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

FINREP template F 18.00 Information on performing and non-performing exposures – applicable approaches

According to point 154 of FINREP instructions (Annex V) when exposures are assessed as non-performing two approaches (“transaction” and “debtor” approach) can be applied. In addition point 155 of Annex V specifies a threshold (20%), which shall be taken into account. 1. Shall the threshold laid down in point 155 be applicable uniformly for retail and non-retail (for example corporate) debtors? a) No. The method laid down in point 155 considers all of the debtor’s exposures as non-performing if its exposures past due by more than 90 days represent at least 20% of its all on-balance sheet exposures. In our understanding this method is stricter than the “transaction approach” (e.g. in the case of retail debtors), but it is less stricter than the “debtor approach” (e.g. in corporate exposures). According to the “debtor approach”, when a debtor has an exposure past due by more than X days, all of the exposures to this debtor shall be considered and reported as past due by more than X days regardless that its past due exposures represents less or more than 20% of all its exposures. Therefore the method laid down in point 155 is less stricter than the debtor approach and so it doesn’t have any significance in the case of those debtors which shall be assessed as NPE according to the “debtor approach” in accordance with Article 178 of CRR (for example corporate exposures). It has significance only in the case of the “transaction approach”. OR b) Yes. The 20% threshold is applicable uniformly for all debtors (retail and non-retail debtors) and therefore only those debtors’ exposures should be considered as past due more than 90 days, whom past due exposures represent at least 20% of all their on-balance sheet exposures. In this case the 20% threshold laid down in point 155 is not an additional rule, it shall be applicable instead of the “debtor approach”. 2. How should the 20 % threshold be calculated? Does it mean that the gross carrying amount of only the past due (> 90 days) parts of the credit facilities or the gross carrying amount of the whole individual credit facilities that have any amounts past due by more than 90 days represents at least 20% of the total on-balance sheet exposures to a debtor? 3. According to point 155 the 20% threshold shall be considered only when the exposure is past due by more than 90 days. Does it mean the threshold shall not be taken into account in other past due categories? For example if a debtor has on-balance sheet exposures past due by more than 30 days the gross carrying amount of which represents 20% of the gross carrying amount of all its on-balance sheet exposures, this threshold shall not be applied and all of a debtor’s exposures shall not be reported in the “30 days < past due <= 60 days” category. Is our understanding right? 4. Point 155 says when a debtor has on-balance sheet exposures past due by more than 90 days the gross carrying amount of which represents 20% of the gross carrying amount of all its on-balance sheet exposures, all on- and off-balance sheet exposures to this debtor shall be considered as non-performing. But it doesn’t say that all exposures to this debtor shall be considered as past due by more than 90 days. Taking also into account the provisions of point 158 and 159, does this threshold work as a kind of debtor approach and pulls together all of the debtor’s exposures into one category? For example the debtor has an on-balance sheet exposure past due by more than 90 days, another exposure past due by more than 180 days and another that is not past due, but its past due exposures represent more than 20% of all its on-balance sheet exposures. In this case should all its exposures be reported in column 090 (Past due > 180 days <= 1 year) or should the exposures be reported separately according to their number of days past due in column 070, 080 and 090?

  • 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)

Annex XV - Validation formulae and FINREP F 05.00

In Report F05.00 - Breakdowns of Loans and Advances by Product, there is validation rule the following validation rule: ID: v0875_m {r080} = sum(r010-070) R080 is using MCY dimension's x469, and R010-070 are using x469's children in MC1 hierarchy, except for R070. R070 is using x226, which is not part of the hierarchy but standalone member in MCY dimension. In addition, x469 has x8 as its children which has nothing to do with it.

  • 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)

Reporting of two groups of connected clients when one client is considered as the most significant entity within both groups

How should an institution report two different groups of connected clients / which "code" should it use, if one client is considered as most significant entity within both groups?

  • 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)

F 13.01

According to Annex V , Part 2, paragraph 81(b) and answer to question ID 2013-84 in EBA Q&A process, does the term »institution« refer to the definition stated in CRR? If the answer is yes, does it mean that collateral in the form of debt securities issued by counterparties in sector »General government« are not included in column »Cash [Debt instruments issued]«? Are they included in the column “Rest”?

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

F 31.01

Annex XV_Validation formulae with IDs v1030_m, v1031_m, v1032_m, v1034_m, and v1036_m define that the sum of outstanding balances in F31.01 should be equal or less than the balances reported in corresponding rows of other FINREP tables (F 07.00, F 43.00, F 08.01.a in F 09.00) less balances with counterparties from sectors »Central banks« and »General government«. Does that mean that these sectors cannot be reported as related parties? Taking into account the fact that all data in columns of template F31.01 refers to IAS 24.19, could it be assumed that also transactions with other counterparties related to the state (IAS 24.25 in 24.26) are not considered in the template? In case the bank is state-owned these validation rules would not hold out.

  • 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 14.00 – DETAILED INFORMATION ON SECURITISATIONS (SEC DETAILS) - FIELD 300

Field 300 - Legal Final Maturity Date. Where multiple tranches of the same securitisation are held and these have different Legal Final Maturity dates, what should be reported here?

  • 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 14.00 – DETAILED INFORMATION ON SECURITISATIONS (SEC DETAILS) - FIELD 290

Field 290 - First Foreseeable Termination Date. Firstly, if there is no call date and the clean-up date is not known (e.g. for an Investor position), what do we report here? Secondly, if there is a call date but this is now in the past (i.e. hasn't yet been called) what do we report here?

  • 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)

Deposits with higher outflows

Does the Article 7 of Part 2 (Title II) of the EBA Guidelines on retail deposits subject to different outflows for the purposes of liquidity reporting (risk factor "maturing fixed-term or notice period") also relate to the savings accounts and transactional sight accounts with no legal maturity or is this article targeting mainly term deposits and other term products with contractual notice period? If yes, does it mean that the part of deposits under Deposit Guarantee Scheme (Article 421(1) of Regulation (EU) No. 575/2013) from clients having more than 100.000 EUR is also subject to higher outflows of more than 10%, as the deposit has 2 risk factors (high value deposit and deposit with notice period?

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

Deductions of holdings of own funds instruments issued by financial sector entities included in the scope of consolidated supervision under art 49.2 CRR

For what specific purposes competent authorities may determine deductions of holdings of own funds instruments issued by financial sector entities included in the scope of consolidated supervision, apart from purposes mentioned in art 49.2: i.e. structural separation of banking activities and resolution planning? Should competent authorities determine deductions for all institutions in the member state or should it be more institution specific decision? In case of institution specific decision, should it be subject to joint decision, taken by the competent authorities of the home and host Member States?

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

Potential future exposure for options

According to Mark-to-Market method set out in Article 274 Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR), institutions should calculate potential future exposure and, as we understand, for options delta equivalent might be used as it is applied for Position risk? In case of OTC-options should institution have permission by the competent authorities for using institution's own delta model?

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

C 14.00 – DETAILED INFORMATION ON SECURITISATIONS (SEC DETAILS) - FIELD 210

Field 210 - (-) Value Adjustments and Provisions. Do the value adjustments and provisions reported here related to the securitised exposures or the securitised positions? Guidelines are contradictory.

  • 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 14.00 – DETAILED INFORMATION ON SECURITISATIONS (SEC DETAILS) - FIELD 100

Field 100 - Compliance with the Retention Requirement?. How do we report for Investor positions originated prior to 2011?

  • 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 14.00 – DETAILED INFORMATION ON SECURITISATIONS (SEC DETAILS) - FIELD 090

Field 090 - % of Retention at Reporting Date. Do we report percentage retention at reporting date or at origination? Secondly, how are Investor positions to be reported given the information is not publicly available?

  • 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 14.00 – DETAILED INFORMATION ON SECURITISATIONS (SEC DETAILS) - FIELD 080

Field 080 - Type of Retention Applied. How do we report for Investor positions? Information is not publicly available.

  • 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 14.00 – DETAILED INFORMATION ON SECURITISATIONS (SEC DETAILS) - FIELD 050

Field 050 - Accounting Treatment: Securitised Exposures are kept or removed from the Balance Sheet?. How should Investor positions be reported here?

  • 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 14.00 – DETAILED INFORMATION ON SECURITISATIONS (SEC DETAILS) - FIELD 030

Field 030 - Identifer of the Originator. How are multi-seller securitisations to be reported for Investor positions?

  • 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)

Inflows - Monies due from non-financial customers

What should be considered as “contractual commitment to extend funding”, is it entire granted off-balance commitment for particular client (e.g. credit card limits) or amount which is contractually going to be transferred to this client over 30 day horizon? Should the cap be calculated on the net basis for all clients on the client-by-client basis?

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

C 14.00 – DETAILED INFORMATION ON SECURITISATIONS (SEC DETAILS) - FIELD 020

Field 020 - Identifer of the Securitisation. What should be reported here when the first eight characters of the ISIN are not common to all tranches of a securitisation? Secondly, different securitisations can have the same first eight characters, is this a problem?

  • 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)

Scope of the CR IRB template

Concerning the EBA reporting of the templates “C 08.01.c - Credit and counterparty credit risks and free deliveries: IRB Approach to capital requirements - TOTAL (SMEs subject to supporting factor)” and “C 08.01.d - Credit and counterparty credit risks and free deliveries: IRB Approach to capital requirements - TOTAL - Of which arising from counterparty credit risk and off balance sheet (SMEs subject to supporting factor)”, we think that the two sheets 22 and 23 of the last Data Point Model (2013/12/02) not have to be treated. Indeed sheet 022 is entitled “Retail - Secured by immovable property SME subject to SME-supporting factor - without own estimates of LGD or conversion factors” and sheet 023, “Retail - Other SME subject to SME-supporting factor - without own estimates of LGD or conversion factors” Whereas it is explained in ANNEX II - REPORTING ON OWN FUNDS AND OWN FUNDS REQUIREMENTS, part. 3.3.1 (Scope of the CR IRB template), that in any case, for the reporting of the retail portfolios, own estimates of LGD and credit conversion factors are used (Advanced IRB) Moreover those sheets would represent “of which” of non existing positions ? Extract of ANNEX II - REPORTING ON OWN FUNDS AND OWN FUNDS REQUIREMENTS, part. 3.3.1 (Scope of the CR IRB template) : Scope of the CR IRB template The scope of the CR IRB template covers own funds requirements for: i. Credit risk in the banking book, among which:  Counterparty credit risk in the banking book;  Dilution risk for purchased receivables; ii. Counterparty credit risk in the trading book; iii. Free deliveries resulting from all business activities.. The scope of the template refers to the exposures for which the risk weighted exposure amounts are calculated according to Articles 151 to 157 Part Three Title II Chapter 3 CRR (IRB approach). The CR IRB template does not cover the following data: i. Equity exposures, which are reported in the CR EQU IRB template; ii. Securitisation positions, which are reported in the CR SEC SA, CR SEC IRB and/or CR SEC Details templates; iii. “Other non-obligation assets”, according to Article 147 (2) point (g) CRR. The risk weight for this exposure class has to be set at 100 % at any time except for cash in hand, equivalent cash items and exposures that are residual values of leased assets, according to Article 156 CRR. The risk weighted exposure amounts for this exposure class are reported directly in the CA-Template; iv. Credit valuation adjustment risk, which is reported on the CVA Risk template; The CR IRB template does not require a geographical breakdown of IRB exposures by residence of the counterparty. This breakdown is reported in the template CR GB. In order to clarify whether the institution uses its own estimates for LGD and/or credit conversion factors the following information shall be provided for each reported exposure class: "NO" = in case the supervisory estimates of LGD and credit conversion factors are used (Foundation IRB) "YES" = in case own estimates of LGD and credit conversion factors are used (Advanced IRB) In any case, for the reporting of the retail portfolios "YES" has to be reported. In case an institution uses own estimates of LGDs to calculate risk weighted exposure amounts for a part of its IRB exposures as well as uses supervisory LGDs to calculate risk weighted exposure amounts for the other part of its IRB exposures, an CR IRB Total for F-IRB positions and one CR IRB Total for A-IRB positions has to be reported. Could you please confirm our opinion ?

  • 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)