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

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 exposureAccount Balance % on total Days past due NPEAccount 1 50 5% 0 50Account 2 100 10% 0 100Account 3 850 85% 91 8501.000 100% 1.000On 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 exposureAccount Balance % on total Days past due Performing - 1st option Performing - 2nd optionAccount 1 50 5% 91 0 0Account 2 100 10% 0 0 100Account 3 850 85% 0 0 8501.000 100% 0 950The 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)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) No 680/2014 - ITS on supervisory reporting of institutions (repealed)
  • ID: 2015_2378
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - FINREP (incl. FB&NPE)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 04/10/2019

Interaction between benchmarking and additional capital requirements under Article 458 of CRR

For the benchmarking exercise for credit risk, the ITS templates request banks to report risk parameters (such as PD, LGD) and capital requirements (RWA) for the low and high default portfolio. However for some portfolios in scope of these exercises NCAs can have imposed additional capital requirements for macroprudential or systemic risk at the level of the member state (Article 458 CRR). For instance, in Belgium the NCA has imposed a 5% additional risk weight add-on (for targeting asset bubbles in the residential property sector). These RWAs relate directly to exposure in scope of the benchmarking exercise (in this example HDP template C 103.00), but under supervisory reporting the resulting RWA is not reported in C 08.01 / C 08.02 but in C 02.00 as an OTHER RISK EXPOSURE AMOUNTS (row 1.8.2). It is unclear whether additional capital requirements under Article 458 CRR, when specifically linked to a portfolio in scope of the ITS on benchmarking, should or should not be included in our submission of benchmarking templates.

  • Legal act: Directive 2013/36/EU (CRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) 2016/2070 - ITS on Supervisory Reporting (for benchmarking the internal approaches) (as amended)
  • ID: 2015_2377
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - Supervisory Benchmarking
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 24/03/2017

Exposure secured by immovable property vs. secured by mortgages on immovable property

CRR requires the treatment of exposures secured by mortgages on residential property under the Standardised Approach (Article 124, 125, 126).Also CRR requires the treatment of exposures secured by immovable property collateral (Article 154(3)), and exposures secured by residential / commercial property (Article 164(4)), both under the IRB approach.(Regardless of the residential/commercial distinction), does the different formulation:- “mortgage on immovable property” (Article 124),- “exposure secured by immovable property collateral” (Article 154(3)),- “exposures secured by [residential / commercial] property” Article 164(4))refer to different kind of exposures?Q&A 1214 suggests that the scope is the same for all the three articles above.If however they are not the same, what sort of exposures are part of each group (and not part of another)? 

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2015_2376
  • Topic: Credit risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 06/01/2017

FINREP: COUNTERPARTY BREAKDOWN: HOUSEHOLDS

Can Personal Investment Companies (PIC) be seen as households in the Finrep counterparty breakdown? Personal investment company (PIC) means an undertaking or a trust whose owner or beneficial owner, respectively, is a natural person or a group of closely related natural persons, which was set up with the sole purpose of managing the wealth of the owners and which does not carry out any other commerical, industrial or professional activity.

  • 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: 2015_2368
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - FINREP (incl. FB&NPE)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 12/07/2019

Application of Article 11 CRR in terms of determining the scope of application for multi-national banking groups

Could you clarify whether there is a difference in treatment concerning the scope of application at national level between a) groups which have a parent institution at its top and b) groups which have a parent financial holding company at its top?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2015_2366
  • Topic: Other issues
  • Date of submission:

Cadrage de l'état C67 (ALMM) sur la concentration du financement par contrepartie avec Finrep / Aligning the C 67.00 template (ALMM) on the concentration of funding by counterparty with FINREP

French question: Nous interrogeons sur la pertinence de l'instruction en annexe XXI chapitre 1.2 § 2 (c) dans lequel il est indiqué que la somme des section 1 et 2 de l'état C67 doit être égale au total des passifs de l'établissement tel que déclaré dans FINREP. Est-il cohérent d'établir un cadrage entre FINREP et l'état C67 - section 1 (r010) + 2 (r120) - alors que : 1- Finrep est établi sur un périmètre différent de celui du risque de liquidité (Prudentiel / Liquidité), cf. article 18 du réglement 575/2013 (CRR) 2- Finrep est établi selon une fréquence trimestrielle alors que les états ALMM sont prévus à fréquence mensuelle 3- Les délais de remise des états ALMM sont plus courts (J+30 calendaires puis J+15 calendaires) que ceux des états Finrep (J+30 ouvrés en moyenne, fixé par l'ABE). 4- Comment envisager dans ce contexte le calcul des durées moyennes pondérées initiales et résiduelles sur les autres passifs (section 2 - r120) ? English question: We would like to question the relevance of the instruction in Annex XXI, section 1.2(2)(c) which indicates that the totals of sections 1 and 2 of C 67.00 should equal an institution's total liabilities as reported in FINREP. Is it consistent to make a link between FINREP and the C 67.00 template – section 1 (r010) + 2 (r120) – when: 1- FINREP is based on a different scope from that of liquidity risk (prudential/liquidity), cf. Article 18 of Regulation 575/2013 (CRR). 2- FINREP is done on a quarterly basis while the ALMM templates have a monthly frequency. 3- The deadlines for submitting the ALMM templates are shorter (t+30 calendar days then t+15 calendar days) than those of the FINREP templates (t+30 working days on average, set by the EBA). 4- In this context, how should the weighted average initial and residual maturities of other liabilities be calculated (section 2 – r120)?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Draft ITS on Supervisory Reporting of Institutions
  • ID: 2015_2365
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - Liquidity (LCR, NSFR, AMM)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 08/01/2016

Interaction of shares transfer with the resolution process

Is there a difference in process between the transfer effected under the sale of business tool and the transfer effected under the bridge institution tool, whereby the resolution entity’s shares are, first, transferred to a bridge institution and, later, to a third entity, pursuant to Article 40(6)(b) of Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD)?

  • Legal act: Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2015_2360
  • Topic: Resolution tools and powers
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 21/01/2022

Entity in resolution and purchaser not registered in the same Member State

Article 38 (7) of Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD) says that a purchaser will have the appropriate authorisation to carry out the business it acquires. In case the entity in resolution and the purchaser are not registered in the same Member State, which authority is competent to give this authorisation: the authority in the member state of the entity in resolution, or the authority in the member state of the purchaser?

  • Legal act: Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2015_2359
  • Topic: Resolution tools and powers
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 25/11/2016

Limitation of a transfer to a certain period of time

Is it possible to limit a transfer under Article 38 (6) of Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD) to a certain period of time following the initial transfer?

  • Legal act: Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2015_2358
  • Topic: Resolution tools and powers
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 16/10/2015

Supplementary transfers when using the sale of business tool

Does the power under Article 38(5) of Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD) allow the resolution authority to make supplementary transfers even when the conditions for resolution are not met anymore?

  • Legal act: Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2015_2357
  • Topic: Resolution tools and powers
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 16/12/2016

Expenses in the context of Article 37 (7)

What kind of costs does the term "expenses" in Article 37 (7) of Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD) refer to?

  • Legal act: Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2015_2356
  • Topic: Resolution tools and powers
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 16/10/2015

PD selection in case of substitution approach

In case of substitution approach application, the PD to be use (Annex IV, C103, c060), is the one of guarantor or the one of the obligor?

  • 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: 2015_2355
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - Supervisory Benchmarking
  • Date of submission:

Definition of the counterparty size in case of substitution approach application

In case of substitution approach application, for the field "size of counterparty, (Annex II, C103, c110) should we use the turnover of the guarantor or the one of the obligor?

  • 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: 2015_2354
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - Supervisory Benchmarking
  • Date of submission:

Reimbursement of shareholders and creditors

In our understanding, Articles 36(12) and 46(3) confer upon the resolution authority a mere power - not an obligation - to reimburse shareholders and creditors. If this is the case, is such power an unfettered discretion or should it be exercised under particular conditions? If the latter is correct, which conditions apply?

  • Legal act: Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2015_2351
  • Topic: Valuation
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 28/10/2016

Correct scope of clusters based on collateralisation status and collateral type

Both template C 102.00 (LDP) and template C 103.00 (HDP) include clusters based on collateralisation status and collateral type. Reference is made to c150-c210 columns of COREP template C 08.01. It remains however unclear how facilities should be treated which are only partially collateralized and/or for which there are several collateral types.Assume a facility of 100, of which 20 secured by financial collateral, 30 by real estate collateral and 50 unsecured. We see many possibilities to report such a facility in the template, either by splitting the facility over various clusters, by reporting it in full in all concerned clusters or by combinations of these two approaches.Example:1) we could use a 'splitted' approach, so    cluster unsecured  = 50,    cluster secured      = 50,                cluster secured financial collateral  = 20,                cluster secured real estate              = 302) we could keep the facility intact and always report it in full, so    cluster unsecured = 0,    cluster secured     = 100,                cluster secured financial collateral  = 100,                cluster secured real estate              = 1003) we could use a combination of the two with collateral status clusters determined 'in full' and collateral type cluster using a split approach, so    cluster unsecured = 0,    cluster secured     = 100,                cluster secured financial collateral  = 20,                cluster secured real estate              = 304)  ...?Please elaborate further on the correct treatment.

  • 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: 2015_2347
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - Supervisory Benchmarking
  • Date of submission:

‘Exposure weighted average LGD’ computation in CR GB2 report

Own funds instructions states that column ‘090 Exposure weighted average LGD (%)’ in CR GB 2 has the same definition as column 230 of CR IRB template.Column 230 of CR IRB template has the following definition:‘All the impact of CRM techniques on LGD values as specified in Part 3 Title II Chapters 3 and 4 of CRR shall be considered […].Exposure and the respective LGDs for large regulated financial sector entities and unregulated financial entities shall not be included in the calculation of column 230, they shall only be included in the calculation of column 240.’In case, only the exposure to large regulated financial sector entities would be reported in the CR GB2, which value should be reported in the column 090 of CR GB2? ‘Null’ value, zero or the LGD average of exposures to large regulated financial sector entities?

  • 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: 2015_2346
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - COREP (incl. IP Losses)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 28/07/2017

Requirements regarding „control” by the resolution authority

Are the requirements of “control” of the bridge bank (Article 40(2)(a)) and asset separation tool (Article 42(2)(a)) met if the conditions specified under Article 41(1) and Article 42(4) respectively are satisfied?

  • Legal act: Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2015_2345
  • Topic: Resolution tools and powers
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 09/12/2016

Payment of consideration in shares of a bridge institution

Is it possible to pay the consideration mentioned in Article 40 (4) of Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD) in shares of a bridge institution? Is the same possible in case the asset separation tool has been applied?

  • Legal act: Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2015_2343
  • Topic: Resolution tools and powers
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 21/01/2022

Private ownership of a bridge institution or an asset management tool

We seek clarification on Articles 40(2) and 42(2) of Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD). Can a bridge institution or an asset management tool be fully privately owned?

  • Legal act: Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2015_2342
  • Topic: Resolution tools and powers
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 23/06/2017