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

Calculation of the unmargined exposure value for a netting set with multiple margin agreement or including both transaction subject to a margin agreement and transaction not subject to a margin agreement

How to calculate the capped exposure value, i.e., the exposure value of the netting set in the event that it is not subject to any type of margin agreement, when there are multiple margin agreements applicable to this netting set or when this netting set includes both transactions subject to a margin agreement and transactions not subject to a margin agreement? For the calculation of the unmargined value, should all deals be included in a single sub-netting set (the one containing contracts not subject to margining) and not divided as required by paragraph 4 of Article 274, or should the sub-netting sets remain separate and their value be calculated as if they were unmargined?

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

Template C90.00 and C90.05

For the purpose of determining the "On- and off-balance sheet business subject to market risk" for template C90, is the netting between long and short positions in the same exact instrument allowed? 

  • 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Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) 2021/451 – ITS on supervisory reporting of institutions (repealed)

COREP C14.00, columns 0140-0225, validation rules v11650_m, v11651_m and v7347_m

Pursuant to para (a) of the definition of originator, the submitter qualifies as the sole originator as an entity which itself or through related entities, directly or indirectly, was involved in the original agreements which created the obligations of the debtors giving rise to the exposures being securitized.  The securitized exposures/obligations were not on the submitter’s balance sheet.  However, given the definition of originator (in particular para (a)) we understand that the presence of the securitized exposures/obligations on an entity’s balance sheet, is not a condition for such entity to qualify as an originator (including as the sole originator). We further understand that in the templates C14.00, the section securitized exposures, columns 0140-0225: apply to an originator of securitization positions which were securitized from such originator’s own balance sheet (‘own portfolio’); do not apply to an originator where the securitization positions were not on such originator’s own balance sheet. If our understanding is correct, please confirm that the submitter, as a sole originator which did not have the securitized exposures/obligations on its balance sheet, should not be required to populate section Securitised Exposures, columns 0140-0225?

  • 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

Deduction of participations and Corep reporting

For the deduction under article 17 (1)(e), of RTS 241/2014, what is the correct COREP row for reporting this item? Is reporting under row 0529 “CET1 capital elements or deductions – other” appropriate? 

  • 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

Definition of Subordinated Debt holdings in Finrep vs COREP under CRR3

Could you please confirm whether, following the implementation of Regulation (EU) 2024/1623 of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (Capital Requirements Regulation 3 – CRR3), institutions will be required to report subordinated debt holdings differently in FINREP and COREP.

  • 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

EBA publication of loss rates for Swiss residential and commercial property under CRR Articles 125 and 126.

Will the EBA publish loss rate data for Swiss residential and commercial property markets to enable institutions to apply preferential risk weights under Articles 125 and 126 CRR? If yes, what is the expected timeline?

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

Clarification on the relationship between Margin of Conservatism (MoC) and rating/calibration philosophy (PIT vs TTC) under EBA Guidelines on PD and LGD estimation (EBA/GL/2017/16)

According to the EBA Guidelines on PD and LGD estimation (EBA/GL/2017/16), the Margin of Conservatism (MoC) aims to address uncertainty arising from data and methodological deficiencies, changes in underwriting standards or risk appetite, and general estimation error. The Guidelines describe the three MoC categories (A, B, C) and the principles for quantification, but they do not explicitly refer to any link between MoC and the chosen rating philosophy (Point-in-Time vs Through-the-Cycle) or calibration philosophy. Could you please clarify whether the regulator expects the MoC concept to be aligned with the institution’s PIT/TTC philosophy, or whether MoC is entirely independent of the rating/calibration philosophy?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: EBA/GL/2017/16 - Guidelines on PD estimation, LGD estimation and the treatment of defaulted exposures

Template 2 - EBA validation rules v89325_m and v89326_m

The formula linked to the following rule IDs: v89325_m and v89326_m appears to be incorrect

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) 2022/2453 - ITS on ESG disclosures

Obligations in Equity exposures of Article 133 (1) (c) (i) CRR

Does the term “obligation” in Article 133 (1) (c) (i) CRR refer to the principal amount, or does it also refer to the interest payment solely? 

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

Netting of foreign exchange derivatives (as per Annex (II, a-e) of Reg. No 575/2013) in Net Stable Funding Ratio (NSFR)

What criterion should be adopted for the treatment of a foreign-exchange derivative contract included in a netting set between what reported in Article 428d(4) and in Article 428d(2) of CRR2?

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

Corporate exposures in C10.00 memorandum lines r0250 and r0260

In template C10.00, institutions that apply the IRB approach, shall break down IRB exposures by SA exposure class. This template includes the following 2 memorandum lines: r0250 Corporates - F-IRB  r0260 Corporates - A-IRB How should 'Corporates' be interpreted for these two memorandum lines? Does that relate to the volume reported on rows r0100 (Corporates - other) and r0120 (corporates - specialised lending) of template c10.00? The ITS does not clarify this. Therefore the question is whether the sum of rows r0250 and r0260 should reconcile with the sum of C10.00 rows r0100 and r0120? An alternative interpretation is that the SUM of rows r0250 and r0260 should reconcile with the sum of corporate exposures reported in the C08.01 IRB template. We feel that this alternative interpretation is not logical as it would repeat numbers already (separately) reported in C08.01 and separately identifiable, both whether it relates to 'corporates' and whether it relates to A-IRB and F-IRB is identifiable via the Z-axis. Therefore we feel that this interpretation will not add any added value. Could you please clarify to which 'Corporates' lines r0250 and r0260 refer?

  • 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

Request for Clarification on the Interpretation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1338/2001 of 28 June 2001 laying down measures necessary for the protection of the euro against counterfeiting, and Decision of the European Central Bank of 16 September 2010 on the authenticity and fitness checking and recirculation of euro banknotes (ECB/2010/14) (2010/597/EU)

we request clarification regarding the interpretation and applicability of Council Regulation (EC) No 1338/2001 of 28 June 2001 laying down measures necessary for the protection of the euro against counterfeiting. 1. Application of Article 6(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1338/2001 «Article 6(1) — Obligations of institutions involved in the processing and delivery of banknotes and coins to the public 1. Credit institutions and other payment service providers when making payments, as well as entrepreneurs involved in the processing and delivery of banknotes and coins to the public, including: — institutions whose activities involve the exchange of banknotes and coins of different currencies, such as money exchange offices, — cash carriers, — other operators, such as merchants and casinos, should also be required to check this when, among other things, they process banknotes and deliver them to the public using automated teller machines (ATMs) (banknote dispensing machines), but this obligation would only apply to such additional activities, are obliged to ensure the authenticity of euro banknotes and coins that they have received and intend to re-circulate, and to detect counterfeit banknotes and coins» The term “received banknotes” is not explicitly defined in either Regulation 1338/2001, its amendments, or ECB Decision 2010/14. In view of the above, we kindly request clarification on the following points: Can such a banknote be considered as “received” within the meaning of Article 6(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1338/2001?  Can a banknote rejected by the device be considered as “received”? Which specific European Union legislative act provides a legal definition or authoritative interpretation of the term “received banknotes”, as used in the context of the handling, processing, and authenticity verification of euro banknotes under the EU legal framework?

  • Legal act: Other
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable

Pillar 3 Template EULR2 - LRCom: Leverage ratio common disclosure (Row 24) Instruction

Pillar 3 Template EULR2 - LRCom: Leverage ratio common disclosure (Row 24) Instruction In the current instruction for Row 24, it states: “Sum of amounts in rows 7, 13, 18, 22, and EU-22k of EU LR2 – LRCom.” However, based on the latest EBA mapping table/logic, the correct reference should be: LRCom (sum of rows 7, 13, 18, 22, EU-22m). This aligns with our understanding that the correct row is EU-22m, not EU-22k. Could EBA please update the instruction accordingly?

  • 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

v6332 - Negative FV changes os hedged intems (C 32.01)

In relation to Q&A 2022_6511 where a question was raised related to validation rule v6566_s. We believe validation rule v6332_m should be deactivated for row 120.

  • 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)

Liability category of margins received

Could you please clarify if margins received, part of a repo or derivative netting agreement can always, regardless of whether the netting results in a net liability or asset position, be considered r0120 - Secured liabilities, or should be allocated to other liability categories as defined in Resolution Plans report Z02? 

  • Legal act: Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Draft ITS on the provision of information for the purpose of resolution plans

Amount to be reported as MREL eligible amount and amount qualifying as Own Funds non-CET1 instruments, taking into account phase-out as applicable

Could you please clarify whether in granular Resolution Plans reports (formerly SRB LDR) Z11.00, Z12.00, Z13.00 and Z14.00 the amount to be reported for Own Funds instruments (columns labelled Amount meeting the conditions for MREL eligibility ) and columns reporting on the Amount qualifying as Own Funds is: the carrying value + accrued interest as recommended for the measurement of non-CET1 instruments or the outstanding amount (outstanding principal + accrued interest) as mentioned for the Amount meeting the conditions for MREL eligibility?  For the columns reporting Own Funds there is no specific guidance on the amount type to be reported other than the amount of the instrument qualifying as Own Funds. 

  • Legal act: Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Draft ITS on the provision of information for the purpose of resolution plans

Classification of phishing-attacks as a reportable major ICT-related incident

Can individual phishing incidents that target the customers of a financial entity in their “private sphere” be subsumed under “compromises the security of the network and information systems” pursuant to Article 3 No. 8 of Regulation (EU) 2022/2554 and can they therefore constitute a major ICT-related incident that must be reported pursuant to Article 19 (1) of Regulation (EU) 2022/2554? 

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 2022/2554 (DORA Reg)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) 2024/1772 - RTS on the classification of ICT-related incidents and cyber threats

Finrep Validation Rules v4975_m and v6058_m6

The validation rules v4975_m and v6058_m appear to systematically fail when institutions hold loans measured at fair value through other comprehensive income (FVOCI). These rules seem not to reflect that fair value remeasurement adjustments on FVOCI loans are recognised directly in the balance sheet through equity. Could the EBA confirm whether these validation rules should exclude FVOCI instruments from their scope, or whether they will be revised to properly reflect valuation adjustments recognised in the balance sheet under IFRS 9?

  • 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

Reporting of debt securities issued but not yet paid up

What is the expected representation for a debt security issued but not yet paid up in the templates REPRICING CASH FLOWS (J05, J06 and J07)? Is the expected monetary inflow supposed to be reported and if so in which row?

  • 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)