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

Application of transitional provisions to Additional Tier 1 and to Tier 2 instruments with an incentive to redeem

When all the call options from an AT1 (or T2) instrument which has an incentive to redeem occur during the period that an institution is under state aid and, thus, subject to a ban on exercising call options on own funds instruments, should the AT1 (or T2) instrument be subject to the provisions of Article 489(5) (or 490(5) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR) assuming that the effective maturity date, as defined in Article 491, is the first call date after the referred ban has been removed?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2013_590
  • Topic: Own funds
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 04/04/2014

Own funds requirements for commodities risk

Article 359(2) of Regulation (EU) No. 575/2013 states: “Positions in the same commodity may be offset and assigned to the appropriate maturity bands on a net basis for the following: (a) positions in contracts maturing on the same date; (b) positions in contracts maturing within 10 days of each other if the contracts are traded on markets which have daily delivery dates.” A Fair Value Option is applied to the positions in the Banking Book. The positions are hedged “back-to-back” in terms of cash flows that are exactly offsetting each other and represent thus a perfect economic hedge. Due to discounting effects positions are not however perfectly netted in terms of market values, and thus in terms of net delta weighted equivalents. Does that still mean that the institution shall assign zero values to all the maturity bands in the Table 1 referring to the Maturity ladder approach, or must the netted cash deltas be assigned to each the maturity band instead?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2013_589
  • Topic: Market risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 30/04/2014

Application of specific national filters and deductions when computing threshold deductions

When applying the transitional provisions calculation of Common Equity Tier 1, the threshold deductions exist: (a) associated with non-significant holdings in financial sector entities (FSE) which are covered by Articles 36(1)(h) and 46 of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR); and, (b) the ones associated with the significant holdings in FSE and Deferred Tax Assets that arise from temporary differences that are covered in article 470 of CRR. Both take into account theoretical values for a “relevant Common Equity Tier 1” (or “aggregate amount of Common Equity Tier 1” in the wording of 46(1)(a) of CRR which serves as a base for the calculation of the threshold that determines the deductions arising from these assets. Assuming there are specific national deductions and filters subject to transitional provisions to be applied at the Common Equity Tier 1 level pursuant Article 481, how should these be incorporated when determining the “relevant CET1” for the thresholds calculations in both cases?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2013_588
  • Topic: Own funds
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 08/05/2014

Bestimmung der Forderungsklasse von Zentralbanken mit Gesellschaftsform Aktiengesellschaft (EN: Determination of the exposure class for central banks that take the form of a public limited company)

In welche KSA- und IRBA- Forderungsklasse sind die Aktien von (EU- Zentralbanken z.B. Griechenland) einzustufen? EN Translation: In which CRSA and IRBA exposure class are the shares of EU central banks (e.g. Greece) to be classified?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2013_586
  • Topic: Credit risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 29/08/2014

Reporting of exposures lower than 300 million EUR

In the final draft ITS on reporting, chapter 3 articles 9.2 (g) and 11.2(g), it says that institutions shall submit the information as specified in Annex VIII according to the instructions in Annex IX related to exposures not considered large exposures in accordance with Article 392 of the CRR, which have an exposure value larger than 300 million EUR. We interpret this as (smaller) institutions shall report large exposures (10%), but not the 20 largest exposures and other exposures, if they do not exceed the exposure value of 300 million EUR. Have we interpreted the reporting rules for smaller institutions correct?

  • 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: 2013_585
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - Large Exposures
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 11/04/2014

Reporting of assets that are deducted from own funds but included in the exposure measure in LR calc (template 45.01) in the LR4 (template 43.00)

Where in the LR 4 (template 43.00) should the institution report assets, included in the exposure measure in the LR calc (template 45.01), which are deducted from own funds?

  • 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: 2013_584
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - Leverage ratio
  • Date of submission:

LE1 column 030 ('LEI code')

What does the legal entity identifier exactly mean? Does it mean LEI applicable in the reporting country?

  • 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: 2013_582
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - Large Exposures
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 11/04/2014

Operational Risk (OPR) templates

The suggested questions are related to both operational risk models C 16.00 (OPR) and C 17.00 (OPR Details): -C 16.00 1.-Are the relevant indicators (year X) calculated with the information of the last natural years (from 1 of January of X-1 to 31 of December of X-1) or with the information of the last cycle of 365 days (for 30 June X reporting reference date, from 1 July X-1 to 30 June X)? 2.-If they are calculated with the last natural years, the value of the relevant indicators and the own fund requirements will not change in the reports made during the year. Thus, which cells of the template could be modified among the reports made during the year? -C 17.00 3.-Is there any threshold to report losses or must they be considered losses even when they are negligible?

  • 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: 2013_580
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - COREP (incl. IP Losses)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 04/04/2014

Definition of a retail deposit

According to Article 411(2) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR) a retail deposit means:- a liability to a natural person or to an SME, where the natural person or the SME would qualify for the retail exposure class under SA or IRB approaches; or- a liability to a company which is eligible for the treatment set out in Article 153(4).(plus the limit of 1 million EUR for deposits by enterprisesthat SME or company on a group basis).Article 153(4) relates to the treatment (the correlation formula) of the exposures to companies with the total annual sales (on a consolidated basis) less than 50 million EUR under the IRB approach.Do the criteria from Article 411(2) which relates to Article 153(4) mean that:- only institutions using the IRB approach and the above mentioned treatment in Article 153(4) can treat deposits from companies with the total annual sales (on a consolidated basis) less than 50 million EUR as retail deposit, or- all institutions, regardless of the approach implemented (SA or IRB), can treat deposits from companies with the total annual sales (on a consolidated basis) less than 50 million EUR as retail deposit?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2013_578
  • Topic: Liquidity risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 04/04/2014

Remuneration - Secondment contracts

This question regards the application of the remuneration policies of the so called "secondment contracts/assignment contracts" from a third country. In Directive 2013/36/EU (CRD) it is stated (as well as the FAQ) that "the rules also apply to i) subsidiaries established outside the EEA of institutions which have their head office in the EEA and ii) subsidiaries established inside the EEA of institutions which have their head office outside the EEA". If an executive member of a credit institution is "sent" on the terms of a secondment contract by a third country credit institution to a EU member credit institution (which however is not only a subsidiary), do the remuneration policies apply (if the staff member is paid by the third country institution and also on the basis of the contract with the third country institution).

  • Legal act: Directive 2013/36/EU (CRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2013_577
  • Topic: Remuneration
  • Date of submission:

Determining the exposure value for repurchase transactions for the purpose of calculating the leverage ratio in case the collateral provided doesn’t qualify as eligible according to CRR

How should an institution that uses the standardized approach (for the purpose of calculating the capital requirement for credit risk) determine the exposure value of repurchase transactions with other banks if the collateral provided to the institution doesn’t qualify as eligible according to Article 206 and Article 207 of CRR?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2013_576
  • Topic: Leverage ratio
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 08/05/2014

Supervisory Reporting (FINREP templates), 40.1 Group structure: “entity-by-entity”

There are two columns Accounting treatment (Accounting Group) and Accounting treatment (CRR Group) with three possibilities to note something. Accounting Group (full consolidation, proportional consolidation, equity method); CRR Group (full integration, proportional integration, equity method). How should institutions deal with the situation that the respective entity is not in both scopes of consolidation => What should note in this case?

  • 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: 2013_574
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - FINREP (incl. FB&NPE)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 27/06/2014

Specific credit risk adjustments on exposures in default

Taking into account Annex I of the own funds template (worksheet 4, line 100 and 145) it’s clear that IRB Excess (+) or shortfall (-) of defaulted and non-defaulted exposures has to be reported separately. What is not exactly clear is the fact if an IRB Excess for the non-defaulted exposure can for example be taken into account for the defaulted portfolio or not.

  • 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: 2013_573
  • Topic: Credit risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 16/01/2015

Reporting requirement of the “10 largest exposures to institutions” and “10 largest exposures to unregulated financial sector entities”

How should we understand that reporting requirement?

  • 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: 2013_572
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - Large Exposures
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 11/04/2014

Reporting of template “SEC DETAILS” on consolidated or/and individual basis. C 14.00 – DETAILED INFORMATION ON SECURITISATIONS (SEC DETAILS)

Due to conflicting specifications in Annex II instructions and Final Draft ITS there is doubt on which basis the template has to be reported: on consolidated or/and individual basis?

  • 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: 2013_570
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - COREP (incl. IP Losses)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 04/04/2014

“Inflows” in connexion with securitisations. C 12.00 – Credit Risk: Securitisation - Standardised Approach to Own Funds Requirements (CR SEC SA)

How is it that “inflows” can arise concerning securitisations?

  • 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: 2013_569
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - COREP (incl. IP Losses)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 04/04/2014

Column “ADJUSTMENT TO THE RISK WEIGHTED EXPOSURE AMOUNT DUE TO MA-TURITY MISMATCHES” to be reported only from originator institutions.C 12.00 – Credit Risk: Securitisation - Standardised Approach to Own Funds Requirements (CR SEC SA)

Why is the column “ADJUSTMENT TO THE RISK WEIGHTED EXPOSURE AMOUNT DUE TO MA-TURITY MISMATCHES” not shown greyed for the rows concerning Investor and Sponsor?

  • 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: 2013_568
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - COREP (incl. IP Losses)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 04/04/2014

Column “OVERALL EFFECT (ADJUSTMENT) DUE TO INFRINGEMENT OF THE DUE DILIGENCE PROVISIONS” to be reported only from investor institutions. C 12.00 – Credit Risk: Securitisation - Standardised Approach to Own Funds Requirements (CR SEC SA)

Why is the column “OVERALL EFFECT (ADJUSTMENT) DUE TO INFRINGEMENT OF THE DUE DIL-IGENCE PROVISIONS” not shown greyed for the rows concerning Sponsor and Originator?

  • 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: 2013_567
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - COREP (incl. IP Losses)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 04/04/2014

Determination of “Number of Obligors” (column 300).C 08.01 - Credit and counterparty credit risks and free deliveries: IRB Approach to Own funds Requirements (CR IRB 1)

The “Number of Obligors” has to be determined according to which method(s)?

  • 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: 2013_566
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - COREP (incl. IP Losses)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 04/04/2014

Treatment of SME-supporting factor in the case of secured exposures.

I. How should the SME-supporting factor be treated relating to secured exposures? a) Including all collaterals, i.e. also for guarantees. Thus risk weighted assets of inflow in asset class sovereigns or institutes will also be reduced? b) Only for those collaterals which cause no risk transfer (meaning which are intered directly in the RWA formula)? c) Only for the non-secured part of the exposure?II. General question when the SMR supporting factor can be used: a) To our understanding a risk transfer is only allowed in the case that the risk transfer is leading to a reduction of the RWA. Taking this into account it should always be compared “the total SME exposure with the supporting factor and without a risk transfer” to “the exposure with the SME supporting factor (only for the non-secured part) and the risk transfer without the supporting factor”. b) To consider the above mentioned point under II. a) it seems that banks under the IRB-A approach are by tendency favored as there is no risk transfer (e.g.in cases of a guarantee by a government) but the effect of the collateral is considered in the total LGD of the exposure.

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2013_565
  • Topic: Credit risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 04/07/2014