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

Excess General Credit Risk Adjustments - Standardised Approach (SA)

Can institutions use the excess of SA general credit risk adjustments over the 1.25% cap to reduce SA exposure value under own funds requirements, or reductions to SA original exposure value are just limited to specific credit risk adjustments? If so, where should the excess of general provisions, not considered as Tier 2 due to the 1.25% cap, be deducted (i.e. Retail class)?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) No 183/2014 - RTS for the calculation of specific and general credit risk adjustments
  • ID: 2014_1199
  • Topic: Own funds
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 12/12/2014

Requisito minimo Basilea 1 / Basel 1 minimum requirement

L'art. 500, comma 1 b) del regolamento 575/2013 richiede che i Fondi Propri (Common Equity Tier 1 + Additional Tier1 + Tier 2) siano sempre pari o superiori all'80% del Requisiti Patrimoniali Minimi Basilea 1 (REQBIS1). Inoltre, l'art 500 comma 4, richiede che i Fondi Propri siano integralmente corretti in modo da riflettere il differente trattamento delle perdite attese ed inattese ( Shortfall IRB , Excess IRB) , ma non indica una modalità di calcolo. Si richiede se l'approccio seguente sia corretto: 80% * REQBIS1 >= (Common Equity Tier 1 + Additional Tier1 + Tier2) + |Shortfall IRB| - |Excess IRB|. EN TRANSLATION Article 500(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 requires that own funds (Common Equity Tier 1 + Additional Tier 1 + Tier 2) are at all times more than or equal to 80% of the minimum capital requirements of Basel I (REQBIS1). In addition, Article 500(4) requires that own funds shall be fully adjusted to reflect the separate treatments of expected loss and unexpected loss (Shortfall IRB, Excess IRB), but does not indicate a method of calculation. Is the following approach correct? 80% * REQBIS1 <= (Common Equity Tier 1 + Additional Tier1 + Tier2) + |Shortfall IRB| - |Excess IRB|.

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2014_1030
  • Topic: Own funds
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 14/11/2014

Minority interests

Article 81(1) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR) defines minority interests which are part of CET-1 instruments where the sum of share premium accounts related to those instruments, retained earnings and other reserves are noted. On the other hand the other comprehensive income defined in Article 26(1)(d) of CRR is not noted in Article 81(1). Further, Article 84(1)(a) refers to the CET-1 capital of the respective subsidiary which means for us the other comprehensive income is part of the calculation. How does other comprehensive income have to be treated in case of calculation of the minority interests?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2013_487
  • Topic: Own funds
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 07/11/2014

In the case of a repurchase of CET 1 instruments, AT 1 instruments, or T 2 instruments for market making purposes, competent authorities may give their permission in advance to reducing own funds for a certain predetermined amount.

Would such a frame given in advance to reduce own funds for a certain predetermined amount for market making purposes result in a deduction from own funds at the time when permission is given or would a deduction from own funds be made at the time when the actual repurchase of capital instruments takes place? It should be noted that the question being posed is linked to the situation where a permission is given in advance to repurchase own capital instrument for market making purposes. The question being posed is not linked to a situation where a permission is given in advance to repurchase own capital instrument in order to reduce own funds on a permanently basis.

  • 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
  • ID: 2014_1352
  • Topic: Own funds
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 31/10/2014

Additional Tier 1 and Tier 2

Should the Additional Tier 1, Tier 1 ,Tier 2 and own funds stemming from undertakings of third countries outside Europe and subject to local requirements equivalent to those requirements under Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR) and Directive (EU) 2013/36 (CRD), be included in the consolidated own funds?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2013_620
  • Topic: Own funds
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 31/10/2014

Grandfathering of own funds instruments

Is buying back parts of an issued Tier 1 instrument that do not meet the requirements of Article 53 in Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR) but are eligible for grandfathering possible, or would it make the remaining outstanding amount disqualified for grandfathering? This question is similar to Question 2013_18, but keeps the contract of the instrument unchanged.

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2014_1253
  • Topic: Own funds
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 24/10/2014

Application of Article 52 of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR) at consolidated level

What is the treatment at consolidated level of AT1 instruments issued by a third country subsidiary where the 5.125% CET1 conversion/write down trigger that refers only to the subsidiary CET1 ratio? To the effect of this calculation, which definition should be used, the one in the home country law or the one of the host country law?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2013_385
  • Topic: Own funds
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 24/10/2014

Maturity matching

Articles 45(a), 59(a), 69(a) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR) each include a condition that “the maturity of the short position matches the maturity of the long position or has a residual maturity of at least one year”, in order for the short position to be recognized for the calculation of the net long position. Please confirm that maturities are deemed to match for the purposes of these provisions where the maturity of the short position is greater than the maturity of the long position. Where the maturity of the short is greater than the maturity of the long the institution will only ever be left with a net short position (economically a forward starting short), all things being equal, and should not therefore have to take a deduction.

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2013_252
  • Topic: Own funds
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 10/10/2014

Exemptions from deduction for CET1 items

In Article 48(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR) it states: 'where an institution has a significant investment in a financial sector entity, the direct, indirect and synthetic holdings of that institution of the CET1 instruments of those entities that in aggregate are equal to or less than 10% of the CET1 items of the instritution calculated after applying the following:' Question: When making the comparison between the amount of investment and CET1 of the reporting institution, does that comparison refer to the aggregate amount of all significant investments in all financial sector entities OR the comparison should be made on an individual entity basis?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2013_221
  • Topic: Own funds
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 26/09/2014

Own funds deduction (granted subordinated loan)

According to Directive 2006/48/EC regarding own funds deduction, a subordinated loan granted by institution ‘A’ to institution ‘B’ in which institution ‘A’ has a significant investments has to be deducted from institution ‘A’s own funds (in 50% from Tier1 and in 50% from Tier2). Simultaneously a received subordinated loan is treated as component of Tier2 of institution ‘B’. In Regulation (EU) No. 575/2013 (CRR) there is no clear information regarding deducting such an instrument from own funds. In the light of the above, should a granted subordinated loan be treated as Tier2 deduction - according to the Article 66 of CRR? If not, how should such an instrument be treated?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2013_182
  • Topic: Own funds
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 26/09/2014

Eligibility of subordinated loans for classification as Tier 2 instruments when the rules governing their issue contemplate an obligation of the issuer to repurchase a percentage of them (eligibility limited to the amount of subordinated loans not subject to such repurchase obligation).

Pursuant to the combined application of articles 63 letter k) and 66 letter a) it is correct that a clause – also included in the rules governing the issue of subordinated loans – according to which an issuer is obliged to repurchase a specified amount of subordinated loans does not prevent from classifying such financial instruments as Tier 2 instruments if, in compliance with article 66 letter a), the percentage of subordinated loans that shall be repurchased by the issuer is deducted from Tier 2 items? In other words, a subordinated loans can be classified as Tier 2 instruments if the provisions governing their issue contemplate the undertaking of the issuer to repurchase a specified percentage of the issued subordinated loans provided that - in compliance with article 66 letter a) of CRR - such percentage is deducted from Tier 2 items? The undertaking of the issuer to repurchase part of subordinated loans deriving from the rules governing the issue of such subordinated loans can be considered as a repurchase “contractual obligation” and as a consequence may it fall within one of the cases contemplated under the provisions of article 66 letter a) of CRR?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2014_1226
  • Topic: Own funds
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 29/08/2014

Own Funds - Subordinated loans as Tier 2 instruments

Our interpretation of Article 63 (g) of the Capital Requirements Regulation (Regulation 575/2013 is that subordinated loans which are perpetual (i.e. do not have a maturity date) would also qualify as Tier 2 instruments under article 63 (g) of the CRR, given that the original maturity would exceed five years (i.e. it would be for an indefinite period). Do you agree with our interpretation? Or is it only subordinated loans with a fixed redemption date (and whose original maturity is of at least five years) which should be recognised as Tier 2 instruments?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2014_1220
  • Topic: Own funds
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 29/08/2014

Holding in an undertaking that is neither a financial sector entity nor outside the financial sector

According to Article 89 (1) of the CRR, a holding in an undertaking that is not a financial sector entity, carrying on certain ancillary activities (for which guidelines are pending to be issued by the EBA), shall not be treated as a qualifying holding outside the financial sector. In addition, the aforementioned holding does not seem to be captured neither by the deductions from eligible capital items (Articles 36, 56, 66) since relevant deductions relate only to holdings in financial sector entities. Therefore, shall a holding in an undertaking that is not a financial sector entity, carrying on certain ancillary activities, be treated as a holding in a financial sector entity or as an exposure which should be risk weighted?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2013_630
  • Topic: Own funds
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 22/08/2014

Groups including an investment firm referred to in Article 95(1) of the CRR controlled by a financial holding company or mixed financial holding company

How shall the own funds requirements be calculated for a group including an investment firm referred to in Article 95(1) controlled by a financial holding company or mixed financial holding company (and no credit institutions)?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2014_1105
  • Topic: Own funds
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 01/08/2014

Definition of a financial institution

Following the corrigendum of November 30 2013, the definition of a “financial sector entity” (FSE) was modified, however, the definition of a “financial institution” (FI) remained unchanged. We seek clarification for the following two main issues: 1) Clarification is sought on whether all “undertakings other than institutions, the principal activity of which is to acquire holdings” – irrespective of whether the holdings in question relate to undertakings in- or outside of the financial sector – qualify as a financial institution (FI) (and accordingly as a financial sector entity (FSE) pursuant to Article 4(1)(27) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)) for prudential consolidation purposes and also for purposes of capital deductions for investments in FSEs. 2) As the CRR does not give a definition of what “principal activity” means in relation to FI, there is room for interpretation leading to divergent treatment across Member States – in particular, where a bank owns shares in a holding company that owns a non-financial group (i.e. a group that does not undertake an activity under Annex 1 of Directive 2013/36/EU (CRD)). We seek clarification on whether an undertaking’s principal activity (e.g. to acquire holdings) needs to be determined on an individual basis (i.e. also in the case of holding companies) or whether it can be determined on the basis of its consolidated situation (i.e. including the holding company plus its non-financial subsidiaries and holdings) and by taking into account all relevant qualitative and quantitative criteria (e.g. proportion of assets, of profits and of capital resulting from the acquisition of holdings versus operating activities, including activities listed in Annex I to CRD; human resources deployed; etc) on group level.

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2014_857
  • Topic: Own funds
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 18/07/2014

Application transitional provisions: Deduction half from Tier 1 and half from Tier 2

The residual amount of specific items (e.g. point (d) of Article 36(1) CRR) shall be deducted half from Tier 1 items and half from Tier 2 items during transitional provisions (see for example 472 (6) and (11) CRR). Please specify the calculation logic to be considered by CRR users.

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2014_986
  • Topic: Own funds
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 11/07/2014

Calculation of the threshold deductions (from CET1) during the transitional period

In calculating the threshold deductions from Common Equity Tier 1 during the transitional period [Article 470] should the following items be fully or partially deducted from Common Equity Tier 1 according to the national discretion phase-in and/or filter? (i.e. should the “transitional period threshold” be exactly equal to the “full application threshold” or the former should be determined considering the national discretions phase-in/filter effects). More specifically: - Unrealized losses measured at fair value: in countries where national discretion rules provide [Article 467(2)] for a filter to not include in any element of own funds unrealised gains or losses on exposures to central governments classified in the “Available for Sale” category of EU-endorsed IAS 39, the Common Equity Tier 1 considered for the calculation of the threshold deductions during transitional period should be determined with or without those specific unrealized losses measured at fair value? - Loss carry forward: in countries where national discretion rules provide for a phasing-in of loss carry forward deductions (deferred tax assets that rely on future profitability and do not arise from temporary differences) [Article 469 (1)], the Common Equity Tier 1 considered for the calculation of the threshold deductions during transitional period should be determined by subtracting all the loss carry forward or just the applicable percentage determined by the national authority? - Shortfall of expected losses to provision: in countries where national discretion rules provide for a phasing-in of shortfall of expected losses to provision deductions (negative amounts resulting from the calculation of expected loss amounts for IRB institutions) [Article 469 (1)], the Common Equity Tier 1 considered for the calculation of the threshold deductions during transitional period should be determined by subtracting all the shortfall of expected losses to provision or just the applicable percentage determined by the national authority?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2014_842
  • Topic: Own funds
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 11/07/2014

Own funds - Prudential Filters

Regarding the calculation of the prudential filters defined in Article 32 and 33 of Regulation (EU) No. 575/2013 (CRR) it is not clear if such filters shall be considered net or gross of the related tax effects. It seems reasonable to consider the filters net of tax effects. This will be consistent with the aim of such filters to exclude from Common Equity Tier 1 any increase in the institution's equity due to securitised assets and changes in its own credit risk, which are registered in the accounting framework net of tax effects.

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2014_720
  • Topic: Own funds
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 04/07/2014

Tier 2 instruments

In question 2013_31 the EBA clarified that non-step-up legacy Tier 1 instruments could be eligible, for the amounts exceeding the grandfathering limits, as fully eligible Tier 2 instruments with no time limit and independently of the frequency of calls, if conditions set in Article 63 are met. Article 63 (j) states that such Tier 2 instruments may be called where conditions in article 77 are met. Could the EBA confirm that article 77 would apply to such legacy non step Tier 1 bonds potentially fully eligible as Tier 2 and would effectively impose a constraint on the bank, so that the bank does not need to have a contractual call provision in the non-step-up legacy Tier 1 bond that states that the call can only be exercised with the approval of the regulatory authority to get this bond approved as Tier 2 ?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2013_544
  • Topic: Own funds
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 04/07/2014