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.

List of Q&A's

SPV repack transactions (collateral eligibility)

For recognising received financial collateral when calculating the exposure value under the counterparty credit risk (CCR) framework, does Article 207(2) CRR – which requires that the credit quality of the obligor and the value of the collateral shall not have a material positive correlation – apply?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable

SPV repack transactions

Do SPV repackaging transaction on standardised platforms incur counterparty credit risk (CCR) or is the termination scenario considered a contractual feature that only results in market risk? If these transactions are subject to counterparty credit risk, how should the value of the collateral be taken into account?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable

Disclosure on more periods in one template

In some reports of the Pillar 3 reporting obligations some cells are specifically asking for the amount of the previous periods to be declared : For instance  : Report K6000 - EU OV1 – Overview of total risk exposure amounts : Column 0020 T-1 On those reports we are having some different interpreations with some of our clients regarding what is expected to be fed in column T-1. Some of our client think that column T-1 should always refer to the end of the previous financial year, meaning that when reporting figures for Q2/Q3/Q4 2025 the figures reported in column 0020 should of report K6000 should remain unchanged and should always report the data of Q4/2024.   In our intepretation of the ITS, we understand that in case : The Entity has to report a table on a quarterly frequency in this case the T-1 figures should always reflect the figures of the previous quarter, so for closing date Q2/2025 column 020 of K6000 should be populated with figures coming from Q1 2025, so for closing date Q3/2025 column 020 of K6000 should be populated with figures coming from Q2 2025, so for closing date Q4/2025 column 020 of K6000 should be populated with figures coming from Q3 2025, The Entity has to report a table on a Yearly frequency in this case the T-1 figures should always reflect the figures of the previous year, so for closing date Q4/2025 column 020 of K6000 should be populated with figures coming from Q4 2024 Can you please indicate the correct expectation of EBA ?  

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) No 650/2014 - ITS on disclosure by competent authorities

Is the EBA mapping file for Pillar 3 template EU CMS1 correct?

Is the EBA mapping file for Pillar 3 template EU CMS1 correct disallowing amounts to be reported on column a/row 8 and requiring items that could relate to IRB approach to be reported in column b (SA)?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) 2021/637 - ITS with regard to disclosures of information referred to in Titles II and III of Part Eight CRR

Inconsistency between Annotated table CODIS Pillar III and Mapping_tool_including_step_2_tc (incl equity) + Rev 4.1 review_tc

How should we interpret and implement the differences between the Annotated table and the Mapping Tool referring to template CCR4 - K04.00?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) 2021/637 - ITS with regard to disclosures of information referred to in Titles II and III of Part Eight CRR

Pillar 3 Disclosure: Template EU CQ1: Credit quality of forborne exposures (Col e & f; R090 Loan commitments given ) - Clarification on Mapping Logic

According to the EBA mapping: (Col e & f ; R0090) for row “Loan commitments given” under impairment section are mapped to template F19, which is presented as a positive value in CR1. However, our understanding is that impairment values should be disclose as negative figures in CQ1. Please confirm whether this interpretation is correct. 

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable

Pillar 3 Disclosure: Template EU CR1: Performing and non-performing exposures and related provisions (Column g-l; R150-210 Off balance sheet exposure) - Clarification on Mapping Logic

According to the EBA mapping, columns g to l (rows R150–R210) for off-balance sheet exposures are mapped to template F18, which would be presented as a positive value in CR1. However, our understanding is that impairment values should be disclose as negative figures in CR1. Please confirm whether this interpretation is correct.  

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable

Credit institutions should not consider as outsourcing

Within Title II, Section 3, Recital 28 Guidelines on outsourcing an exemption what should not be considered an outsourcing is given. Under this exemption can we consider that purchases of goods e.g., standard software or hardware without customization or integration into critical processes, are not outsourcing? For example if the SaaS application is used solely for non-critical, non-banking functions (e.g., HR training platforms, marketing tools), and does not impact the institution’s operational resilience or critical functions, can it be treated from a bank perspective as purchase of goods that fall outside the EBA guidelines on outsourcing arrangements scope?

  • Legal act: Directive 2013/36/EU (CRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: EBA/GL/2019/02 - Guidelines on outsourcing arrangements

Clarification on Q&A 2024_7073: Treatment of two-leg derivatives with respect to rate type and currency

Example 1: Fixed IR asset changed to floating with an IRS – IRS floating receiver and fixed payer - Representation in J 05.00, J 06.00 and J 07.00   Let us consider a scenario where the fixed rate asset (hedged item) is a mortgage loan that perfectly matches, in terms of notional amount and financial characteristics, the receive leg of an interest rate swap (IRS).  According to the Q&A:  For the receive leg, the notional amount must be reported in column 0260, under rows 0140 to 0170. The weighted average yield should be reported with a positive sign in column 0300, and the corresponding repricing cash flows should be reported with a positive sign in columns 0320 to 0390, all under rows 0140 to 0170.  For the payer leg, the notional amount should not be reported. The weighted average yield must be reported with a negative sign in column 0050, and the associated repricing cash flows must be reported with a negative sign in columns 0070 to 0250, again under rows 0140 to 0170.  Could you please clarify how potential asymmetries should be addressed in cases where the notional amount of the payer leg of the IRS is not reported, which may lead to both the fixed rate exposure of the hedged item and the floating rate leg of the hedging derivative being simultaneously recognized, potentially distorting the risk exposure at the total assets level? Example 2: Floating IR liability changed to fixed with an IRS – IRS floating receiver and fixed payer - Representation in J 05.00, J 06.00 and J 07.00  Let us consider a scenario where the floating rate liability (hedged item) is a debt security that perfectly matches, in terms of notional amount and financial characteristics, the receive leg of an interest rate swap (IRS).  According to Q&A:  For the receive leg, the notional amount must be reported with a positive sign in column 0260, under rows 0140 to 0170. The weighted average yield should be reported with a negative sign in column 0300, and the corresponding repricing cash flows should be reported with a negative sign in columns 0320 to 0390, all under rows 0140 to 0170.  For the payer leg, the notional amount should not be reported. The weighted average yield must be reported with a positive sign in column 0050, and the associated repricing cash flows must be reported with a positive sign in columns 0070 to 0250, again under rows 0140 to 0170.  Could you advise on how institutions should address potential asymmetries arising in cases where the notional amount of the receive leg of the IRS is reported with a positive sign, while the notional of the payer leg is not reported (i.e., reported as zero), potentially resulting in the simultaneous recognition of both the floating rate exposure of the hedged item and the floating leg of the hedging derivative?  Example 3: Other Interest rate derivatives not designed as accounting hedges – IRS floating receiver and fixed payer - Representation in J 05.00, J 06.00 and J 07.00   Could you provide guidance on how institutions should address potential asymmetries arising in cases where only the receiver leg of an IRS transaction is reported, potentially resulting in an incomplete representation of the associated risk exposure? Example 4: Fixed USD asset changed to fixed EUR with a CCS USD fixed payer / against fixed EUR receiver - Representation in J 05.00, J 06.00 and J 07.00    In this example, we report the same observations as in Example 1, considering the fixed exposure represented in EUR and USD templates.  In addition, we would appreciate confirmation regarding the appropriate representation of the average yield. Specifically, should the yield of the payer fixed USD leg be reported under template J 05.00 in EUR, as indicated in the official Q&A, or under J 05.00 in USD?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) 2021/451 – ITS on supervisory reporting of institutions (repealed)

Annual Report to the Competent Authorities on new Arrangements for the use of ICT services

Pursuant to the provisions of Chapter V, Section I, Article 28, Paragraph 3, of the DORA Regulation, which states “Financial entities shall report at least yearly to the competent authorities on the number of new arrangements on the use of ICT services, the categories of ICT third-party service providers, the type of contractual arrangements and the ICT services and functions which are being provided.,” we kindly request clarification on whether this provision requires a separate and specific communication in addition to the Register of Information, or whether the communication of such data is already fulfilled through the annual submission of the same Register, constituting a single compliance obligation. In the event that a separate communication is required in addition to the annual submission of the Register of Information, we kindly request clarification on the meaning of the term "categories of third-party ICT service providers" as mentioned in Article 28, Paragraph 3 of the DORA Regulation.

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 2022/2554 (DORA Reg)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable

factor to apply to non performing exposures to which a risk weight is 0% in a performing situation for the purpose of calculating the amount of unsufficient coverage

is it possible to consider that the derogation applied to the part of the non-performing exposure guaranteed or counter-guaranteed by an eligible protection provider referred to in Article 201(1), points (a) to (e), the unsecured exposures to which would be assigned a risk weight of 0 % under Part Three, also applies to unsecured exposures themselves when assigned a risk weight of 0% ?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: EBA/GL/2018/06 - Guidelines on management of non-performing and forborne exposures

SOLVENCY TREATMENT: SECURITISATION POSITIONS SUBJECT TO OWN FUNDS REQUIREMENTS C14.00 Col 0060 – reporting requirement is inconsistent between the ITS and the latest version of the EBA Annotated Tables and EBA P3 mappings for templates EU-SEC1 and EU-SEC3

ANNEX II INSTRUCTIONS FOR REPORTING ON OWN FUNDS AND OWN FUNDS REQUIREMENTS C14.00 Col 0060 states the following: “Originators, only, shall report one of the following:  - Not subject to own funds requirements. - Banking book; - Trading book; - Partially in banking and trading book.” Question 1. The latest version of the EBA Annotated Tables for C14.00 col 0060 references the Role in the securitisation process = Originator, Sponsor.  This is inconsistent with the ITS, which refers to Originator securitisation exposures only.   Can we clarify whether EBA has expanded the scope of reporting for col 0060 to also include exposures where the Role in the securitisation process = Sponsor?  This is not a change that has been noted as part of CRR3 uplift requirements work. The associated EBA mapping logic for Template EU-SEC1, sections h to k, where Institution acts as sponsor for example (noted below) - the conditions are mutually exclusive, as within the current reporting process, C14.00, col 0060 is only populated in instances where the Role in the securitisation process = Originator. if(and({C 14.00, c0061} = N, {C 14.00, c0080}=A or D), {C 14.00, c0140}*{C 14.00, c0090}, if({C 14.00, c0061} ≠ N, {C 14.01, c0411})), where  {C 14.00, c0060} = Banking book,  {C 14.00, c0110} = Sponsor   Question 2. The reportable values noted above are consistent between the EBA annotated tables and the ITS, however the EBA mappings for Template EU-SEC1 and Template EU-SEC3 is limited to instances where C 14.00, c0060 = Banking book only.  Is it an intention of the EBA to only capture the banking book securitisations in these templates?  This is not in line with the scope of production P3 disclosures, which also considers values other than Banking Book.  

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Draft ITS on Supervisory Reporting of Institutions

EBA Funding Plan return - Annex 1 - 2.3.1 (P01.02) and 9.1 (P05.00)

Guidance is needed on why there is a specific AT1 issuance/maturity section under debt securities/liabilities in P01.02,r191,c010 & P05.00, r0030 & r0040, c10-40 whereas under IFRS and therefore FINREP they are included in equity. This is leading to a validation error with FINREP which we would like the EBA to consider on the most appropriate way to resolve for the completion of the Funding Plan return.

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: EBA/GL/2019/05 – Guidelines on harmonised definitions and templates for funding plans of credit institutions under Recommendation A4 of ESRB/2012/2 - repealing EBA/GL/2014/04

Pillar 3 Disclosure - EU OV1 – Row 1 ‘Credit risk (excluding CCR)’ mapping clarification

In Template EU OV1, Row 1 "Credit Risk (excluding CCR)", we observe that the current mapping includes the following components from C 02.00: {C 02.00, r0690, c0010} – Other risk exposure amounts minus {C 02.00, r0720, c0010} – Requirements for large exposures minus {C 02.00, r0755, c0010} – Additional RWEA for market risk imposed by supervisor (Art. 110) minus {C 02.00, r0770, c0010} – Additional RWEA for market risk minus {C 02.00, r0780, c0010} – Transitional RWEA for crypto assets (Art. 501d(2))   While this mapping appears to isolate the portion of "Other RWA" not related to market risk, large exposures, or crypto assets, our understanding is that the total reported in row 0690 may still include other risk exposure amounts arising from non-credit risk categories, such as CCR (e.g. RWA induced by IMM PMA). Given that Row 1 of EU OV1 is intended to reflect credit risk excluding CCR, we would like to confirm whether including the residual amount from r0690 (after the above deductions) is appropriate, or if this could lead to misclassification of non-credit risk RWA under credit risk.

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable

Structural Differences Between Annotated Table Layout and Taxonomy in GSIIDISPILLAR3 under DPM 4.1

Which representation (annotated table or taxonomy/XBRL) should be considered authoritative for defining the expected scope of data points for reporting? Should institutions follow the taxonomy-enabled structure and report values in cells that are greyed out in the annotated table, as shown in the sample XBRL file?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) No 1030/2014 - ITS on disclosure of values used to identify global systemically important institutions (as amended)

Validation rules taxonomy V4.0 C_17.01

The formulae v23510_h seems not relevant

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) 2024/3117 - ITS on supervisory reporting of institutions

Validation rules taxonomy V4.0 C_17.01

The formula of control v23509_h seems not relevant

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) 2024/3117 - ITS on supervisory reporting of institutions

Justification to consider a ‘significant penalty’ and to be excluded from the outflows

Pursuant to article 25(4)(b) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/61, does the cumulative loss of accrued interest, representing more than 50% of the total contractual interest income upon early withdrawal of term deposits (specifically those which have been active for more than 50% of their contractual term, have an original maturity longer than 30 days, and a residual maturity exceeding 30 days), constitute sufficient justification to consider this as a ‘significant penalty’ under article 25(4)paragraph (b), with the purpose of discouraging early withdrawal, and therefore allow such retail deposits (for which more  than 50% of contractual term has passed)  to be excluded from the outflows?

  • 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

EBA Mapping Tool Clarification - EU MR3

Template EU MR3 - IMA values for trading portfolios (Row 4/8/12/16) According to the disclosure instruction (Annex XXX) & Article 455, MR3 will need to include related Internal Model Market Risk elements.  However, according to the EBA defined mapping for the above rows, which is mapped to C24.00, some IM elements (e.g. RNIME number) will be missed from the disclosure  

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable

Exposures to EU exchanges

Should exposures to EU exchanges be treated as exposures to institutions, under articles 119, 120 and 121?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable