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

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
  • ID: 2025_7624
  • Topic: Own funds
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 27/11/2025

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)
  • ID: 2025_7619
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - COREP (incl. IP Losses)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 27/11/2025

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
  • ID: 2025_7615
  • Topic: Resolution plans
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 27/11/2025

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)
  • ID: 2025_7610
  • Topic: Interest Rate Risk for Banking Book (IRRBB)
  • Date of submission:

COREP CVA Risk reporting – exempted CCP-related transactions

In case of an institution that is also a clearing member to a QCCPs, for its CCP-related transactions that are exempted from CVA own funds requirements under CRR article 382(3), should these be reintegrated/reported in COREP template C25.01 row 0050?

  • 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
  • ID: 2025_7597
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - COREP (incl. IP Losses)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 12/11/2025

COREP Template 236. Specialised Lending Supervisory Slotting Method

How should institutions reflect, in COREP template C 08.01, credit risk mitigation (CRM) techniques applied to exposures subject to the slotting approach?

  • 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
  • ID: 2025_7596
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - COREP (incl. IP Losses)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 27/10/2025

ASF factors for Additional Tier 1 items as wells as Tier 2 items and other capital instruments maturing between 6 month and 1 year

For the purpose of calculating the NSFR, which appropriate available stable funding factor shall institutions apply for Additional Tier 1 items as well as Tier 2 items and other capital instruments maturing between 6 month and 1 year?

  • 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)
  • ID: 2021_6017
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - Liquidity (LCR, NSFR, AMM)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 07/10/2025

Customers short sales internally matched with other clients’ long positions, as part of primary brokerage services

What is the expected treatment in the Liquidity Coverage Ratio of an internalized transaction, maturing within 30 calendar days, where the institution grants a margin loan to a client against a collateral that does not qualify as liquid assets and where this collateral is lent to another client to cover short sales?

  • 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
  • ID: 2025_7595
  • Topic: Liquidity risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 10/11/2025

FINREP – Loan commitments, financial guarantees and other commitments given

In the context of FINREP template F 09.01, could the EBA clarify whether the scope of columns 0100 and 0110 is intended to include exposures (commitments and certain contractual arrangements that are not commitments as referred to in CRR Article 5/110a/111(4)) that fall under CRR3 Annex I but are not recognised or disclosed under IFRS 9, IFRS 7 or IAS 37?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Draft ITS on Supervisory Reporting of Institutions
  • ID: 2025_7592
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - FINREP (incl. FB&NPE)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 27/10/2025

Investment of funds received in exchange of e-money tokens

Do banks (credit institution) need to maintain segregated account to safeguard the proceeds from e-money token issuance?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 2023/1114 (MiCAR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2025_7591
  • Topic: Other MiCAR topics
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 11/11/2025

Access to national credit databases for all EU creditors for both cross-border and domestic mortgage loan transactions

Considering that Article 19 of Directive (EU) 2023/2225, repealing Directive 2008/48/EC (the ‘Consumer Credit Directive 2’), grants creditors from a Member State other than the one where a credit database is located access to that database only in relation to cross-border credit transactions, does the reference to the framework of Directive 2008/48/EC in Recital 20 of Directive 2014/17/EU (the ‘Mortgage Credit Directive’) imply that Article 21 MCD likewise provides creditors with access to databases solely for cross-border credit transactions?

  • Legal act: Directive 2014/17/EU (MCD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2025_7588
  • Topic: Creditworthiness assessments
  • Date of submission:

Deduction of pledged own shares from Common Equity Tier 1 items

Institutions, in the context of private banking and or corporate banking business, provide liquidity to investor/clients for purposes of their own commercial business (unrelated to the acquisition of the institution’s own shares). This is carried out by providing loans pledged with financial collateral in the form of equity shares, corporate bonds, sovereign debt, term deposits or cash in a sight account. Under the contractual arrangements of the loan and the pledge, as well as applicable legal regulation in our jurisdiction, in the event of default of the obligor the institution is not allowed to foreclose the financial collateral. Instead, it is allowed to sell the collateral in the market and seize the proceeds. However, the institution is only allowed to sell collateral in the amount that is required settle the debt of the obligor, no more. Financial collateral is valued daily and therefore the institution can sell it in the market until the debt is settled in full. Accordingly, the amount of the synthetic holding should be the accounting value of the pledged shares limited by the limit of the EAD of the loan. We present below two scenarios where there is overcollateralization. Scenario 1 The institution grants a loan with the arrangements described above in the amount of 100 monetary units for the financing of the obligor’s commercial activity and the obligor pledges financial collateral in the form of the institution’s own equity shares in the amount of 150 shares that are valued in the market 1 monetary unit each, for a total amount of 150 monetary units.  The institution would then calculate the amount of the deduction for the synthetic holding of its own shares considering that it can only seize 100 shares to settle the debt and therefore the deduction should be the accounting value of 100 shares as per Q&A 2020_5128. Is the approach followed by the institution, correct? Scenario 2 The institution grants a loan with the arrangements described above in the amount of 100 monetary units for the financing of the obligor’s commercial activity and the obligor pledges financial collateral in the form of: 100 shares of the institution own shares that are valued in the market 1 monetary unit each, for a total amount of 100 monetary units. 100 shares of another company, for the purpose of the scenario is an industrial company, that are valued at 1 monetary unit each, amounting a total of 100 monetary units. The institution would then calculate the amount of the deduction for the synthetic holding of its own shares considering that it can only seize 100 shares in total and would sell in the market the obligor’s portfolio prorate, i.e. 50 shares of the institution and 50 shares of the shares of the industrial corporate. Accordingly, the deduction would be the accounting value of 50 shares of the institution, in line with Q&A 2020_5128. Is the approach followed by the institution, correct?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2025_7586
  • Topic: Own funds
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 11/11/2025

Deduction of pledged own shares from Common Equity Tier 1 items

Institutions, in the context of private banking and or corporate banking business, provide liquidity to investor/clients for purposes of their own commercial business (unrelated to the acquisition of the institution’s own shares). This is carried out by providing loans pledged with financial collateral in the form of equity shares, corporate bonds, sovereign debt, term deposits or cash in a sight account. Under the contractual arrangements of the loan and the pledge, as well as applicable legal regulation in our jurisdiction, in the event of default of the obligor the institution is not allowed to foreclose the financial collateral. Instead, it is allowed to sell the collateral in the market and seize the proceeds. However, the institution is only allowed to sell collateral in the amount that is required settle the debt of the obligor, no more. Financial collateral is valued daily and therefore the institution can sell it in the market until the debt is settled in full. Accordingly, the amount of the synthetic holding should be the accounting value of the pledged shares limited by the limit of the EAD of the loan. We present below two scenarios where there is overcollateralization. Scenario 1 The institution grants a loan with the arrangements described above in the amount of 100 monetary units for the financing of the obligor’s commercial activity and the obligor pledges financial collateral in the form of the institution’s own equity shares in the amount of 150 shares that are valued in the market 1 monetary unit each, for a total amount of 150 monetary units.  The institution would then calculate the amount of the deduction for the synthetic holding of its own shares considering that it can only seize 100 shares to settle the debt and therefore the deduction should be the accounting value of 100 shares as per Q&A 2020_5128. Is the approach followed by the institution, correct? Scenario 2 The institution grants a loan with the arrangements described above in the amount of 100 monetary units for the financing of the obligor’s commercial activity and the obligor pledges financial collateral in the form of: 100 shares of the institution own shares that are valued in the market 1 monetary unit each, for a total amount of 100 monetary units. 100 shares of another company, for the purpose of the scenario is an industrial company, that are valued at 1 monetary unit each, amounting a total of 100 monetary units. The institution would then calculate the amount of the deduction for the synthetic holding of its own shares considering that it can only seize 100 shares in total and would sell in the market the obligor’s portfolio prorate, i.e. 50 shares of the institution and 50 shares of the shares of the industrial corporate. Accordingly, the deduction would be the accounting value of 50 shares of the institution, in line with Q&A 2020_5128. Is the approach followed by the institution, correct?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2025_7585
  • Topic: Own funds
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 11/11/2025

Deduction of pledged own shares from Common Equity Tier 1 items

Institutions, in the context of private banking and or corporate banking business, provide liquidity to investor/clients for purposes of their own commercial business (unrelated to the acquisition of the institution’s own shares). This is carried out by providing loans pledged with financial collateral in the form of equity shares, corporate bonds, sovereign debt, term deposits or cash in a sight account. Under the contractual arrangements of the loan and the pledge, as well as applicable legal regulation in our jurisdiction, in the event of default of the obligor the institution is not allowed to foreclose the financial collateral. Instead, it is allowed to sell the collateral in the market and seize the proceeds. However, the institution is only allowed to sell collateral in the amount that is required settle the debt of the obligor, no more. Financial collateral is valued daily and therefore the institution can sell it in the market until the debt is settled in full. Accordingly, the amount of the synthetic holding should be the accounting value of the pledged shares limited by the limit of the EAD of the loan. We present below two scenarios where there is overcollateralization. Scenario 1 The institution grants a loan with the arrangements described above in the amount of 100 monetary units for the financing of the obligor’s commercial activity and the obligor pledges financial collateral in the form of the institution’s own equity shares in the amount of 150 shares that are valued in the market 1 monetary unit each, for a total amount of 150 monetary units.  The institution would then calculate the amount of the deduction for the synthetic holding of its own shares considering that it can only seize 100 shares to settle the debt and therefore the deduction should be the accounting value of 100 shares as per Q&A 2020_5128. Is the approach followed by the institution, correct? Scenario 2 The institution grants a loan with the arrangements described above in the amount of 100 monetary units for the financing of the obligor’s commercial activity and the obligor pledges financial collateral in the form of: 100 shares of the institution own shares that are valued in the market 1 monetary unit each, for a total amount of 100 monetary units. 100 shares of another company, for the purpose of the scenario is an industrial company, that are valued at 1 monetary unit each, amounting a total of 100 monetary units. The institution would then calculate the amount of the deduction for the synthetic holding of its own shares considering that it can only seize 100 shares in total and would sell in the market the obligor’s portfolio prorate, i.e. 50 shares of the institution and 50 shares of the shares of the industrial corporate. Accordingly, the deduction would be the accounting value of 50 shares of the institution, in line with Q&A 2020_5128. Is the approach followed by the institution, correct?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2025_7584
  • Topic: Own funds
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 11/11/2025

Requirements of Z 11.00 for RLE that are not institutions

Article 3 - Group resolution reporting  We observed some differences, especially for the Z 11.00 template when comparing the 2 parts of the final draft below: the draft proposal to the commission (chapter 3 Draft Implementing Technical Standards, article 3) and the tab in accompanying documents (chapter 2 Background and rationale - 2.2.4 Overview of revised reporting obligations). It seems there is no article requiring specifically from RLEs that are institutions to report Z 11.00 template, although it is included in the tab "Overview of revised reporting obligations". The Z 11.00 template is mentioned in paragraph 7, which seems to either concern the resolution entity or the scope of the article seems to be (too) large (all entities?). Could you please confirm whether Z11.00 template is required for RLE that are not institutions? Other information: In order to compare with Z02.00 requirements, paragraph 3 (a) specifically required Z 02.00 for RLE that are institutions.

  • 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
  • ID: 2025_7581
  • Topic: Resolution plans
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 27/11/2025

The instructions for row 0170 C10.00 seem inconsistent.

The instructions for row 0170 C10.00 seem inconsistent. The title of the line item "Of which: categorised as secured by residential real estate in IRB" refers to secured by residential real estate. Whereas further instructions, "Exposures assigned under IRB approach to the exposure class 'Purchased receivables' pursuant to Article 147(2), point (d)(ii) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013.", refers to Purchased recaivables. The article mentioned, 147(2)(d)(ii), refers to retail exposures secured by residential property.  Is our understanding correct that this row should not only be populated for Purchased receivables under the IRB approach but actually should be populated for secured by residential real estate under IRB approach?

  • 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
  • ID: 2025_7579
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - COREP (incl. IP Losses)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 27/10/2025

Presentation of lending for house purchase

Can loans that are directly disbursed to customers be considered as lending for house purchase?

  • 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)
  • ID: 2025_7578
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - FINREP (incl. FB&NPE)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 27/10/2025

Delimitation of the quantity of liabilities and capital instruments to be computed in the NSFR calculation

In the context of Article 428o(a) CRR, which lists liabilities and capital items subject to a 100% available stable funding (ASF) factor, how should the reference to “before the adjustments required pursuant to Articles 32 to 35, the deductions pursuant to Article 36 and the application of the exemptions and alternatives laid down in Articles 48, 49 and 79” be interpreted? Specifically, should: the Common Equity Tier 1 (CET1) items be included in full, before all adjustments, deductions and exemptions referred to in Articles 32 to 35, 36, 48, 49 and 79; or the CET1 items be taken before adjustments pursuant to Articles 32 to 35, but after the deductions defined in Article 36 and the exemptions and alternatives laid down in Articles 48, 49 and 79?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2025_7577
  • Topic: Liquidity risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 10/11/2025

SPV repack transactions (collateral eligibility)

For recognising received financial collateral when calculating the exposure value under the counterparty credit risk (CCR) framework, does Article 207(2) CRR – which requires that the credit quality of the obligor and the value of the collateral shall not have a material positive correlation – apply?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2025_7576
  • Topic: Market risk
  • Date of submission:

SPV repack transactions

Do SPV repackaging transaction on standardised platforms incur counterparty credit risk (CCR) or is the termination scenario considered a contractual feature that only results in market risk? If these transactions are subject to counterparty credit risk, how should the value of the collateral be taken into account?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2025_7575
  • Topic: Market risk
  • Date of submission: