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

IIlogical validation in Annex XV

IIlogical validations in Annex XV

  • 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Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) No 680/2014 - ITS on supervisory reporting of institutions (repealed)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: 2014_809
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - Liquidity (LCR, NSFR, AMM)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 22/08/2014

Effect on the capital requirement of a guarantee where the right to call is linked to default versus another where it is linked to realised loss

Let’s take a portfolio level guarantee that is callable once losses from the exposures covered have been realised (and NOT when exposures DEFAULT); realised losses decrease the notional of the guarantee. As it can take years till losses get realised after the default event, while losses are still unrealised (but defaults have happened) the full notional is used to cover the whole portfolio. Our question is whether such a guarantee is eligible to be taken into account as unfunded credit protection and thus decrease the capital requirement of the sub-portfolio it cover?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2014_803
  • Topic: Credit risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 04/07/2014

Transfer Restrictions

With regards to transfer restrictions on liquid assets held in third countries Article 417 (b) specifically refers only to liquid assets reported under Article 416 (1)(c) only and not those reported under Articles 416 (1a), (1b) or (1d)? It would appear that transfer restriction are not considered for assets reported under 416(1)(a), (1)(b) or (1)(d). 

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2014_802
  • Topic: Liquidity risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 11/02/2022

Eligibility of pooled assets for liquidity purposes

Please provide your recommendation as to procedure for allocation of assets within collateral pools to encumbered/unencumbered for LCR/NSFR purposes

  • 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: 2014_801
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - Liquidity (LCR, NSFR, AMM)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 02/10/2015

Clarifications with respect to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No. 1423/2013 (ITS on disclosure of own funds requirments)

1) Further guidance is requested on the disclosure relating to ‘governing law of the instrument’ as securities can be issued in one country (e.g. the USA) but governed or have subordination provisions based on the law of the country in which the issuing bank resides (e.g. the UK) The 'governing law of the instrument’ is required to be populated in row 3 of Annex II. 2) More refined language is requested for the disclosure relating to ‘If convertible, specify instrument type convertible into’. Specifically clarification on whether disclosure is required for conversion within the same category of capital (e.g. securities that qualify as AT1 and can convert into preference shares that would also qualify as AT1). This is required to complete row 28 of Annex II. 3) Possible options for specifying non-compliant features should be included in the guidance thereby ensuring consistency across banks. This is required to complete row 36 of Annex II. 4) Guidance is requested on the publishing mechanism. We would like to clarify whether there is a requirement to publish on the external website or in the printed financial statements. A possible date for publishing the table would ensure consistency across banks although this disclosure may need to tie to the date of results presentation. 5) Guidance is requested to provide the expected frequency of update. When a change in security is incorporated in the table is it expected that the value change (as at the last reporting date) for all securities is reported? (expected to arise when the update frequency is semi annual or less frequent). Also guidance is requested with respect to the time line within which the schedule is required to be updated. 6) Further guidance is requested for the type of Instrument (row 7). The current guidance under Annex III indicates 'menu options to be provided to institutions by each jurisdiction...' 7) Current guidance under Annex III for row 8 indicates '...total amount of the instrument recognised in regulatory capital before transitional provisions for the relevant level of the disclosure...'. Our interpretation of the text in the law requires disclosing the value of each security in the composition of regulatory capital prior to the grandfathering cap. Our interpretation, therefore requires disclosing within row 8 the value of the security that is different from the value included in the calculation of regulatory capital (calculated post the application of the cap). This seems to be inconsistent with the purpose of EU 1423/2013 where all articles included therein are closely linked and therefore amounts disclosed in each of the schedules are expected to reconcile. Please advise if our interpretation is in line with your understanding of the regulation.

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) No 1423/2013 - ITS on disclosure of own funds requirements
  • ID: 2014_800
  • Topic: Own funds
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 28/05/2014

Netting of Perfectly Matching Contracts under the Mark-to-Market Method

In the context of the application of contractual netting under the Mark-to-Market Method outlined in Article 274 of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR), Article 298 (2) refers to ‘perfectly matching contracts’ that include “similar contracts in which a notional principal is equivalent to cash flows if the cash flows fall due on the same value date and fully in the same currency”. It is not defined in the CRR is what constitutes "similar" and whether the reference in the Article implies that perfectly matching contracts are limited to FX related contracts.

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2014_798
  • Topic: Market risk
  • Date of submission:

What is meant with 'mainly' in the definition of 'financial holding company'?

A 'financial holding company' is defined as a financial institution, the subsidiaries of which are exclusively or mainly institutions or financial institutions, at least one of such subsidiaries being an institution, and which is not a mixed financial holding company. Could you please provide more guidance on what is meant with 'mainly'?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2014_796
  • Topic: Other issues
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 21/11/2014

The use of the Collateral Simple and Comprehensive Methods under the Large Exposure regime

Does the phrase "where it is permitted to use" referred to in the third sub-paragraph of Article 403(1) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR) intend to prescribe that the treatment for collateralised exposures specified under Article 403(1)(b) is available for: • those institutions which are allowed to use both the Financial Collateral Simple and Comprehensive Methods?; or • collateral types which are eligible for both methods?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2014_793
  • Topic: Large exposures
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 20/04/2021

Securities borrowing transactions within the LCR - inflows

How should to treat potential inflows regarding an unsecured securities borrowing transaction as they are not mentioned within Article 425 (2) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR) be treated.

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2014_792
  • Topic: Liquidity risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 11/07/2014

Wrong member in the taxonomy categorization for ‘Type of risk’ dimension in column 040 of template F 13.01

In Report F 13.01 – Breakdown of loans and advances by collateral and guarantees, column 040 (Other collateralized loans – Rest) is interpreted, in the template, as being ‘Collateral other than real estate and other than Cash [Debt instruments issued]’. In this column, for dimension Main category of collateral or guarantees received, all members are being categorized as ‘Other than Real Estate’ while they should be categorized as ‘Other than Real estate, Deposits, Debt securities issued’ thus including other Deposits and Debt securities issued for collaterals other than real estate and being consistent with it’s Hierarchy for collateral received (MC22).

  • 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: 2014_789
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - FINREP (incl. FB&NPE)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 22/08/2014

Inconsistency between validation rule v0620_m from Annex XV (Validation Formulae) and the hierarchy definition for TR1 in template C 21.00

According to the Validation formulae (Annexe XV) v0620_m for COREP report C 21.00 – Market risk: Standardised Approach for position risk in equities, {r010, c060} is the total of own funds requirements for General Risk, Specific risk, Particular Approach for position risk in CIUs and Other non-delta risks for options. For ‘Type of risk’ dimension categorization in {r080,c060} - Particular Approach for position risk in CIUs, the member is ‘Market not look-through CIUs risk’. But, according to TR1 hierarchy, this member is not included in the hierarchy for ‘Equity risk’ member. This results in inconsistency between the hierarchy definition and the validation formulae specified. The numbers do not add up naturally as expected in the validation rule.

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Draft ITS on Supervisory Reporting of Institutions
  • ID: 2014_788
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - COREP (incl. IP Losses)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 23/10/2015

Large exposures - excluding exposures if fully deducted from own funds

May a credit institution exclude exposures from large exposure calculations which are fully covered by own funds (i.e. full deduction of own funds for this large exposure amount) and which are not used otherwise (e.g. for minimum capital requirements)?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2014_787
  • Topic: Large exposures
  • Date of submission:

Distinction between Securitisation and Specialised Lending Exposures

How can specialised lending schemes used to finance physical assets (such as e.g. ships, aircrafts, projects or real estate) and involving direct payment obliga-tions of different seniority owed by an SPV, be distinguished from securitisations?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2014_786
  • Topic: Securitisation and Covered Bonds
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 11/02/2022

Inflows

Article 425(8) of Regulation (EU) 575/2013 states that "institutions shall not report inflows from any new obligations entered into". Is it the case that all forward starting transactions should be excluded from the LCR, including those which produce an outflow? For instance, a bank may enter into a forward starting reverse repo trade which begins in two days time, with a maturity one month from the settlement date. In the buffer, cash will be reported, however in two days time that cash will have been lent out and a lower quality asset may have been received; the trade is in affect a downgrade which has not yet been accounted for.

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2014_784
  • Topic: Liquidity risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 11/07/2014

Repo conducted with a non-financial customer

Article 425 subparagraph 2(a) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR) states that: "Monies due from customers that are not financial customers for the purposes of principal payment shall be reduced by 50 % of their value or by the contractual commitments to those customers to extend funding, whichever is higher. This does not apply to monies due from secured lending and capital market-driven transactions as defined in point (3) of Article 192 that are collateralised by liquid assets in accordance with Article 416 as referred to in point (d) of this paragraph." As this provision refers only to secured lending conducted with liquid assets (and not non-liquid assets), it would seem to suggest that repos conducted with a non-financial customer using non-liquid assets is subject to only a 50% inflow rate (e.g. now 100%). Could the EBA please confirm the correct interpretation?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2014_783
  • Topic: Liquidity risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 25/07/2014

Outflows

Article 423 subparagraph 5(b) states that: 5. The institution shall add an additional outflow corresponding to: (b) collateral that is due to be returned to a counterparty; What is meant by “returned”? Is this intended to be “not yet posted”? Collateral which is due to be posted by the institution, but has not yet been, is not necessarily collateral which is being returned to a counterparty.

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2014_782
  • Topic: Liquidity risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 11/02/2022

Outlfows associated with shorts

Does Article 423(4) of Regulation (EU) No. 575/2013 only cover assets that the institution itself has sold short, or client short positions originated from an institution’s Prime Brokerage business, or both?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2014_781
  • Topic: Liquidity risk
  • Date of submission:

Liquidity cash-flows

Article 418(1) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR) states that: “If the institution hedges the price risk associated with an asset, it shall take into account the cash flow resulting from the potential close-out of the hedge.” Could the EBA please confirm how this should be reflected within the liquid asset reporting?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2014_779
  • Topic: Liquidity risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 25/07/2014

Maturity Buckets for LE4 and LE5- Amount to be considered.

The Annex IX with reference to LE4 and LE5 reads .... For each exposure value before application of exemptions and CRM (column 210 of LE2 template), the expected amounts maturing shall be allocated to the respective bucket. Consequently, an exposure maybe spread across different columns. Instruments which do not have a fixed maturity, like equity, shall be included in the column “undefined maturity”. Does this mean that for each exposure which qualifies for this template we consider the actual cash flow spread across the tenure till the actual maturity of the exposure? Secondly, is it expected that the total amount of exposure should match in LE4 spread across maturity buckets should match with Exposure value in LE3?

  • 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: 2014_769
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - Large Exposures
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 26/09/2014

LE2: Credit insurance allowed as CRM technique?

Our primary business is Factoring. Therefore our balance credit figures are mainly invoices / accounts receivables, which we have bought from our clients. As security / protection against credit losses we have established a credit insurance with a credit insurance company. Can we use the credit insurance ("Warenkreditversicherung") as CRM technique? Is column 290 "other commitments" in template LE2 the correct position to fill in the credit amount covered by our credit insurance contract? To our understanding "credit insurance" could be regarded as a position under item (1) k) or (2) b) iv) of CRR-Appendix I .

  • 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: 2014_768
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - Large Exposures
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 07/11/2014