall the institutions disclose all the information required by Part Eight and on what condition could the limited disclosure requirement be applied on individual basis?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2014_1379
  • Topic: Transparency and Pillar 3
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 27/03/2015

Scaling factor for IRBA securitisations with 1250% risk weight under the Ratings Based Method

Does an institution have to multiply the risk-weighted exposure amount of a banking book IRBA securitisation with a 1250% risk weight under the Ratings Based Method with the scaling factor of 1.06?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2014_1179
  • Topic: Securitisation and Covered Bonds
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 27/03/2015

Consideration from residual values in the LCR calculation

As significant inflows from residual values of large portfolios of leased cars are not regulated within Part 6 of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR) how may institutions who professionally manage such portfolios take those values into account?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/61 - DR with regard to liquidity coverage requirement
  • ID: 2013_191
  • Topic: Liquidity risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 27/03/2015

Error in validation v0623_m (C.21.00 – MKR SA EQU)

Please confirm whether v0623_m is erroneous (refer to background on question for further detail) and if so, what the correct validation should be.

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Draft ITS on Supervisory Reporting of Institutions
  • ID: 2014_1374
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - COREP (incl. IP Losses)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 27/03/2015

Scope for probation period

Paragraph 176 defines the criteria to discontinue forbearance classification. According to paragraph 176 (b) "...a minimum 2 year probation period has passed from the date the forborne exposure was considered as performing". According to Annex II “EBA ITS 2013 03 Annex I (Annex I ITS FBE NPE Amemdments Annex III ITS reporting IFRS templates)” paragraph 176 (b) is only applicable to table 19 column 50 (of which: Performing forborne exposures under probation). Does this mean that the 2 year probation period is only required for exposures which are reported in column 50 – i.e. exposures with forbearance measures which have been reclassified out of the non-performing forborne exposure columns (see paragraph 180)?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Draft ITS on Supervisory Reporting of Institutions
  • ID: 2014_878
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - FINREP (incl. FB&NPE)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 27/03/2015

Clarification of EBA answer published for Q&A 2014_1000

Q&A 2014_1000 states that there are only two accepted ways in FINREP to report interest income and expenses from financial instruments held for trading, interest income and expenses (“clean price”) or as part of the gains and losses from these assets (“dirty price”), and that for economic hedge there is the possibility to report the amounts separately as financial income or expenses.How should this answer be understood in the case of credit institutions applying “dirty price convention”? The possibility to report the amounts separately as interest income or expenses (mentioned in the last sentence of the answer) envisages only the items “Interest income. Financial assets held for trading” and “Interest expenses. Financial liabilities held for trading”?

  • 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: 2015_1878
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - FINREP (incl. FB&NPE)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 27/03/2015

Inclusion of consolidated current and year-end profits in Common Equity Tier 1 Capital

According to Articles 18 and 19 of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR), institutions have to carry out a prudential consolidation. The scope of entities included in prudential consolidation can differ from the scope of full financial consolidation. For the purposes of meeting the requirements of Article 26(2) of the CRR, should the current as well as year-end profits resulting from the prudential consolidation also be verified by persons independent of the institution that are responsible for the auditing of the accounts of that institution? Is the General Meeting of Shareholders obliged to confirm the year-end profit for the Group prudentially consolidated, in addition to the year-end profit for the Group financially consolidated?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2014_1221
  • Topic: Own funds
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 20/03/2015

Validation rule v1384_m

With reference to Question ID 2013_345. Here you defined that the accounting of the impact of foreign currency translation (gain or loss) is included in row 190 ("Other Increase or Decrease in equity") and in column 050 ("Accumulated other comprehensive income"). Validation rule v1384_m defines that: sum({F 46.00, r200, ({c050}, {c100})}) is on par with {F 03.00, r360,c010}. One part of F 03.00, r360, c010 is the position: F 03.00, r150, c010 "Foreign currency translation" (Sum of r160 & r170). So, if we see that correctly, the impact of foreign currency translation would be part of {F 03.00, r360,c010} but not part of sum({F 46.00, r200, ({c050}, {c100})}). Consequence is that is not possible that validation rule v1384_m succeeds.

  • 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: 2014_1529
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - FINREP (incl. FB&NPE)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 13/03/2015

Large Exposures - maturity buckets

Is it possible to report negative amounts in some maturity buckets of the exposure in LE4 and LE5 templates? According to the validation rules, every column in template LE4 and LE5 should be larger than or equal to zero.

  • 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: 2014_1455
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - Large Exposures
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 13/03/2015

The approach that AMA credit institutions should use when determining the relevant indicator in order to fill in C 16.00 – Operational risk template.

Which is the approach that AMA credit institutions should use when computing the relevant indicator that should be reported in line 130 columns 010-030 of the C 16.00 – Operational risk template?

  • 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: 2014_1448
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - COREP (incl. IP Losses)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 13/03/2015

Reporting of 10 largest exposures to institutions (correct counting in a case where 2 clients in a group of connected clients are institutions)

How should an institution count "top 10 exposures to institutions" in a case of an exposure to a group of connected clients in which an institution is a parent and there are at least 2 institutions in this group? a) As 1 (of 10) exposure to institutions – because a group of connected clients counts as one exposure when counting top 10 (no matter how many institutions there are in this group) b) As 2 (of 10) exposures to institutions - because there are two institutions in the group of connected clients with a parent institution.

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Draft ITS on Supervisory Reporting of Institutions
  • ID: 2014_1366
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - Large Exposures
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 13/03/2015

Table 11.1 - notional amount of derivatives used in two hedge relationshops (fair value and cash flow hedges)

Reporting of notional amount of derivative in more than one hedge relationship: If a derivative (e.g. cross currency swap) is used in two hedging relationships (fair value hedge and cash flow hedge), how should the notional amount of the cross currency swap be reported in Table 11.1? Should the notional of the derivative be reported: a) only once- allocated to one hedge relationship b) reported two times (double reporting)- in both hedge relationship types c) allocated and reported in both hedge relatioship types

  • 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: 2014_944
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - FINREP (incl. FB&NPE)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 13/03/2015

Scope of deposit monopoly

According to Article 9(1) of Directive 2013/36/EU (CRD), only credit institutions can carry on the business of taking deposits or other repayable funds from the "public". Will the operation of a group account arrangement within an industrial group - which, inter alia, requires a subsidiary to deposit funds with its parent company - breach the deposit monopoly in Article 9(1) of the CRD? The purpose of such a deposit requirement is generally to optimise the liquidity management within the group. The arrangement only applies to subsidiaries within the group.

  • Legal act: Directive 2013/36/EU (CRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2014_1626
  • Topic: Other issues
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 13/03/2015

Leasing: Residual value risk

In the calculation of the exposure value for residual value risk of leased assets, is the "residual value" that has to be multiplied with 1/t (a) the residual value on the date of calculation / the reporting date or (b) the estimated residual value at the end of the lease term?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2014_1241
  • Topic: Credit risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 06/03/2015

Handling of unrealised gains/losses in Own Funds and Exposures

Does unrealised gains/losses refer to all gains and losses for financial instruments accounted at fair value which occured life to date or only unrealised gains/losses of the current year? Will unrealised gaines and losses despite being deducted from own funds be still part of the exposure? How should the position "Losses for the current financial year" be calculated? Without taking into account unrealised gains/losses?

  • 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: 2014_716
  • Topic: Own funds
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 06/03/2015