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

Exclusion of positions from the calculation of net open currency positions

May positions that are already deducted in the calculation of own funds be excluded from the calculation of net open currency positions according to Articles 351, 352 of the Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)? If the answer is "yes", are there any explicit legal provisions that say so?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2015_2317
  • Topic: Market risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 28/04/2016

Transfer of assets, rights and liabilities to the bridge institution / asset management vehicle

Why do Articles 40(11) and 42(12) of Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD) explicitly exclude the liability of, respectively, the bridge institution’s and asset management vehicle’s management body or senior management vis-à-vis shareholders, creditors of the institution under resolution and other third parties whose assets, rights or liabilities are not transferred, whilst such exclusion is not provided for in Article 38(13) BRRD, when the resolution tool applied is the sale of assets?

  • Legal act: Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2015_2316
  • Topic: Resolution tools and powers
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 21/01/2022

Authorisation of the bridge institution

Could the bridge institution also be a simple holding company instead of an authorised institution (authorised in accordance with Directive 2013/36/EU or Directive 2014/65/EU, as applicable)?

  • Legal act: Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2015_2315
  • Topic: Resolution tools and powers
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 02/10/2015

Appointment of management body of a bridge institution

Can the resolution authority appoint the first management body of the bridge institution at the time of its creation? Should the resolution authority appoint a temporary management body until the shareholders can meet and decide on the institution’s management body?

  • Legal act: Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2015_2314
  • Topic: Resolution tools and powers
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 16/10/2015

Referencing in Article 41

Should the reference made to paragraph 4 with regard to “the period” mentioned in Article 41 (2) of Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD) not be towards paragraph 5?

  • Legal act: Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2015_2313
  • Topic: Resolution tools and powers
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 02/10/2015

Clarification of “access to critical functions”

How should “access to critical functions” in Article 41 (2) of Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD) be interpreted?

  • Legal act: Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2015_2312
  • Topic: Resolution tools and powers
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 21/01/2022

Winding up of a bridge institution

With regard to the operation of the bridge institution as set out in Article 41 of Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD), should a bridge institution be wound up even if it is not insolvent?

  • Legal act: Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2015_2311
  • Topic: Resolution tools and powers
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 21/01/2022

Exchange rates in the template Roll-over of funding (C 70.00)

Does the reporting of the template Roll-Over-Of-Funding (C70.00) by significant currency have to be based on daily exchange rates or on the exchange rate of the reporting date?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Draft ITS on Supervisory Reporting of Institutions
  • ID: 2015_2310
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - Liquidity (LCR, NSFR, AMM)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 18/12/2015

Capital buffer for other systemically important institutions

If an other systemically important institution (O-SII) is the subsidiary of either a global systemically important bank (G-SII) or of an O-SII which are established in another Country and the latter is subject to an O-SII capital buffer on a consolidated basis, can a national authority set a capital buffer for the O-SIIs at subsidiary level exceed 1% provided it remains below the rate of the capital buffer at group level and the 2% cap of Article 131(5)? Also, does Article 131(8)(a) CRD refer to 1% of the total risk exposure amount (TREA) of the subsidiary or of the group at consolidated level?

  • Legal act: Directive 2013/36/EU (CRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2015_2309
  • Topic: Other issues
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 01/04/2016

Application of Article 215(2)(b) of the CRR

Can the competent authorities be satisfied that the effects of a guarantee (which covers losses resulting from the non-payment of interest and other types of payments which the borrower is obliged to make) justify the treatment of eligible unfunded credit protection when the time of payment such guarantee is indeterminate? Are there other considerations that the competent authorities should take into account to be satisfied with the effects of the guarantee to justify such treatment, in addition to those listed in article 213 and 215(1)(b) and (c) of CRR?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2015_2306
  • Topic: Credit risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 18/11/2016

Certificate of Deposits (CDs)

How should we treat CDs (Certificate of Deposits) that we have issued? Could we treat them as deposit or should they be treated the same why as an issued senior bond?

  • 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: 2015_2305
  • Topic: Liquidity risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 13/05/2016

Risk weighting under standardised approach of an exposure secured by mortgage on residential property being constructed by the borrower (self-build) during the period of construction

Where a residential property is being constructed, and the mortgage loan finances both the construction and subsequent occupation of the property, and also provided that the loan is at all times fully and completely secured by the property in its current condition, for risk weighting purposes it is subject to Article 125 (1) (a) as “residential property which is or shall be occupied or let by the owner”, further assuming it also complies with the conditions in paragraph 2 of the Article, would  the 35% risk weight apply under that Article during the construction period as well as during occupation of the completed property?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2015_2304
  • Topic: Credit risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 03/02/2017

Definition of retail deposits with higher outflow rate

What is the definition of the condition for retail deposit with higher outflow rate: "the rate significantly exceeds the average rate for similar retail products"? Bucketing our retail deposits we have a two-fold problem with defining when deposit rate on our product significantly exceeds or does not exceed the average rate for similar retail product.

  • 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: 2015_2303
  • Topic: Liquidity risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 27/04/2018

SREP and combined buffers

Article 104(1)(a) of the Directive 2013/36/EU (CRD) states that competent authorities have the power to require institutions to hold own funds in excess of the requirements set out in "Chapter 4 and Regulation 575/2013", i.e. in excess of the minimum capital requirements set in the CRR plus the capital buffers. Moreover, Articles 129(5), 130(5) and 131(13) of the CRD prevent the use of CET1 capital required per Article 104 to meet any of the buffer CET1 requirements.1) When the competent authorities give to an institution an individualised CET1 capital requirement (so-called SREP requirements or Pillar 1 + Pillar 2 requirements), does this include any potential combined buffer requirements, since any additional requirement per Article 104 should come on top of the requirements imposed by Chapter 4 of the CRD and by the CRR ?2) In particular, if a competent authority changes the systemic risk buffer (SRB) or the other systemically important institutions buffer (O-SIIB) applicable to a bank would this not increase the total Pillar 2 + Pillar 1 requirement of the bank, unless the new Pillar 1 requirement went above the old Pillar 1 + Pillar 2 requirement or unless the competent authority also changed the total SREP requirement of the bank?

  • Legal act: Directive 2013/36/EU (CRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2015_2302
  • Topic: Supervisory review and evaluation (SREP) and Pillar 2
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 26/08/2016

Reporting of retail deposits to internet banks that are also partly used as collateral for various broker services such as forex and other OTC derivatives.

As per Commission Delegated Regulation EU of 10.10.2014 to supplement Regulation 575/2013 with regard to liquidity coverage requirements for credit institutions, it is stated that outflows from other retail deposits should be treated according to Article 25. Does this include retail deposits that are also partly used as collateral for broker services? 

  • 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: 2015_2301
  • Topic: Liquidity risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 28/04/2016

Retained Earnings in COREP/FINREP

I kindly require some clarification regarding the Retained Earnings amount which should be reported in F01.03 r190, c010. From my understanding and as per validation rule v3467_i, {F 01.03, r190 , c010}=={F 46.00, r210 , c060}, the Retained Earnings figure which should be reported in F 01.03 should not include Profit or Loss Attributable to Owners of the Parent (eligible and non-eligible profit or loss for the year) as the latter is to be reported in F 01.03 r250, c010. Conversely, Retained Earnings reported in COREP C 01.00 r130, c010, contains Previous Years Retained Earnings (r140) and Profit or Loss Attributable to Owners of the Parent (r160). In this regard, could you please confirm, or otherwise, that F 01.03 r190, c010 should not be equal to C 01.00 r130, c010? Kindly note that no guidance is provided in the EBA FINREP instructions.

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2015_2300
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - COREP (incl. IP Losses)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 04/10/2019

Given the legal reference reported in the Annex IV, a clarification about the annual default rate computation is required

With reference to the field "Default rate latest year" (Annex IV C 103.00, field 190) the following legal reference is reported: - C20 13 c40 of table 9.2 of Annex 1 of ITS reporting This table contains quarterly default rates. For "Default rate latest year" field, an annualized quarterly default rate is required, or a default rate directly on yearly basis can be determined?

  • 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_2297
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - Supervisory Benchmarking
  • Date of submission:

A clarification about the collateral value to provide in the relevant templates is required

For the fields 080, 120 (i.e. Collateralisation status, Collateral type) of Annex II, templates 102-103, all the type of collateral are required (i.e. Eligible financial collateral, Receivables, Real estate, Physical collateral, Other funded credit protection, Credit derivatives, Guarantees). In Annex IV, templates 102-103, for the field 120 (i.e. Collateral value) the instructions refer to “market value” only. Does this mean that Guarantees do not have to be considered? In this case why the legal reference does not refer only to the columns 180-210 of table 8.1?

  • 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_2296
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - Supervisory Benchmarking
  • Date of submission:

A confirmation about the legal reference reported in Annex IV is required

With reference to the field “Provisions non-performing exposures” (Annex IV 102, column 160, Annex IV 103, column 160) the following legal reference is reported: - c50 - 60 of table 9.2 of Annex 1 of ITS reporting. Given that this table does not include data for all the countries within the Group (i.e. a relevance threshold is set) and that the distinction between performing/not performing exposures is not available (only on the total value is available), we ask for a confirmation on the above mentioned legal reference.

  • 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_2295
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - Supervisory Benchmarking
  • Date of submission:

How to manage different local rating scales

With reference to 1cRating 1d field (template 103 13 Annex IV, column No 50) how the different local rating scales must be treated for consolidated reporting, i.e: If a master scale is available at Group level (e.g. for Pillar III purposes), does the Institution have to adopt it, or it can choose to create an ad hoc master scale? In this latter case, if different rating scales (with different number of grades) are applied within the Group, can the Institution define the number of grades or does it have to contact its competent authority in advance to agree upon the way to define the new scale?

  • 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_2294
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - Supervisory Benchmarking
  • Date of submission: