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

Template 5 - Reporting of gross carrying amount of exposures sensitive to chronic, acute, chronic and acute climate change events

In Template 5, should the gross carrying amount of exposures in column j (of which exposures sensitive to impact from both from chronic and acute climate change events) be reported also in column h (Of which exposures sensitive to impact from chronic climate change events) and column i (Of which exposures sensitive to impact from acute climate change events) or is the gross carrying amount of exposures reported in these 3 columns mutually exclusive?  

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) 2022/2453 - ITS on ESG disclosures
  • ID: 2024_7080
  • Topic: Transparency and Pillar 3
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 26/07/2024

Interpretation of ‘ The degree of correlation between the value of the assets relied upon for protection and the credit quality of the obligor shall not be too high.’

In Article 194, Quote Institutions may recognise funded credit protection in the calculation of the effect of credit risk mitigation only where the lending institution has the right to liquidate or retain, in a timely manner, the assets from which the protection derives in the event of the default, insolvency or bankruptcy — or other credit event set out in the transaction documentation — of the obligor and, where applicable, of the custodian holding the collateral. The degree of correlation between the value of the assets relied upon for protection and the credit quality of the obligor shall not be too high. Unquote My question is about the aforementioned correlation. If a obligor’s major asset is a very valuable mine asset, and the mine asset is collateralized by a bank as security for a loan, is it eligible for the bank to consider the value of the mine asset for calculating the ‘risk-weighted asset’? The value of the mine asset is valued by independent & renowned evalution agency and it meets with all other regulatory requirements for eligible collateral.

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: EBA/GL/2016/09 - Guidelines on corrections to modified duration for debt instruments under Article 340(3) CRR
  • ID: 2024_7079
  • Topic: Credit risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 15/06/2024

Issuers of EMTs and scope of application AML requirements

To what extent should electronic money institutions (EMIs) that issue e-money tokens (EMTs) under MiCAR comply with the obligations in relation to anti-money laundering and terrorist financing under Directive 2015/849/EU (as amended, AMLD5)? More specifically, should holders of EMTs be considered as clients of the EMI within the meaning of AMLD5, so that the relevant KYC requirements apply on an ongoing basis in respect of holders of EMTs (not only at the time of issuing but also following trading on the secondary market)?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 2023/1114 (MiCAR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2024_7078
  • Topic: Other MiCAR topics
  • Date of submission:

Trading desk requirements for Standardized approach perimeter

Could you please confirm whether all desks in the prudential perimeter, independently from the internal model or standardized approach, should respect the requirements for trading desks reported in Article 104b and other provisions for trading desks?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2024_7076
  • Topic: Market risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 28/05/2024

Trading and Banking book positions within a Trading desk

Could an A-IMA eligible Trading desk have trading and banking book positions segregated in different portfolios within the same desk, given that non-trading book positions are carve-out from A-IMA calculations?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2024_7075
  • Topic: Market risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 28/05/2024

Classification of Repo Transaction

How can internal repo transactions be managed in the calculation of the regulatory capital requirement in the A-IMA trading desk? Can these transactions be carved out from the scope of regulatory capital requirement of the A-IMA trading desk? Does the regulation prescribe that the funding in repos should be allocated to the trading/banking book accordingly to the funding strategy purpose? (if the funding is for banking book positions, the repos are non-trading instruments, if the funding is for trading book strategy the repos are trading book instruments). Is it possible to have different prudential classification of internal repos and external repo transactions on the market?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2024_7074
  • Topic: Market risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 28/05/2024

Treatment of two-leg derivatives with respect to rate type and currency

What is the expected representation for two-legs derivatives in the templates "BREAKDOWN OF SENSITIVITY ESTIMATES (J 02.00, J 03.00 and J 04.00)" and REPRICING CASH FLOWS (J 05.00, J 06.00 and J 07.00)?

  • 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
  • ID: 2024_7073
  • Topic: Interest Rate Risk for Banking Book (IRRBB)
  • Date of submission:

Reporting Requirements per type of institution

Are small and non-complex/other institutions required to use the simplified set of templates, or can they use the Large format if they already have to produce it, for example, for their holding/parent company?

  • 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
  • ID: 2024_7072
  • Topic: Interest Rate Risk for Banking Book (IRRBB)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 28/05/2024

Prudential Classification of Repo Transaction

What treatment for market risk capital requirement should be adopted for repos included in an A-IMA trading desk where those repos are used for funding of trading positions and valued at accrual and thus excluded from the regulatory trading book, following Basel Committee’s provision?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2024_7071
  • Topic: Market risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 28/05/2024

Validation rules of templates F 24.01 and F 24.02 specifically EGDQ_0665, EGDG_0666, XBRL v8035_m and XBRL v8052_m. These validations impose that the closing figures of the prior financial year end should tally with the opening figures of the current reporting quarter without allowing for reclassifications or changes of the counterparties’ reporting criteria segregated in F 24.01 and F 24.02, namely collateral type, and SME criteria.

For accounts which do not have a change in non-performing status, how are changes in collateral and/or SME status of the counterparty are to be reported in F 24.01 and F 24.02, since validation rules of templates F 24.01 and F 24.02, specifically EGDQ_0665, EGDG_0666, XBRL v8035_m and XBRL v8052_m, cannot all be complied with simultaneously when such changes occur after the previous financial year end?

  • 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
  • ID: 2024_7070
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - FINREP (incl. FB&NPE)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 31/05/2024

Scope of application of recital 54 of MICAR

Question 1: Recital 54 MiCAR seems to presume that the same ART may be issued by EU and third country entity, when speaking of "Issuers of asset-referenced tokens that are marketed both in the Union and in third countries". Does recital 54 mean a technically same fungible token not (externally) attributable to a particular issuer or does this only mean that the token has the same rights attached and is marketed under the same name but is not technically identical and should be attributable to one issuer (in Union or in third countries)? Question 2: Does Recital 54 MiCAR, while referring to ART issuers and their reserve of assets requirements, also apply to EMT issuers (including cases where no reserve requirements under MiCAR apply) and should it be used to interpret prudential requirements for EMT issuers (including Article 54 MiCAR and EMD)? Question 3: if ever recital 54 was to be extended to all EMT issuers, how would this recital have to be interpreted in relation with article 54, which foresees that EMT issuers should safeguard funds received by issuers of e-money tokens in exchange for e-money tokens in accordance with Article 7(1) of Directive 2009/110/EC? 

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 2023/1114 (MiCAR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2024_7069
  • Topic: Other MiCAR topics
  • Date of submission:

One leg out Multi EMT issuance – legal possibility and related issues

Question 1: Can a technically identical and fully fungible EMT based on a non EU currency be issued by, on one hand, a EU-based entity licensed as an electronic money institution or credit institution (therefore complying with MICAR) and, on the other hand, by an entity based in another non EU jurisdiction and non regulated under EU law?  Question 2: If ever the preceding arrangement was possible under MICAR, then would it be compliant with Article 48(1) MiCAR in case a person on the EU territory was to offer or seek admission to trading on EU markets for tokens issued by the entity not authorised as an electronic money institution or credit institution?  Question 3: [This question is to be read in light of associated QA on scope of recital 54] If ever the preceding arrangement was possible under MICAR, given that this technically identical and fully fungible EMT would freely circulate on the secondary market and would actually be marketed both in the EU and in non EU jurisdictions, should competent authorities apply to this arrangement provisions set by recital 54?  Question 4: [This question is to be read in light of associated QA on scope of recital 54] If ever the preceding arrangement was possible under MICAR and recital 54 could be applied, then would competent authorities have to apply safeguarding requirements for the EU licensed entity based on the volume of tokens this entity issued (as per MICAR article 54) or on the “issuers’ liability towards Union holders”, based on “the share of […] tokens that is expected to be marketed in the Union” (as per MICAR recital 54)? Question 5: In order to mitigate potential regulatory arbitrage and capital flight in the context of a one leg out multi EMT issuance, would it be compliant with MICAR to allow only EU-based residents to present redemption requests to the EU-based entity

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 2023/1114 (MiCAR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2024_7068
  • Topic: Other MiCAR topics
  • Date of submission:

Powers of MiCAR authority to obtain the information needed to assess recovery and redemption plans and possible mechanism for exchange of information with the prudential authority

In cases where the MiCAR authority differs from the prudential authority under CRD, respectively the competent authority for recovery plans under BRRD, does the Regulation ensure that the MiCAR authority is provided with the powers to gather from the supervised entities (in the course of the ongoing supervision) all information that is necessary in order to duly assess the recovery and redemption plans of banks and investment firms? If there is a risk of insufficiency of information at the disposal of the MiCAR authority, what will be the mechanisms ensuring proper access of information by the MiCAR authority to the information available within the prudential authority on the financial indicators and other key metrics for the purposes of assessment of the recovery and redemption plans, as well as whether Member States are expected to implement special measures to ensure the protection of sensitive information? How the flow of information towards the CRD competent authority from the MICAR supervisors should be assured in order for CRD authority to be able to perform on their tasks? 

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 2023/1114 (MiCAR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2024_7067
  • Topic: Recovery plans (MiCAR)
  • Date of submission:

Liabilities related to the reserve of assets managed by issuers of asset-referenced tokens in case of resolution of the issuer

Please clarify whether liabilities related to the reserve of assets under Article 36 (2) MiCAR have to be treated as secured liabilities and therefore cannot be subject to write-down and conversion or bail-in in case of resolution in the meaning of the BRRD.

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 2023/1114 (MiCAR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2024_7066
  • Topic: Other MiCAR topics
  • Date of submission:

Provision of external payroll accounting services to an employer

Does the activity of external payroll processing for an employer constitute a payment service under PSD2, if it consists of receiving funds for wages and related deductions (taxes, health and social insurance) in the payroll processor’s payment account from the employer, and transferring these to employees, tax authorities, insurance companies etc.? Would the answer change depending on whether the payroll processor  maintains an account separately for each employer?   

  • Legal act: Directive 2015/2366/EU (PSD2)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2024_7065
  • Topic: Authorisation and registration
  • Date of submission:

Unrated short term claim/exposure

As per CRR Article 120(para 3, subpara c), it states: "If there is a short-term assessment and such an assessment determines a less favourable risk weight than the use of the general preferential treatment for short-term exposures, as specified in paragraph 2, then the general preferential treatment for short-term exposures shall not be used and all unrated short-term claims shall be assigned the same risk weight as that applied by the specific short-term assessment." Question: 1. Is the term claim and exposure used interchangeably and mean the same?                   2. What is meant by unrated short term claim in this paragraph? If there is a general issuer rating available for the counterparty, but no issue specific rating for the exposure to the counterparty, will the exposures with residual maturity of less than 3 months be classed as Unrated and not eligible for preferential risk weight treatment as per CRR Article 120 (2)?                   3. Also, for ex- if the bank has trading book exposure to this institution for exposure less than 3 months. But this institution has issued short term debt, but the bank has no exposure to it, in that case which rating will be used to risk weight the exposure in the trading book. Will it be the issuer rating or short term debt rating the institution has issued which the bank has no exposure?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Draft ITS on Supervisory Reporting of Institutions
  • ID: 2024_7064
  • Topic: Credit risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 15/06/2024

Template 2 – Total gross carrying amount reported in column A

Should column a be equal to sum (columns b to g + o)*(1- column p) as per XBRL validation rule?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) 2022/2453 - ITS on ESG disclosures
  • ID: 2024_7063
  • Topic: Transparency and Pillar 3
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 28/06/2024

Template 5 – Total gross carrying amount reported in column B

Which gross carrying amount should be reported in column b? Should it be the total of the exposures by sector as reported in Template 1 or should it be the total of columns c to f?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) 2022/2453 - ITS on ESG disclosures
  • ID: 2024_7062
  • Topic: Transparency and Pillar 3
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 28/06/2024

Definition of 'explicit guarantee arrangements' for the purpose of classification of non-commercial undertakings as public sector entities

What conditions should be met by a given agreement in order to qualify as an 'explicit guarantee arrangement'? Shall the ‘explicit guarantee arrangements’ for the purpose of definition of public sector entities also be ‘guarantees’ eligible as unfunded credit protection or not? How much should the guarantee cover?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2024_7061
  • Topic: Credit risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 15/06/2024