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

The treatment of Physical Stock balances

The ITS states firms should report the name of the top ten issuers/counterparties of unencumbered assets or undrawn committed liquidity lines granted to the institution shall be recorded in column 010 in a descending fashion.-       If a firm holds gold or other commodity stocks, does column 010 (counterparty name) need to be populated?-       Should all physical stock balances be reported on one line? 

  • 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Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) No 680/2014 - ITS on supervisory reporting of institutions (repealed)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: 2016_2742
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - Liquidity (LCR, NSFR, AMM)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 12/01/2018

Can the same issuer / counterparty appear more than once in the top 10 of template C 71.00 based on currency?

The ITS states firms should report the name of the top ten issuers/counterparties of unencumbered assets or undrawn committed liquidity lines granted to the institution shall be recorded in column 010 in a descending fashion. The ITS also requires a currency to be assigned to the Issuers/counterparties. If you hold assets from a counterparty that are issued in different currencies do you report the counterparty more than once? Or do you report the currency of the largest proportion of the total.

  • 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: 2016_2741
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - Liquidity (LCR, NSFR, AMM)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 02/03/2018

LCR treatment of cash pooling services

Due to limitations on the withdrawal of deposits, should individual deposits covered by a single cash pooling agreement be treated as individual deposits to which the outflow rates specified in Article 28 of the Delegated Regulation 2015/61 apply, or rather as a new type of product that would be covered by Article 23 of the Delegated Regulation? Alternatively, could inflows and outflows from cash pooling services be treated as interdependent inflows and outflows as per Article 26 of the Delegated Regulation? Or could the individual positive and negative balances covered by a single cash pooling agreement be considered on a net basis in order to determine the applicable outflows or inflows?

  • 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: 2016_2740
  • Topic: Liquidity risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 22/09/2017

Treatment of exposures to non-EU equivalent investment firms, non-EU equivalent credit institutions and non-EU equivalent exchanges.

1. With reference to EBA Q&A 677, what is the regulatory basis/rationale in your decision to treat a non-EU equivalent third country exposure to recognised exchange as an exposure to a corporate? Please reference the CRR/ Single RuleBook in your response.2. Does the treatment describer in Q&A 677 or non-EU equivalent recognised exchanges also apply to exposures to non-EU equivalent investment firms and non-EU equivalent credit institutions so that they will also be treated as exposures to corporates? Please reference the CRR/ Single RuleBook in your response.3. Should these exposures be reported (C07 CRSA) in the exposure classes Institutions or Corporates?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2016_2739
  • Topic: Credit risk
  • Date of submission:

Format of column 020 (exposure class) in Template 103 of Annex I

Regarding the EBA Benchmarking Exercise, in Annex I of the ITS some of the 18High Default Portfolios' are defined covering two exposure classes (Retail - Secured by real estate SME ; Retail - Other SME). In template C 103 column 020 the exposure class is to be reported. The given data point model does not include a value that combines these two exposure classes.

  • Legal act: Directive 2013/36/EU (CRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Draft ITS on Supervisory Reporting of Institutions (for benchmarking the internal approaches)
  • ID: 2016_2738
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - Supervisory Benchmarking
  • Date of submission:

Consideration of collateral in the potential future credit exposure

We seek clarification regarding the potential future credit exposure referred to in Article 274(2) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR) for all contracts included in a netting agreement. Should the collateral (given or received) be considered in the denominator of NGR? Is the proposed calculation of RC gross correct?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2016_2735
  • Topic: Market risk
  • Date of submission:

Validation rules v2817_m & v2823_m between the Finrep conso & AE-CON conso reportings

We have 2 validation rules v2817_m & v2823_m that can't be solved between the Finrep conso & AE-CON conso reportings.For the Debt securities sum({F 32.01, r040, (c010, c060)}) = sum({F 01.01, c010, (r080, r094, r120, r160, r173, r177, r190, r220, r232, r236)}) [v2817_m] checks the total of debt securities in the Finrep with total of debt securities reported in AE F32.01  There are additional checks on details;For Central govs:if {F 00.01, r010,c010} = [IFRS] then sum({F 32.01, r070, (c010, c060)}) = {F 04.01, r080,c010} + {F 04.02, r080,c010} + {F 04.03, r080,c030} + sum({F 04.04, c060, (r030, r170)}) [v2818_m]For Financial corporations:if {F 00.01, r010,c010} = [IFRS] then sum({F 32.01, r080, (c010, c060)}) = sum({F 04.01, c010, (r090-100)}) + sum({F 04.02, c010, (r090-100)}) + sum({F 04.03, c030, (r090-100)}) + sum({F 04.04, c060, (r040-050, r180-190)}) [v2819_m]For corporations:if {F 00.01, r010,c010} = [IFRS] then sum({F 32.01, r090, (c010, c060)}) = {F 04.01, r110,c010} + {F 04.02, r110,c010} + {F 04.03, r110,c030} + sum({F 04.04, c060, (r060, r200)}) [v2820_m] In the Finrep report the covered bonds & asset backed securities are reported in 1 of the 3 above categories while in the Asset encumbrance tables these types of securities are part of a separate category. Those rules doesn't allow Banks to report anything in the AE for covered bonds and asset backed securities …Other assets sum({F 32.01, r120, (c010, c060)}) = sum({F 01.01, c010, (r020, r060, r092, r240-260, r290, r320-330, r360-370)}) [v2823_m] doesn't contain PPE and goodwill. Then total of assets in asset encumbrance can't be reconciled with total asset in the Finrep.  We considered the following check as a control that both amounts are more or less aligned: {F 36.01.c, r230,c180} ≡ {F 01.01, r380,c010}

  • 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: 2016_2732
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - FINREP (incl. FB&NPE)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 07/04/2017

Classification of SME/Retail Corporates as 'Retail Deposits'

To be eligible for Article 153(4) CRR, do firms need to have externally verified annual sales numbers, and if so how frequently should firms assess eligibility?

  • 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: 2016_2731
  • Topic: Liquidity risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 09/12/2016

General principles governing resolution

BRRD Article 34.1.b. states that "creditors of the institution under resolution bear losses after the shareholders in accordance with the order of priority of their claims under normal insolvency proceedings, save as expressly provided otherwise in this Directive". I have two questions : Does the fact that "creditors of the institution under resolution bear losses [...] accordance with the order of priority of their claims under normal insolvency proceedings save as expressly provided otherwise in this Directive" means that creditors with the same ranking under insolvency be treated the same way under the bail-in, bridge bank or sale of business tools except if the BRRD explicitely excludes one specific liability from the application of the considered resolution tool or does the provision "save as expressly provided otherwise in this Directive" means that if the BRRD allows for a transfer / bail-in of "all or any liabilities" then similar liabilities can be treated differently ? Does the principle according to which "creditors of the institution under resolution bear losses after the shareholders" also applies to a bridge bank created under BRRD rules and to which further resolution tools, including possibly bail-in, are applied or does that apply only to the "initial" institution or until the bridge bank is not a bridge bank anymore ?

  • Legal act: Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2016_2728
  • Topic: Resolution tools and powers
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 11/02/2022

Including in the LCR calculation deposits from this category with residual maturities longer than 30 days

Should banks include in the LCR calculation deposits from this category with residual maturities longer than 30 days? Should outflow rate (40%) be applied to all deposits from this category or only to deposits with residual maturities shorter than 30 days?

  • 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: 2016_2727
  • Topic: Liquidity risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 09/12/2016

Monitoring and evaluation of mortgages in cases of portfolio-wholesale transactions

Is it possible to assign the preferential risk weight of 35% according to Article 125 (1) (a) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR) to exposures that have been purchased at a wholesale price based on a) samples as to whether the conditions laid down in Art 208 and 229 CRR are fulfilled and b) a warranty guaranteeing full compensation in case any of these exposures default?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2016_2726
  • Topic: Credit risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 17/03/2017

Application of exemption from monthly reporting frequency for AMML templates

Does the exemption from monthly reporting as mentioned in Article 16b(2) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/313, refer to the remittance frequency only or also to the reference dates/periods to be reported on?

  • 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: 2016_2725
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - Liquidity (LCR, NSFR, AMM)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 10/06/2016

Legal reference to Article 39 of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR) in row 020 ‘Deferred tax assets that do not rely on future profitability’ in template C 04.00 of Annex II of Regulation (EU) 680/2014 (ITS on supervisory reporting),.

Is the legal reference to Article 39 CRR of row 020 in template C04.00 in Annex II of ITS on supervisory reporting correct?If yes, the name of the row 020 in template C04.00 should be amended according to the headline of Art. 39 of CRR and two sub-items 1.1.1 and 1.1.2 should be introduced which cover and discern the items in para. 1 and para. 2 of this Article.If not, the legal references of row 020 in template C04.00 should refer to Art. 39 (2) of CRR, only. In addition a new row in template C04.00 (independent from item 1 ‘total deferred tax assets’ and item 2 ‘Total deferred tax liabilities’) should be added in order to capture the information of Art. 39 (1) CRR

  • 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: 2016_2724
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - COREP (incl. IP Losses)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 03/02/2017

Interaction between Articles 37(2) and 59(3)

Articles 37(2) and 59(3) of Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD) appear to be incompatible.  Article 37(2) suggests that creditors bearing losses is an additional condition for the write-down in Article 59. Without this condition being met (for instance when resolution involves the sale of the whole bank to a third party), should the capital instruments be written down?  However, Article 59(3) requires the write-down of relevant capital instruments in all cases where a resolution tool is used.  Does the Commission consider that the mandatory requirement in Article 59 should be subject to the condition in 37(2) or not? Should the mandatory requirement in Article 59 BRRD be subject to the condition in 37(2) BRRD?

  • Legal act: Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2016_2720
  • Topic: Resolution tools and powers
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 21/01/2022

Providing IGFS pursuant to Article 19(3)

It is our understanding that the support which is provided without the existence of prior Intra Group Financial Support (IGFS) agreement still must meet all other conditions set by the Chapter III of Title II of Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD) (i.e. the chapter which regulates Intra Group Financial Support). Providing IGFS pursuant to Article 19(3) is only possible if, inter alia: 22 conditions set by Article 23 BRRD are met (including the link to article 19, i.e. that each party must be acting in its own best interest); and 22 providing of such financing is notified to the supervisory authority and approved by that authority as required by Article 25. Can this be clarified? Providing IGFS without the prior IGFS agreement could mean that Articles 20, 21 and 22 BRRD would be circumvented and therefore e.g. shareholders (including minority shareholders) would lose entirely the safeguard which is embedded in Article 21 BRRD. Can it be also clarified if it is therefore necessary to apply Articles 20, 21 and 22 to the contract which would be concluded between the IGFS provider and IGFS receiver pursuant to Article 19(3).

  • Legal act: Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2016_2718
  • Topic: Intra-group financial support
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 13/05/2016

Instruments representing interests in shares or other instruments of ownership

Do separately transferable rights fall under the definition of instruments of ownership as defined in Article 2(1)(61) of Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD)?

  • Legal act: Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2016_2717
  • Topic: Other topics
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 21/01/2022

Validation rule v4134_m

According to us the validation rule v4134_m is currently not correct or complete. It compares the rows 010 and 020 (DGS covered and uncovered) from table P02.01 with rows 020, 060 and 120 from table P01.02. It however, does not include the amounts in row 180 in table P01.02 (debt securities issued) although those can also be covered by a DGS (at least in Belgium).

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: EBA/GL/2014/04 - Guidelines on harmonised definitions and templates for funding plans of credit institutions - repealed by EBA/GL/2019/05
  • ID: 2016_2714
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - Funding Plans
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 03/02/2017

Classifications of loans to SPVs as to SME

How should the repayment of loans to SPV's (classified as SME) be considered for the purpose of Article 501 of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)? Should the original exposure amount be taken into account? 

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2016_2711
  • Topic: Credit risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 11/11/2016

Hedging derivatives in country splits of FINREP

Please confirm if hedging derivatives should be reported in the country split forms of FINREP (e.g. 20.04 (assets) and 20.06 (liabilities)) or only trading derivatives should be shown.

  • 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: 2016_2710
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - FINREP (incl. FB&NPE)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 20/01/2022

Use of deposit guarantee scheme

Should Article 109 (1) (b) BRRD be read without the part "in proportion to the losses suffered by creditors with the same level of priority under the national law governing normal insolvency proceedings" in case there are no creditors sharing the priority rank with DGS in national law? If so, does this mean that if any tool other than the bail-in tool is applied, DGS must, in such case, always cover the amount up to the amount of losses it would have had to bear had the institution been wound up under normal insolvency proceedings without the need that other creditors (e.g. eligible depositors) cover such losses before DGS does?

  • Legal act: Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2016_2707
  • Topic: Resolution financing arrangements
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 11/02/2022