List of Q&As

Exit Criteria NPE

With regards to the EBA Implementing Technical Standard and specifically to the NPE exit criteria we would like to ask for your advice on how to handle the following case: Customer A is a performing exposure. Account 3 presents 91 dpd and as a result the whole customer is classified as NPE. Account 1 and 2 are classified as such due to contagion. Customer A - Performing exposure Account Balance % on total Days past due NPE Account 1 50 5% 0 50 Account 2 100 10% 0 100 Account 3 850 85% 91 850 1.000 100% 1.000 On the other hand Customer A is now a non performing exposure. It presents arrears over 90 dpd in an immaterial account i.e. account which is < 20% of the total customer balances. Customer A - Non performing exposure Account Balance % on total Days past due Performing - 1st option Performing - 2nd option Account 1 50 5% 91 0 0 Account 2 100 10% 0 0 100 Account 3 850 85% 0 0 850 1.000 100% 0 950 The question is should we upgrade Accounts 2 and 3 into performing, leaving Account 1 as an NPE or the whole exposure retated to the customer must remain as NPE? Please always assume that the customer is not impaired and no concerns regarding the full repayment of the debt exists. Based on paragraph 156 of the EBA ITS, the first option is valid, however this is not in line with the NPE entry criteria. In our opinion the second option is the correct one.  

Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR) as amended

COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) No 680/2014 - ITS on supervisory reporting of institutions (as amended)

ID: 2015_2378| Topic: Supervisory reporting - FINREP (incl. FB&NPE)| Date of submission: 07/10/2015

Retained Earnings in COREP/FINREP

I kindly require some clarification regarding the Retained Earnings amount which should be reported in F01.03 r190, c010. From my understanding and as per validation rule v3467_i, {F 01.03, r190 , c010}=={F 46.00, r210 , c060}, the Retained Earnings figure which should be reported in F 01.03 should not include Profit or Loss Attributable to Owners of the Parent (eligible and non-eligible profit or loss for the year) as the latter is to be reported in F 01.03 r250, c010. Conversely, Retained Earnings reported in COREP C 01.00 r130, c010, contains Previous Years Retained Earnings (r140) and Profit or Loss Attributable to Owners of the Parent (r160). In this regard, could you please confirm, or otherwise, that F 01.03 r190, c010 should not be equal to C 01.00 r130, c010? Kindly note that no guidance is provided in the EBA FINREP instructions.

Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR) as amended

COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable

ID: 2015_2300| Topic: Supervisory reporting - COREP (incl. IP Losses)| Date of submission: 15/09/2015

FinRep Table 2: Interest income & Expense: Derivatives – Hedge accounting, interest rate risk

How should interest income & interest expense on derivatives (hedge accounting) be presented in Table 2 ? (i) Linked basis: Reported in Interest Income (row 070) if the derivative is hedging an asset item and Reported in Interest Expense (row 130) if the derivative is hedging a liablity item OR (ii) Gross basis: Hedge accounting derivatives resulting in Interest Income should be reported in row 070 and hedge accounting derivatives resulting in Interest Expense should be reported in row 130.

Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR) as amended

COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) No 680/2014 - ITS on supervisory reporting of institutions (as amended)

ID: 2015_2284| Topic: Supervisory reporting - FINREP (incl. FB&NPE)| Date of submission: 09/09/2015

defining a concession

Our questions refers to the border case, where a bank modifies terms and conditions in favour of a debtor who is in financial difficulties, but where - at the same time - the new terms and conditions are still less favourable or equal to the standard terms and conditions of the bank for comparable debtors. The matter might become clearer through a specific example: A debtor of a performing loan is in financial difficulties (let's say 25 days past due). Due to the existing financial problems the bank reduces the interest rate to a rate which is still above the standard interest rate for debtors with a similar risk profile of the bank. The bank has no doubt about the debtor being able to pay it's debt. Is this measure to be considered a forborne measurement? Paragraph 163 lays down, that forbearance measures consist of concessions towards a debtor that is experiencing or about to experience difficulties in meeting its financial commitments (“financial difficulties”), i.e. it states two conditions for a forbearance: a) a concession has taken place b) the concession refers to a debtor in financial difficulties There is no doubt, that the debtor in the above mentioned example is in financial difficulties, but is the above stated measure also a concession? paragraph 165 says: 165. Evidence of a concession includes the following: (a) a difference in favour of the debtor between the modified terms of the contract and the previous terms of the contract; (b) inclusion in a modified contract of more favourable terms than other debtors with a similar risk profile could have obtained from the same institution at that time. Our example meets only condition a) not condition b). This may lead to the conclusion that it is not a concession and therefore the above stated case does not refer to a forbearance measure. Paragraph 164 on the other hand lays down "...that would not have been granted had the debtor not been experiencing financial difficulties". If we view this statement individually, we may come to the conclusion that a concession has taken place; on the other hand it is somewhat contradictory to 163 and 165, from where one may deduct that a concession is a separately defined component of a forbearance measure. If we interpret this statement in the light of paragraph 165 b), i.e. that terms and conditions should not be more favourable than those applied to other comparable debtors the measure may not be a forbearance measure.

Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR) as amended

COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) No 680/2014 - ITS on supervisory reporting of institutions (as amended)

ID: 2015_2231| Topic: Supervisory reporting - FINREP (incl. FB&NPE)| Date of submission: 19/08/2015

Reporting classification of exposures to regional governments and local authorities and public sector entities

For the purposes of populating C 07.00 and C 09.01 CoRep returns, should exposures to a regional government/local authority covered under Article 115(4) CRR or a public sector entity covered under Article 116(4) CRR be categorised for reporting as regional government/local authority and public sector entity exposures respectively (with column 240 reported as appropriate), or should they both be categorised as central government exposures? If reported as exposures to central government in C 07.00 and C 09.01 then for the purposes of populating the LE templates (C 27.00 etc) should the exposure be reported as one to the central government itself or to the specific named regional government/local authority, or public sector entity to which the exposure is incurred?

Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR) as amended

COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) No 680/2014 - ITS on supervisory reporting of institutions (as amended)

ID: 2017_3603| Topic: Supervisory reporting - COREP (incl. IP Losses)| Date of submission: 24/11/2017

Reportiong of past due exposures

How to determine when an exposure is past due? In Legal acts there are two different explanations. 1. According to Annex V. Part 2, paragraph 48 Assets qualify as past due when counterparties have failed to make a payment when contractually due. It is understood that any overdue payment shall be taken into account (including penalties). 2. According to EBA/ITS/2013/03/rev1, paragraph 150 For the purpose of template 18, an exposure is “past-due” when any amount of principal, interest or fee has not been paid at the date it was due (excluding penalties).

Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR) as amended

COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) No 680/2014 - ITS on supervisory reporting of institutions (as amended)

ID: 2015_2137| Topic: Supervisory reporting - FINREP (incl. FB&NPE)| Date of submission: 17/07/2015

C 14.00 (SEC DETAILS) - column 050

Column 050 of C 14.00 – Accounting Treatment: Is this field also relevant for sponsor positions? What should be reported here for synthetic and traditional originator positions?

Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR) as amended

COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) No 680/2014 - ITS on supervisory reporting of institutions (as amended)

ID: 2017_3320| Topic: Supervisory reporting - COREP (incl. IP Losses)| Date of submission: 02/06/2017

Leased assets residual value under standardised method

With regards to the risk-weighted exposure on residual value of leased assets, CRR article 134 (7) states that it shall be computed as follows: “1/t * 100 % * residual value”, where t is the greater between 1 and the nearest integer corresponding to the remaining maturity of the lease. The institution's understanding of the aforementioned CRR reference is that the Initial Exposure shall correspond to the residual value of the leased assets and that the EAD value shall be applied a 1/t discounted factor. According to the institution, the treatment does not seem to fit the Corep logics nor its structure since it raised the same blocking errors as those referred to in item 1) [submitter probably refers to Q 3064 and v0010_h, v0306_m, v0307_m, v0308_m, v0312_m]. In order to bypass the blocking errors, we have made the decision to align the EAD values with their respective Initial Exposure amounts.

Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR) as amended

COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) No 680/2014 - ITS on supervisory reporting of institutions (as amended)

ID: 2016_3072| Topic: Supervisory reporting - COREP (incl. IP Losses)| Date of submission: 22/12/2016

Scope of C40 LR1 Row 090

Is the scope of LR1, row 090 (‘Other assets’) limited to off-balance sheet assets; or should the scope given for row 090 in Annex XI take precedence over the restrictions in Paragraph 21 of Annex XI? And if the latter, please confirm if each of the following assets must be included in LR1 Row 090: i) Trading book positions; ii) Unsettled trades. iii) Default fund contributions.

Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR) as amended

COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) No 680/2014 - ITS on supervisory reporting of institutions (as amended)

ID: 2016_2659| Topic: Supervisory reporting - Leverage ratio| Date of submission: 04/03/2016

Other Asset

Should all the accounting based off-settings (here including for example tax assets/ liabilities off-setting) be grossed-up on Other Asset of LR exposure?

Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR) as amended

COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) No 680/2014 - ITS on supervisory reporting of institutions (as amended)

ID: 2015_1856| Topic: Supervisory reporting - Leverage ratio| Date of submission: 26/02/2015

Definition of financial corporates for Leverage Ratio and FinRepITS

Is the definition of financial corporates really different in the Leverage Ratio and FinRep ITS?

Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR) as amended

COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) No 680/2014 - ITS on supervisory reporting of institutions (as amended)

ID: 2014_1618| Topic: Supervisory reporting - Leverage ratio| Date of submission: 14/11/2014

Original Exposure value of Securities Financing Transactions calculated under Article 220 of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)

There appear to be differing interpretations within the industry on how to disclose the Original Exposure value in column 040 of template C 28.00. Some firms are reporting the fully adjusted exposure value as calculated under Article 220 of the CRR (E*). Other firms are including the gross asset value in Column 040 and making an adjustment for the associated collateral in column 300, thereby splitting the SFT transaction into its constituent parts. Can the EBA advise which is the correct treatment?

Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR) as amended

COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) No 1423/2013 - ITS on disclosure of own funds requirements

ID: 2017_3590| Topic: Supervisory reporting - Large Exposures| Date of submission: 09/11/2017

How to fill out the COREP C 28.00 for an exposure secured by an insurance wrapper?

Article 390(7) CRR and RTS 1187/2014 specify how to determine the overall exposure to a client or a group of connected clients in respect of transactions with underlying assets. According to Article 200 CRR, insurance policies pledged to the lending institutions are eligible as Other Funded Credit Protection. As per Article 232 CRR, for banks under the Standardised Approach, the risk-weight of the original debtor is substituted with a different risk-weight ranging from 20% to 150%. Under the Standardised Approach, where an exposure is secured by a pledged insurance policy in the form of an insurance wrapper (life insurance policy ‘wrapped’ around the policy owner’s investment portfolio), how should the exposure and the collateral be reported in COREP C 28.00? Is there a difference between the Financial Collateral Simple Method and the Financial Collateral Comprehensive Method?

Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR) as amended

COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) No 680/2014 - ITS on supervisory reporting of institutions (as amended)

ID: 2017_3307| Topic: Supervisory reporting - Large Exposures| Date of submission: 25/05/2017

Treatment of cash at bank under the large exposures regime

According to EBA Question ID 2013_412, "cash" positions do not fall under the scope of the large exposures regime and do not need to be reported. 1)      Could you please confirm whether cash at bank deposited by an investment firm fall under the large exposures regime? 2)      Could you please also provide us with the relevant reference in the CRR which states that cash positions are excluded from the large exposures regime? 3)      When you are referring to "cash" positions do you include both cash held at hand and at bank? If indeed cash deposits are considered in the calculation of large exposures, where these should be reported in the C 28.00 and C 29.00 templates?

Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR) as amended

COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) No 680/2014 - ITS on supervisory reporting of institutions (as amended)

ID: 2014_1598| Topic: Supervisory reporting - Large Exposures| Date of submission: 05/11/2014

Definition of Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) as Financial Institution

Are Special Purpose Vehicles (SPV) which are used for of Asset Backed Securities (ABS) transactions "Financial Institutions" according to Art. 4 (27) CRR? If so, shall the Special Purpose Vehicles Reported as the 10 largest exposures on a consolidated basis to unregulated financial entities according to Art. 394 (2) CRR?

Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR) as amended

COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) No 680/2014 - ITS on supervisory reporting of institutions (as amended)

ID: 2014_1530| Topic: Supervisory reporting - Large Exposures| Date of submission: 09/10/2014

Large Exposures Reporting of Volatility Haircut applied to Exposure Value

The instructions for template C 28.00, column 300 and C 29.00, column 310 i.e. “(-) Funded credit protection other than substitution effect”, are currently unclear how volatility haircuts that are applied to the exposure value under CRM are reported. Some vendors have suggested that the CRM volatility haircut applied to the exposure value should be included as a positive value (+), while the volatility haircut applied to the collateral should be included as a negative value (-) within template C 28.00, column 300 and template C 29.00, column 310. This is the only way to satisfy the following validation rules: v0653_m {c330} = {c210} + {c240} + {c250} + {c260} + {c270} + {c280} + {c290} + {c300} + {c310} + {c320} v1683_m {c340} = {c220} + {c250} + {c260} + {c270} + {c280} + {c290} + {c300} + {c310} + {c320} + {c330} The current text used for “(-) Funded credit protection other than substitution effect”, in templates C 28.00 and C 29.00 simply states that "the institution shall report the amounts of funded credit protection, as defined in Article 4(58) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013, that are deducted from the exposure value due to the application of Article 401 of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013". There is no reference to the volatility haircut applied to the exposure value under CRM. Therefore, can we suggest that the instructions to template C 28.00, column 300 and template C 29.00, column 310 are amended to provide clarification on how the volatility haircut applied to the exposure value under CRM is incorporated into the large exposures templates C 28.00 and C 29.00

Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR) as amended

COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Draft ITS on Supervisory Reporting of Institutions

ID: 2014_1327| Topic: Supervisory reporting - Other| Date of submission: 27/06/2014

Clarification on whether a particular business model type constitutes the provision of an account information service as defined by Article 4 (16) of PSD2

Does a business model where the provider offers a service sending the account information to third parties (different from the payment service user)  (detail provided in the background) constitute the provision of an account information service, particularly as it is not proposed that the account information obtained will be given directly to the Payment Service User?

Legal act: Directive 2015/2366/EU (PSD2)

COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable

ID: 2018_4098| Topic: Authorisation and registration| Date of submission: 11/07/2018

Validation rule e4898_n

Is the validation rule e4898_n of ITS consistent with the Article 134(7) of the CRR?

Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR) as amended

COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) No 680/2014 - ITS on supervisory reporting of institutions (as amended)

ID: 2017_3548| Topic: Supervisory reporting - COREP (incl. IP Losses)| Date of submission: 09/10/2017

Originator obligations

What are the obligations of an originator who purchases third party's exposures and subsequently securitises them, in order to meet the requirements set out in Article 9 of the Securitisation Regulation?

Legal act: Regulation (EU) 2017/2402 (SecReg)

COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable

ID: 2018_4368| Topic: Provisions applicable to all securitisations| Date of submission: 09/11/2018

Reporting of template C71.00 by significant currency

How is template C71.00 (concentration of counterbalancing capacity by counterparty) to be completed in the context of the reporting by significant currency (as referred to in Article 415(2) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR))? Specifically, are exposures in a significant currency going to rise in the ranking when being reported by significant currency (given that items denominated in a different currency will be disregarded in the separate currency reporting)?

Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR) as amended

COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) No 680/2014 - ITS on supervisory reporting of institutions (as amended)

ID: 2019_4550| Topic: Supervisory reporting - COREP (incl. IP Losses)| Date of submission: 14/02/2019