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

Discretionary pension benefits

According to Section 151 of the EBA Guidelines on sound remuneration policies under CRD, EBA/GL/2021/04 (“EBA Guidelines”), pension benefits included in the company’s pension scheme that are not based on performance and that are consistently granted to a category of staff should be considered as part of routine employment packages.  What is the minimum number of persons that can form a category of staff in the meaning of the aforementioned Section? For example, can the Chief Executive Officer and Deputy Chief Executive Officer of an institution together (i.e. two persons) be considered “a category of staff” in the meaning of Section 151 of the EBA Guidelines? 

  • Legal act: Directive 2013/36/EU (CRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: EBA/GL/2021/04 - Guidelines on sound remuneration policies under CRD (repealing EBA/GL/2015/22)

Discretionary pension benefits

Proportionate regular pension contributions on top of the mandatory regime are cited as an example of routine employment packages in the definitions section of the EBA Guidelines on sound remuneration policies under CRD (EBA/GL/2021/04) (“EBA Guidelines”). How large may such annual pension contributions be — whether in monetary terms or as a percentage of the staff member’s total annual remuneration — for the benefit to be considered proportionate and, provided that other criteria are met, qualify as a routine employment package (and therefore as fixed remuneration)? Does the size or other characteristics of the institution influence the assessment of whether a pension benefit is proportionate or routine? More broadly, what factors typically affect this assessment — for instance, do national industry-level remuneration benchmarks or the remuneration level within a specific institution play a role?

  • Legal act: Directive 2013/36/EU (CRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: EBA/GL/2021/04 - Guidelines on sound remuneration policies under CRD (repealing EBA/GL/2015/22)

Determination of exposure value cap for netting sets subject to a margin agreement.

Article 274(3) states "The exposure value of a netting set that is subject to a contractual margin agreement shall be capped at the exposure value of the same netting set not subject to any form of margin agreement". This wording has slightly diverged from Basel CRE52.2 which stated "The EAD for a margined netting set is capped at the EAD of the same netting set calculated on an unmargined basis".  Basel focused on applying the unmargined methodology in the wording not that it should be treated as if there were no margin agreement. This nuance in wording is leading to a misinterpretation of the CRR which is exacerbated by EBA Q&A 2023_6962 which has allowed for firms to apply SA-CCR in a manner which significantly underestimates capital requirements vs economic exposure. In situations where firms are posting excess variation margin which has a real economic credit risk to the counterparty the wording of the CRR and the Q&A implies that this can be fully disregarded from the exposure calculation. This would therefore mean that firms are able to arbitrage the capital rules and avoid capital charges by lending money to counterparties by posting it as variation margin under a CSA and then disregarding that exposure by applying the "unmargined" cap. This needs to be resolved by a clarification to the EBA Q&A to the effect that any collateral posted/received under a variation margin CSA should still be included in the exposure calculation, albeit using the unmargined rather than margined formulation to achieve the effect that the cap is designed to do per Basel CRE52.2 FAQ1.  i.e. this could easily be interpreted that if you are not subject to a margin agreement then anything which was variation margin should now just be characterized as NICA as it still economically exists as collateral. This would satisfy both the purpose of the rule and avoid the risk of understatement of capital requirements.

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

Additional liquidity outflows corresponding to collateral needs resulting from the impact of an adverse market scenario.

Pursuant to Article 423(3) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013, institutions are to add an additional outflow corresponding to collateral needs that would result from the impact of an adverse market scenario on the institution's derivatives transactions if material.  Should this be extended to include financing transactions if an outflow corresponding to collateral needs from the impact of an adverse market scenario is deemed material by an institution?

  • 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

COREP C35 - consistency controls v23722_m_0

The control claims that for C35.02 row r0120 column 0110 should be the sum of row r0080-r0100. If the control were to apply to line 0120, then the amounts reported in line 0120 columns 0010 to 0070 would not be included in the total of column 0110, which is inconsistent.

  • 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

error in taxonomy

in COREP_OF template C_08.01.C cells r0070 c0130 and r0180 c130 seem to be common facts which in my opinion shouldn't be the case  how do we proceed from here?

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

Transfer of banking business – presentation of transaction in FINREP movements tables

An application for approval of the legal merger of Bank A with Bank B has been submitted to the Central Bank of Cyprus. The legal merger will be completed in two steps, (i) the transfer of banking business of Bank B to Bank A via a transfer of business agreement, (ii) the merger of the two entities via a scheme of reorganisation. Following step (i) of the merger, Bank B will not maintain any activities or deposits and it will surrender its banking license. As such it will cease to be a credit institution and will temporarily obtain ~36% of Bank A through the transfer of business to Bank A (subject to regulatory approvals). The said legal merger is expected to be effective from 1 July 2025 onwards. The first FINREP report that will be prepared for the “merged” entity will be for reference date 30/09/2025. Given the transaction described above, how should we approach the FINREP tables that show movements (i.e. tables F12.01, F12.02, F18.01, F24.01, F24.02, F25.01& F 25.03)? In our view, the possible options are as follows: (i) Opening balances comprise of the sum of the opening balances of both entities (prior to the transaction) as at 01/01/2025. Additions/disposals/other movements during the reference period are again the sum of the additions/disposals/other movements of the two entities. As such the transfer of balances from Bank B to Bank A will not be explicitly shown. (ii) Amounts transferred from Bank B to Bank A form part of the inflows/additions of the “merged” entity, meaning the opening balances on the movements tables present the figures as presented by Bank A in its current reporting.  (iii) Opening balances will be shown as nil and all will be shown as “Inflows”, as if a new entity is set up.

  • 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

C 25.01 - CREDIT VALUATION ADJUSTMENT RISK (CVA) - Template Dimensions - Row 0130 / Column 0050

C 25.01 Data point intersecting Row 0130 (“Total non-centrally cleared SFTs that are fair-valued for accounting purposes, excluding exempted transactions” and Column 0050 (“Simplified treatment for derivative positions of CIU”) – we do not believe that the template dimensions are correct whereby SFTs are subset of derivatives.

  • 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)

C 02.00 - OWN FUNDS REQUIREMENTS (CA2) - Scope of Row 0690

Template C 02.00, row 690 et seq.: according to the mapping tool for CRR3_step1 provided within the consultation on public disclosure (EBA/CP/2023/38) this row is mapped to the template OV1, row 1 “credit risk”. To our understanding additional “other risk exposure amounts” reported in row 0690 et seq. could arise from all kinds of risk categories and are not limited to credit risk. More guidance about what is to be reported in row 0690 et. seq. is needed, especially what is to be reported in row 0760. Should this row be used for mandatory requirements by competent authorities? Should this row be used for risk exposure amounts which could by assigned to a risk category like credit risk or market risk?

  • 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)

C 02.00 - OWN FUNDS REQUIREMENTS (CA2) - CoRep S-TREA Allocation in Col 0020

C 02.00 – Row 690/ Col 0020 (Other RWA under S-TREA): If the firm were back testing any models that identified a shortfall, would this necessarily result in the equivalent Fully Standardised RWA needing to be computed, given that the fully standardised position would be driven by rule-based criteria, so in essence captured in the appropriate rows before Row 690 (risk types) already? In addition, for any regulator driven add-ons, again assume the same would be applied.

  • 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)

Whether the derogation under Article 119 (5) of CRR can be applied in the context of Article 395(1) of CRR

According to article 119 (5) of CRR, exposures to financial institutions shall be treated as exposures to institutions when calculating risk weighted assets for credit risk. Is article 119(5) applicable for the purpose of calculating large exposure limits in accordance with Article 395 of CRR? 

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

Validation rules taxonomy V4.0 C_08.01.a

Does the validation rule v23372_m should be applied to column 0250?

  • 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_10.00

The formulae seems irrelevant

  • 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_10.00

The formulae of the control seems irrelevant

  • 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_10.00

The formulae of the control seems irrelevant

  • 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_10.00

The formuale of the control seems irrelevant

  • 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_10.00

The formulae of the control v23054_m seems irrelevant

  • 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_10.00

The formulae of the control v23053_m seems irrelevant

  • 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_10.00

The formulae of the control v23052_m seems incoherent

  • 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_08.01.a,C_08.02,C_09.02

The EBA Validation rules taxonomy v7551_m 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