Single Rulebook Q&A

Question ID: 2017_3627
Legal act : Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR) as amended
Topic : Supervisory reporting
Article: 99
Paragraph:
Subparagraph:
COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Draft ITS on Supervisory Reporting of Institutions
Article/Paragraph : Data Point Model 2.7.0.1 C66.01, C67.00, C70.00
Name of institution / submitter: Kelemen Zoltan
Country of incorporation / residence: Romania
Type of submitter: Individual
Subject matter : DPM 2.7.0.1 has not been fully aligned with 2017/2114
Question:

There shouldn't be inconsistencies between total and significant currency templates regarding general metrics - the only difference should be that significant currency templates should include (CUS:CU) [Currency with significant liabilities] and (CCA:CA) [Currency conversion approach metrics].

Currently there are the following inconsistencies:

  1. C 66.01.w/ C 66.01.x/ C 66.01.y is missing (CCA:CA) [Currency conversion approach] - (CA:x1) [Expressed in currency of denomination (not converted to reporting currency)] metric
  2. C 66.01.a vs C 66.01.w are inconsistent on (CAL:AP) [Calculation method] and (MCY:MC) [Main category] for certain rows
  3. C 66.01.b vs C66.01.x are inconsistent on (LIQ:LQ) [General liquidity requirements], (CPC:CT) [Counterparty sector of the collateral] and (MCY:MC) [Main category] on certain rows
  4. C 70.00.a vs C 70.00.w are inconsistent on (MCY:MC) [Main category] on all rows
  5. C 70.00.a row 1080 is inconsistent with the rest of the report on (MCY:MC) [Main category] metric
  6. (ei359) Product type (funding) [ei:MC:MC26] is missing two possible values required by ITS - OSWF and OFP

 

Background on the question:

ITS 2017/2114 updated the templates and reporting requirement for Additional Liquidity Monitoring Metrics and data point model needs to be adjusted.

 

Date of submission: 08/12/2017
Published as Final Q&A: 06/04/2018
EBA answer:

The inconsistencies and flaws in the data point model (DPM) for template C 66.01 of Annex XXI to Regulation (EU) No 680/2014 (ITS on Supervisory Reporting), namely the inconsistencies in the modelling of tables C 66.01.a (total) and C 66.01.w (significant currencies) as described under points a), b) and c) of the question, will be eliminated in version 2.8 of the reporting framework.

The same applies for the issues raised with regard to the DPM for template C 70.00 of Annex XVIII to the ITS on Supervisory Reporting.

Where the EBA XBRL taxonomy is used to submit data to competent authorities or the EBA, the missing dimension ‘currency conversion approach’ as described under a) impacts the practical data submission.

Even though the member ‘Expressed in currency of denomination (not converted to reporting currency)’ is missing in version 2.7 of the DPM, all amounts reported in the sheets dedicated to significant currencies shall be denominated in the significant currency in question (and not be converted to the reporting currency). In this regard, filing rule 3.1 (Choice of Currency for Monetary facts) can be broken for template C 66.01 in version 2.7 of the reporting framework.

With regard to the issue raised under f), please see Q&A 2018_3653.

 

Status: Final Q&A
Permanent link: link