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

Definition of the counterparty size in case of substitution approach application

In case of substitution approach application, for the field "size of counterparty, (Annex II, C103, c110) should we use the turnover of the guarantor or the one of the obligor?

  • Legal act: Directive 2013/36/EU (CRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Draft ITS on Supervisory Reporting of Institutions (for benchmarking the internal approaches)
  • ID: 2015_2354
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - Supervisory Benchmarking
  • Date of submission:

Reimbursement of shareholders and creditors

In our understanding, Articles 36(12) and 46(3) confer upon the resolution authority a mere power - not an obligation - to reimburse shareholders and creditors. If this is the case, is such power an unfettered discretion or should it be exercised under particular conditions? If the latter is correct, which conditions apply?

  • Legal act: Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2015_2351
  • Topic: Valuation
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 28/10/2016

Correct scope of clusters based on collateralisation status and collateral type

Both template C 102.00 (LDP) and template C 103.00 (HDP) include clusters based on collateralisation status and collateral type. Reference is made to c150-c210 columns of COREP template C 08.01. It remains however unclear how facilities should be treated which are only partially collateralized and/or for which there are several collateral types.Assume a facility of 100, of which 20 secured by financial collateral, 30 by real estate collateral and 50 unsecured. We see many possibilities to report such a facility in the template, either by splitting the facility over various clusters, by reporting it in full in all concerned clusters or by combinations of these two approaches.Example:1) we could use a 'splitted' approach, so    cluster unsecured  = 50,    cluster secured      = 50,                cluster secured financial collateral  = 20,                cluster secured real estate              = 302) we could keep the facility intact and always report it in full, so    cluster unsecured = 0,    cluster secured     = 100,                cluster secured financial collateral  = 100,                cluster secured real estate              = 1003) we could use a combination of the two with collateral status clusters determined 'in full' and collateral type cluster using a split approach, so    cluster unsecured = 0,    cluster secured     = 100,                cluster secured financial collateral  = 20,                cluster secured real estate              = 304)  ...?Please elaborate further on the correct treatment.

  • Legal act: Directive 2013/36/EU (CRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Draft ITS on Supervisory Reporting of Institutions (for benchmarking the internal approaches)
  • ID: 2015_2347
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - Supervisory Benchmarking
  • Date of submission:

‘Exposure weighted average LGD’ computation in CR GB2 report

Own funds instructions states that column ‘090 Exposure weighted average LGD (%)’ in CR GB 2 has the same definition as column 230 of CR IRB template.Column 230 of CR IRB template has the following definition:‘All the impact of CRM techniques on LGD values as specified in Part 3 Title II Chapters 3 and 4 of CRR shall be considered […].Exposure and the respective LGDs for large regulated financial sector entities and unregulated financial entities shall not be included in the calculation of column 230, they shall only be included in the calculation of column 240.’In case, only the exposure to large regulated financial sector entities would be reported in the CR GB2, which value should be reported in the column 090 of CR GB2? ‘Null’ value, zero or the LGD average of exposures to large regulated financial sector entities?

  • 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: 2015_2346
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - COREP (incl. IP Losses)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 28/07/2017

Requirements regarding „control” by the resolution authority

Are the requirements of “control” of the bridge bank (Article 40(2)(a)) and asset separation tool (Article 42(2)(a)) met if the conditions specified under Article 41(1) and Article 42(4) respectively are satisfied?

  • Legal act: Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2015_2345
  • Topic: Resolution tools and powers
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 09/12/2016

Payment of consideration in shares of a bridge institution

Is it possible to pay the consideration mentioned in Article 40 (4) of Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD) in shares of a bridge institution? Is the same possible in case the asset separation tool has been applied?

  • Legal act: Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2015_2343
  • Topic: Resolution tools and powers
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 21/01/2022

Private ownership of a bridge institution or an asset management tool

We seek clarification on Articles 40(2) and 42(2) of Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD). Can a bridge institution or an asset management tool be fully privately owned?

  • Legal act: Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2015_2342
  • Topic: Resolution tools and powers
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 23/06/2017

Wholly or partially owned by a public authority requirement and bail-in

Article 40 of Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD) requires that the bridge institution is wholly or partially owned by public authorities (including the resolution fund) and that it is controlled by the resolution authority. How is this ownership requirement compatible with Article 43(2)(b)(ii) BRRD?

  • Legal act: Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2015_2341
  • Topic: Resolution tools and powers
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 21/01/2022

Procedural requirements of the sale of business tool with regard to state aid

How can an open and competitive sale process in accordance with the state aid rules be conducted in case of applying sale of business tool and fulfilling the provisions from Article 39(3)?

  • Legal act: Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2015_2339
  • Topic: Resolution tools and powers
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 10/03/2017

Rights over or in relation to assets, rights and liabilities transferred

According to Articles 38 (13), 40 (11) and 42 (12) of Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD), parties whose assets, rights and liabilities are not transferred, shall not have any rights over or in relation to the assets, rights and liabilities that are transferred. What is the rationale of these provisions?

  • Legal act: Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2015_2338
  • Topic: Resolution tools and powers
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 21/01/2022

Definition of 'continuity'

How should the term ‘continuity’ or ‘continuing issue of bonds’ be defined?

  • Legal act: Directive 2013/36/EU (CRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2015_2337
  • Topic: Other issues
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 11/02/2022

Supervisory Benchmarking exercise for 2015 - Market Risk related

Please could information be provided on the process for selecting stressed VaR period for calculating stressed VaR for the hypothetical portfolios

  • Legal act: Directive 2013/36/EU (CRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Draft ITS on Supervisory Reporting of Institutions (for benchmarking the internal approaches)
  • ID: 2015_2336
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - Supervisory Benchmarking
  • Date of submission:

Authorisation of the purchaser of a (bridge) institution in another Member State

Article 38(11) of Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD) (and similarly, Article 40(9) BRRD as to the bridge institution tool) provides that, for the purposes of the rights to provide services or to establish itself in another Member State, the purchaser or the bridge institution shall be considered to be a continuation of the institution under resolution and may exercise any such right that was exercised by the institution under resolution in respect to the rights, assets, and liabilities transferred?Does Article 38(11) BRRD exempt the purchaser or the bridge institution from obtaining the authorisation to operate in another Member State by way of derogation to Article 38(7) BRRD? 

  • Legal act: Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2015_2334
  • Topic: Resolution tools and powers
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 21/01/2022

Reimbursement of resolution expenses via sale of the asset management vehicle

Is it possible to implement a power in national legislation to pay the resolution expenses out of the proceeds of the sale of the asset management vehicle?

  • Legal act: Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2015_2333
  • Topic: Resolution tools and powers
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 21/01/2022

Responsibility to pay expenses

Article 37(7) of Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD) provides that the resolution authority may recover the reasonable expenses incurred in resolution from the institution under resolution in a number of ways. May Member States further provide that those costs are to be paid upfront by the institution under resolution?

  • Legal act: Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2015_2332
  • Topic: Resolution tools and powers
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 21/01/2022

Winding up or liquidation of residual entity

Does the residual entity have to be always liquidated or wound up in accordance with Article 37(6) of Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD)? Does this provision impose a mandatory obligation?

  • Legal act: Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2015_2331
  • Topic: Resolution tools and powers
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 21/01/2022

The 3 largest material currencies in the structural currency mismatches tables (P 02.06) of funding plan report

According to the instructions for P 02.06, the table provides a breakdown of the 3 largest material currencies. The currency is material if it accounts for more than 5% of total liabilities, as per Art 415 (2) lit. b CRR. (We think the correct reference here is Art 415 (2) lit. a CRR.)According to Art. 415 (2) lit. a) CRR,: an institution shall report separately to the competent authorities of the home Member State the items referred to in paragraph 1 in the currency below when it has:(a) aggregate liabilities in a currency different from the reporting currency under paragraph 1 amounting to or exceeding 5 % of the institution's or the single liquidity subgroup's total liabilitiesDoes that mean that the reporting currency has to be reported?If yes, how shall the reporting currency – take the Hungarian forint as example - be reported in the structural currency mismatches tables of funding plan report?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: EBA/GL/2014/04 - Guidelines on harmonised definitions and templates for funding plans of credit institutions - repealed by EBA/GL/2019/05
  • ID: 2015_2329
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - Funding Plans
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 29/07/2016

Clarification on what is considered insured deposits

When determining the covered deposits, should netting with customer loans be applied before determining the amount of deposits which are not covered by the DGS?

  • Legal act: Directive 2014/49/EU (DGSD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2015_2324
  • Topic: Rights of depositors (Eligibility, coverage level, repayable amount, repayment, claim against DGS, depositor information)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 20/12/2019

Clarification on Add on measure of Securities Financing Transactions (SFT) from the delegated act of the regulation 575/2013 on leverage ratio.

Based on Article 429e  of the Regulation (EU) No 575/2013  (CRR), in addition to the exposure value of repurchase transactions, institutions shall include in the exposure measure an add-on for counterparty credit risk determined in accordance to paragraph 2 or 3 of  Article 429e, as applicable. The Bank calculates the exposure of Securities Financing Transactions (SFT) according to Article 223 of the regulation 575/2013 (Financial Collateral Comprehensive Method) .If for example, the Bank has a German government bond of fair value (FV) EUR 100.000 with maturity less than a year, and uses it as a collateral for a repurchase agreement with a maturity of less than a year, and receives EUR 50.000 in cash, then according to Article 223 CRR the exposure value of the SFT will be :FV=100.000plus volatility adjustment of 0.354%* FV of 354minus cash received of 50.000i.e. total exposure of EUR 50.354In addition, the add on according to article 429e, will be the FV minus cash received i.e. EUR 50.000According to the Annex 2 -ITS on reporting for the LR instructions , the row 300 of template C 47.00 (LEVERAGE RATIO CALCULATION (LRCalc)) which is the Total Leverage Ratio exposure - using a transitional definition of Tier 1 capital, includes both the exposure value of the SFT and the add on amount. Hence, for the specific SFT, the total leverage exposure would include a total of EUR 100.354 (which is more than the FV of the bond)In addition, it should be noted that since the German Government bond is an on balance sheet exposure, credit risk is also calculated for capital requirements purposes. Can you please confirm that this is the correct treatment?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/62 - DR with regard to the leverage ratio
  • ID: 2015_2318
  • Topic: Leverage ratio
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 01/04/2016