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

Appropriate Risk Weight for purchased defaulted assets

Does the entering into force of the Regulation (EU) 2019/630 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 (the “Prudential Backstop Regulation”) affect the determination of which risk weight that should be applied according to Article 127 CRR when an entity subject to CRR purchases non-performing loans booked at purchase price (net book value, “NBV”), which is significantly below the loans’ gross book value (“GBV”)?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2019_4909
  • Topic: Credit risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 11/02/2022

Definition of 'carrying amount’ for the purposes of templates C60.00 and C61.00

In the guidance annexes of DPM 2.8 for C 60.00 and C 61.00 templates the reporting amount has been further specified as ‘carrying amount’ however the breakdown of the template requires the amounts to be broken down according to the actual expected payments which suggests Cashflow. The Cashflow and the Carrying value can differ significantly due to changes in market value or impairments in the case of assets. For reporting purposes of the two above mentioned reports is it expected to split the carrying value across the time buckets based on when the cashflows are expected to be paid/received or to report the carrying value according to the residual maturity of the contract?

  • 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: 2019_4908
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - Liquidity (LCR, NSFR, AMM)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 11/09/2020

Discrepencies between the "instructions" and the Data Point Model for the Maturity Ladder C66.01 COREP report

We have noted some discrepencies between the information we can find in the instructions and in the DPM. For instance, for the row 090 "1.2.1.1.1 Level 1 central bank ", the instructions for the COREP ALMM Maturity Ladder report C66.01 stipulate "The amount of cash outflows reported in item 1.2.1.1 which is collateralised by assets representing claims on or guaranteed by central banks. ", while in the sheet C66.01.a of the "Annotated Table Layout 281-COREP 2.8.1.1-Errata.xlsx" file it is specified that the central bank test must be done on the "counterparty sector" of the transaction, rather than on the "counterparty sector" of the collateral. An other example is the row 020 "1.1.1 Unsecured Bonds Due", for which the instructions do not require explicitely to exclude hybrid debt, while in the sheet C66.01.a of the "Annotated Table Layout 281-COREP 2.8.1.1-Errata.xlsx" file it is specified that the "Main Category" is "Debt securities issued. Other than Hybrid contracts". The general question is the following: when there is a discrepency between the instructions and what we can find in the DPM, is it correct to assume that the instructions do contain the correct requireement ? If not, what are the correct requirements for the above two cases?

  • 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: 2019_4907
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - Liquidity (LCR, NSFR, AMM)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 11/09/2020

Interaction between total MREL and subordinated “eight percent TLOF” requirement

Article 45b(4) requires, for GSIIs and top tier banks, that “a part of” the total MREL requirement “equal to” eight percent of total liabilities, including own funds (TLOF), subject to possible upwards or downwards adjustments, is to be met with own funds and subordinated instruments (hereafter referred as “the subordination requirement”). How does this subordination requirement and its calibration interact with the methodology set out in Article 45c for determining the total MREL requirement? If the requirement resulting from the application of the methodology set out in Article 45c happens to be lower than 8% TLOF, subject to possible upwards or downwards adjustments, is that subordination requirement capped by the total MREL requirement?

  • Legal act: Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2019_4906
  • Topic: MREL
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 11/02/2022

Calculation of the amount of holdings of own Common Equity Tier 1 instruments on the basis of the net long position

How should the condition in Article 42 a) i) “(i) the long and short positions are in the same underlying exposure and the short positions involve no counterparty risk” be applied when there are long and short positions on the same underlying reference with the same counterparty under the same master netting agreement ?Are the single net amounts fixed by such contracts to be considered rather than the gross amounts? Explanatory note: The master netting agreement we are considering complies with the conditions required under CRR (Article 206)

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2019_4904
  • Topic: Own funds
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 11/02/2022

Calculation of the amount of holdings of own Common Equity Tier 1 instruments on the basis of the net long position

Could it be assumed that short positions maintained with a Qualifying Central Counterparty do not involve counterparty risk according to Article 42 a) i) CRR and thus be netted for the purposes of the calculation of the amount of holdings of own Common Equity Tier I instruments to be deducted under point (f) of Article 36(1)?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2019_4903
  • Topic: Own funds
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 11/02/2022

Own funds instruments passed on to employees of the institution as part of their remuneration

If an authority has already granted permission in advance to buy a certain predetermined amount of shares for “discretionary trading activity over treasury shares” and those shares are the ones that are passed on to employees as part of their remuneration. Under Article 29 of Commission Delegated Regulation 241_2014 is there needed a separate permission to pass on to employees those own shares?

  • 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: 2019_4902
  • Topic: Own funds
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 11/02/2022

Minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities (MREL) - Calibration

When setting a recapitalisation amount enabling the “resolution group resulting from resolution” to meet its prudential requirements “after the implementation of the preferred resolution strategy”, should the resolution authority consider the changes resulting from the whole sequence of actions which implements the preferred resolution strategy, irrespective of the point in time when they are likely to be taken, or only changes resulting from those actions implemented after entry into the formal resolution phase (post-Failing-Or-Likely-To Fail - FOLTF)?

  • Legal act: Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2019_4901
  • Topic: MREL
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 12/03/2021

Large exposures regime for exposures treated as the exposures to institutions in accordance with Article 119(5) of CRR

Shall the exposure, that for the purpose of calculating risk weighted assets for credit risk is treated as the exposure to institution in accordance with Article 119(5) of CRR, should also be treated as the exposure to institution when calculating limits for large exposures in accordance with Article 395 of CRR?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2019_4898
  • Topic: Large exposures
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 11/02/2022

Classification of collective investment undertakings

The classification of investment funds (collective investment undertakings) in FINREP table F 1.1 is not clear as there seems to be a contradiction between the reference to IAS 32 on the one side and Annex V on the other side. Should investment funds be treated as debt or as equity?

  • 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: 2019_4894
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - FINREP (incl. FB&NPE)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 11/09/2020

Clarifications on the scope of ‘New Funding’ in C69.00

We would like to clarify two matters: 1. Whether ‘new funds’ are meant to be calculated with reference to the institution’s funding levels as a whole, or with reference to the individual depositor’s position at the reporting date. For example, Client A holds a sight deposit with Bank ABC, and transfers funds to Client B into an account held with the same bank. Should Bank ABC report a ‘nil’ balance in C69.00 given that there has been no increase in the institution’s overall level of funding? Or is some other treatment applicable in this case? 2. What would be the appropriate reporting for amounts transferred from a sight deposit account to a defined-maturity deposit pertaining to the same depositor? Given that this scenario is not addressed in the instructions, could you clarify whether such amounts should be treated as ‘rolled-over’ (and therefore within the scope of ‘new funds’ as per Annex XIX, 1.4(10))? If so, in such instances should institutions include in C69.00 the volume and spread pertaining to the new term deposit under its corresponding maturity bucket? Or is there another applicable treatment for these types of scenarios?

  • 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: 2019_4893
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - Liquidity (LCR, NSFR, AMM)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 11/09/2020

Definition of an "exposure" in C 15 instructions

We would like to clarify C 15 reporting requirements. Especially which exposures should be included here in case there is immovable property collateral.

  • 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: 2019_4892
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - COREP (incl. IP Losses)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 04/12/2020

Operational requirements for holdings of liquid assets

Can banknotes held in locations other than branches be classified as ‘coins and banknotes’ under Delegated Regulation 2015/61 and thus be eligible to be classed as Level 1 liquid assets if the operational requirements per Article 8 can be satisfied?

  • 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: 2019_4891
  • Topic: Liquidity risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 26/02/2021

Outflows from other retail deposits

Would a retail deposit account, which can be serviced by telephony as well as by internet, not trigger the “internet only” risk factor for high outflow classification?

  • 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: 2019_4890
  • Topic: Liquidity risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 26/02/2021

USA public sector entities risk weight

USA is listed by the EBA as applying supervisory and regulatory arrangements at least equivalent to those applied in the Union. However the competent authorities of this country does not require the use of ECAI ratings to assess risk weights of exposures to public sector entities. Should we nevertheless consider that this competent authority treat exposures to public sector entities in accordance with paragraph 1 or 2 of article 116, and so should we risk weight these exposures in accordance to paragraph 1 or 2?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2019_4889
  • Topic: Credit risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 11/02/2022

Collateral swaps with domestic central bank

Should collateral swaps that produce an outflow, where the counterparty is the credit institution’s domestic central bank, be subject to 0% outflow rate as per the general remarks?

  • 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: 2019_4879
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - Liquidity (LCR, NSFR, AMM)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 11/09/2020

Failed Authentication Code

Please clarify under what circumstances Article 4 Paragraph 3(a) of the Regulation (EU) 2018/389 – RTS on SCA and SC might it be impossible to apply in remote authentication where SMS based One time passwords (OTPs) are used as the authentication method.

  • Legal act: Directive 2015/2366/EU (PSD2)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) 2018/389 - RTS on strong customer authentication and secure communication
  • ID: 2019_4875
  • Topic: Strong customer authentication and common and secure communication (incl. access)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 25/09/2020

Roles that can be assigned to electronic money institutions in certificates

Please clarify which roles may be assigned to electronic money institutions (EU 2015/2366 Art 1(1) b) by qualified trust service providers (QTSPs) in the certificates. There seems to be some contradiction between EU 2015/2366 Art 11(1) and the EBA Opinion on the use of eIDAS certificates under the RTS on SCA and CSC (EBA-Op-2018-7) item 26.

  • Legal act: Directive 2015/2366/EU (PSD2)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2019_4874
  • Topic: Authorisation and registration
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 11/02/2022

Unutilised Limits of Guarantess

Are the unutilised limits of guarantees to be included in LCR {C73,r870,c010}?

  • 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: 2019_4872
  • Topic: Liquidity risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 11/02/2022