- Question ID
-
2019_4668
- Legal act
- Directive 2013/36/EU (CRD)
- Topic
- Supervisory reporting - Supervisory Benchmarking
- Article
-
78
- COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs/Recommendations
- Draft ITS on Supervisory Reporting of Institutions (for benchmarking the internal approaches)
- Article/Paragraph
-
Annex 4 - 190
- Name of institution / submitter
-
CBI
- Country of incorporation / residence
-
Ireland
- Type of submitter
-
Competent authority
- Subject matter
-
Default Rate calculation
- Question
-
As part of the implementation of IFRS9 on the 1st of Jan 2018 banks may have also implemented a new Definition of Default. A new definition could result in a large uplift in default stock. However, by virtue of the way that new defaults are captured in COREP, the impact of this is that ‘New Defaults’ for the year could be artifically inflated by this stock adjustment due to the newly implemented definition. This inflated default rate is not representative of real ‘New Defaults’ in the year. Should default rate be reported in the data submission as reported in COREP or should the default rate by adjusted to mitigate the effects of the implementation of the new definition of default (i.e. by removing the stock adjustment facilities from the ‘New Defaults’ population and from the start of year performing population and calculate what we believe is the real 1 year default rate)? If no adjustment is made, this will distort default rate values.
- Background on the question
-
Changes to a bank's definition of default with the implementation of IFRS9 standards.
- Submission date
- Rejected publishing date
-
- Rationale for rejection
-
Please note that as part of adjustments to the Single Rulebook Q&A process, agreed by the EBA and the European Commission, it has been decided to reject outstanding questions submitted before 1 January 2020, when the Q&A process was updated as part of the last ESAs Review. In particular, the question that you have submitted has now regrettably been rejected and will not be addressed.
If you believe your question would still benefit from clarification, you are invited to resubmit your question, adapting it to reflect any legislative, regulatory or other relevant developments that may have occurred since the initial date of submission. The EBA will aim to address resubmitted questions as a matter of priority. When considering to resubmit, you are kindly requested to observe the updated admissibility criteria agreed in the context of the adjustment of the Q&A process, available in the Additional background and guidance for asking questions. We hope for your understanding.
For further information please refer to the press release and the updated Q&A page.
- Status
-
Rejected question