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.

List of Q&A's

Use of the last available data for risk quantification sample

Given the requirements of Articles 179(1)(a) and 175(4)(b) CRR, in case of a model development, should the last available one-year snapshot be used for risk quantification purposes (i.e., for the computation of the long-run average default rate) or be set aside for out-of-time validation tests?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: EBA/GL/2017/16 - Guidelines on PD estimation, LGD estimation and the treatment of defaulted exposures

Consideration of default dependencies for MoC C quantification

Do financial institutions have to incorporate the variability of the macro-economic factor (of the Vasicek model) into the quantification of the MoC C? In other words, do financial institutions have to incorporate default dependencies between obligors into the MoC C quantification?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: EBA/GL/2017/16 - Guidelines on PD estimation, LGD estimation and the treatment of defaulted exposures

Explanation regarding the term "non-reducible"

Could you please explain what does mean the term "nonreducible" in the context of life insurance policy pledged to a lending institution?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable

Clarification on treatment of repurchase agreements and reverse repurchase agreement, as well as securities lending/borrowing of the banking book and of the trading book under the counterparty credit risk and the treatment of these same transactions under standardised approach of credit risk.

A securities repurchase (repo) is an agreement whereby a transferor agrees to sell securities to a transferee at a specified price and repurchase the securities on a specified date and at a specified price. Since the transaction is regarded as a financing (liability item) of the transferor for accounting purposes, the securities remain on the balance sheet of the transferor. As for the transferee the transaction is treated as a collateralized loan (asset item) for accounting purposes. When referring to “repurchase agreements” in art. 271 CRR, does it applies both to transferor and transferee exposures (in a manner analogous to securities lending transactions on which specific mention to both parties of a transaction –lending and borrowing- is made)? In essence, counterparty credit risk is a bilateral risk, and as such it seems reasonable to capture the risk of both counterparties, even if a transferor and a securities lender will both have accounted the operation as a liability item. Shall the institutions include all repurchase agreements and securities lending/borrowing for counterparty credit risk capital requirements purposes regardless of whether they have been accounted for within the trading or the banking book? According to article 271 (2) an institution shall include the exposure value of repurchase transactions and securities lending/borrowing for counterparty credit risk capital requirements purposes, without making any distinction as to whether they belong to the banking or to the trading book. The exposure value shall be calculated either in accordance with Chapter 4 or Chapter 6 of Title II. However, article 92 (3) (f) states that only SFT transactions of the trading book exposures are subject to counterparty risk capital requirements. Although it could be also interpreted that SFT transactions and agreements of the banking book are also subject to counterparty risk capital requirements according to article 92 (3) (a) as it refers to the whole Title II (including Chapter 6 –counterparty credit risk-). To make things even more confusing, according to article 111 (2) and article 166 (7) the exposure value of any repurchase agreements and securities lending/borrowing shall be included for credit risk capital requirements purposes and it shall be calculated either in accordance with Chapter 4 or Chapter 6. Following the argumentation set out above, the credit risk related to the counterparty in repurchase agreements and securities lending/borrowing of the banking book might be captured twice, once under the standardised approach/IRB method scheme (Chapter 2 or 3) and again under the counterparty credit risk regime (Chapter 6). It does not seem to make sense to ask institutions for capital requirements twice for the same risk concept. Can you please confirm which is the correct treatment for the credit risk related to the counterparty of repurchase agreements and securities lending/borrowing of the banking book? Or do articles 111(2)/116(7) refer to a risk concept different that article 271(2)? Do both parties of a same transaction –transferor and transferee, lender and borrower- have to capture the credit risk related to the counterparty? The same argumentation applies to derivatives, long settlement transactions and marging lending transactions of the banking book.

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable

Treatment of repurchase agreements and reverse repurchase agreement, as well as securities or commodities lending/borrowing of the banking book under standardised approach of credit risk.

Shall the transferor of an operation like the one described below include for credit risk capital requirements purposes both the exposure value of the securities sold (asset item) and the financing position (even if it is a liability item), or just the asset item of the securities sold?According to Article 111(2) CRR the exposure value of any repurchase transaction shall be included and be calculated either in accordance with Chapter 4 or Chapter 6 of Title II: does it also refers to the financing position of the transferor (even if it is a liability item)?What is the correct treatment for the financing position of the transferor? are securities also to be included as an exposure value in case the Financial Collateral Simple Method is used?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable

Preferential risk weight for indirect sovereign exposures in the currency of another Member State

May Article 500a be applied to exposure types other than government bond? May Article 500a paragraph 1 also be applied to indirect exposures, when the obligor is classified different from central governments or central banks? If so, the currency constraints imposed by the article 500a have to be referred to the unfunded credit protection of a central governments or central banks?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable

Definition of residential property

I am bringing a point to your notice where in article 4(75) the residential property is defined as a residence which is occupied by the owner or the lessee of the residence, including the right to inhabit an apartment in housing cooperatives located in Sweden. This has led to quite some confusion in my organisation as to what definition applies in other Nordic countries. Given that we have a presence in all Nordic countries, we expect a generic definition which can be consistently applied for the correct treatment of collateral types. These further also impact how the customer segments (rating systems) are defined as according to the regulation the exposure secured by RRE must be excluded when defining thresholds for retail vs non-retail customers. Therefore, I request you to either 1) modify the definition so that it is clearer if the same definition can be applied in all countries, or 2) Remove the specific country name "Sweden" from the definition, or 3) the institutions can follow local FSAs for such definitions, or 4) They can have their own guidelines for such definitions.

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Draft ITS on Supervisory Reporting of Institutions

PD calibration sample

Given the definition of PD calibration provided in EBA/GL/2017/16 section 2.4 paragraph 8, and the requirements for the calibration sample provided in section 5.3.5, paragraph 88 of the same guidelines, for developing a TTC model, clarification is needed on the expectation on the implementation of the back-testing performed in the validation phase.: Shall the back-testing at portfolio level verify that the average PD over historical observation period is aligned with LRA DR or, instead, shall the comparison be made between PD estimates current at the validation date and the LRA DR? Does it change according to the rating philosophy? Shall the back-testing always be performed on a 1-year validation sample, regardless the type of TTC calibration philosophy and regardless the length of the calibration sample? How shall the rating philosophy be taken into consideration when assessing the outcome of back-testing at grade level? Provided that the main aim of the calibration is to reflect the LRA DR, is the any case where the alignment to 1-year default rate should get a higher weight in validation assessment, although in a TTC calibration philosophy?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: EBA/GL/2017/16 - Guidelines on PD estimation, LGD estimation and the treatment of defaulted exposures

Display of provision during substitution approaches

Due to the future application of the CRR3, the used of the IRB model will be limited. As example, some expositions (Corporates SME especially) considered with IRB method (and so displayed in C08A – CR IRBA form in COREP), are currently guaranteed by an institution or a sovereign which are also today considered with the IRB method. With CRR3, the debtor will probably stay with the IRB method (so still displayed in CR IRBA form in COREP), but there will be an outflow to the CR SA because the Basel method of the guarantor will be standard model. There will be an inflow in CR SA to display the metrics of the expositions after taking into account the characteristics of the guarantor (CRM). Around September 2021, we asked to your team, some precision about the “display of the provision during the substitution approach” under the reference 2021_6220. Our question result from the Q&A 2017_3335 which confirm the possibility to apply the substitution approach when the exposure and the guarantor are treated by the institution under different basel methods. Our Q&A has been rejected considering that the issue it deals with is already explained in section 3.1.1 of Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 2021/451 (ITS on Supervisory Reporting). Without mistake of our part and conversely of your affirmation, we are still considering the display of the provision non taking into account by the Q&A 2017_3335. For reminder, the display of the provision in COREP forms is different according to the Basel method applied: The value is displayed in column 0020 of C07 - CR SA uses the Basel method of the debtor Inversely for the C08 - CR IRB, the value is displayed in column 0290 (as memorandum item) uses the Basel method of the guarantor (if there is any)

  • 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)

Opinion to Question 2020_5551, whether an institution is allowed to apply the supporting factor for SMEs and the supporting factor for infrastructure projects simultaneously.

A pending Question 2020_5551 asks an opinion whether an institution is allowed to apply the supporting factor for SMEs (Art 501) and the supporting factor for infrastructure projects (Art 501a) simultaneously. I share here my opinion to help the answer, as it would be important to our institution, and I think the answer is simplier than thought suggested on that question. The pending question I am referring to is under the link https://www.eba.europa.eu/single-rule-book-qa/qna/view/publicId/2020_5551

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable

Treatment for strategic long-term non-listed equity exposures under simple risk weight approach as per Article 155(2) CRR

Can a RW of 190% be applied to long-term strategic investments in non-listed equity exposures as per Article 155(2) CRR, provided that they are in a sufficiently diversified portfolio?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable

Validation rule eba_v0315_m working incorrectly in C07 templates in a column 0216 for derivatives

Could validation rule eba_v0315_m be modified for a column 0216? At the moment it does not work in situations when there are derivative exposures with SME supporting factor in a row 0110 but not in an of which row 0120.

  • 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)

European Union Allowances (EUA) as credit risk mitigant

Could European Union Allowances (EUA) received by a credit institution as collateral be considered as eligible one from prudential point of view ? If yes, how EUA should be considered ? As financial collateral or as other physical collateral ?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable

Residential property

Artcile 4 (75) presents the definitions for Residential property - “residential property” means a residence which is occupied by the owner or the lessee of the residence, including the right to inhabit an apartment in housing cooperatives located in Sweden; Question ID: 2015_2304 has a aswwer:  "For the avoidance of doubt, the exposure has to be secured by a mortgage on residential property which “is or shall be occupied or let by the owner”. This excludes situations where residential property “may” be built in the future (i.e. mortgages on land) but includes mortgages on building sites on which residential property will be built for the future owner of the property, or on residential property under construction, provided in both cases that there is certainty that the owner will occupy or let the property. In this sense, the 35% risk weight cannot be applied to exposures towards real estate developers. This treatment does only apply to exposures fully and completely secured by mortgages on residential property, and not where units were to be exploited commercially. " If real estate company owns houses/apartments/flats and this company leases them to natural persons (for living) does these houses/apartments are consideres as residential properties or commercial properties in Your view? Clear Yes and No answer is needed.  

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable

Exposure to multilateral development banks

What are the criteria to be assigned a 0% risk weight by the EU under this regulation?  What is the process to apply to be assigned a 0% risk weight?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable

The risk-weighted exposure amount of the CIU’s exposures in mandate based approach

Could the institution use the information from the CIU management company about the notional amount of derivative positions of CIU to assess the value of those derivatives in calculating risk-weighted exposure amount of CIU when using the mandate based approach in accordance with Article 132a(2) CRR? In particular, is the institution allowed to use the information from the CIU management company, that CIU doesn’t have derivatives in their portfolio and assess the value of those derivatives as zero in calculating risk-weighted exposure amount of CIU when using the mandate based approach in accordance with Article 132a(2) CRR?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable

Calculating risk-weighted exposure amounts under the standardised approach for exposures guaranteed by a Member State’s central government denominated in the domestic currency of that central government when the exposure is denominated in a different currency that is the currency of another Member State

For exposures guaranteed by a Member State’s central government where the guarantee is denominated in the domestic currency of that central government, the central government as protection provider shall be assigned a 0% risk weight if the exposure is denominated in a different currency that is the currency of another Member State?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable

Exposure to an entity that holds a loan portfolio composed of purchased or self-originated loans which are secured by real estate properties and their assignment to the regulatory asset class “exposures associated with particularly high risk”

Does an exposure representing funding to an SPV that itself originates reverse mortgages loans with returns linked to the development of the relevant housing market and a business case involving a potential sale/securitisation of the underlying portfolio (see “Background on the question”) fulfil the requirements to be assigned to the regulatory asset class “exposures associated with particularly high risk” in accordance with Article 128(3) CRR and its specification as set out in EBA/GL/2019/01, even though the bank has contractual agreements with the SPV in place (i.e. covenants and LTV restrictions) which have a certain risk mitigating effect?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: EBA/GL/2019/01 - Guidelines on specification of types of exposures to be associated with high risk under Article 128(3) of CRR

Exposure to an entity that holds a loan portfolio composed of purchased or self-originated loans which are secured by real estate properties and their assignment to the regulatory asset class “exposures associated with particularly high risk”

Does an exposure representing funding to an SPV, that itself purchases loans originated for speculative immovable financing purposes, fulfil the requirements to be assigned to the regulatory asset class 'exposures associated wth particularly high risk' in accordance with Article 128(3) CRR and its specification as set out in EBA/GL/2019/01, even though the bank has contractual agreements with the SPV in place (i.e. covenants and LTV restrictions), which have a certain risk mitigating effect?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: EBA/GL/2019/01 - Guidelines on specification of types of exposures to be associated with high risk under Article 128(3) of CRR