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

Amount of certain CET1 items available for stable funding

For the purposes of calculating available stable funding, it is unclear what amount should be reported, if any, as regards the following CET1 items: a) retained earnings, b) minority interests and c) amounts added back to CET1 due to the application of IFRS 9 transitional arrangements (Article 473a CRR).

  • 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

Scope of COH definition under IFR

Are pure intermediation transactions processed in name give-up taken into account in the K-COH calculations?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 2019/2033 (IFR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable

Transactions initiated via electronic mail (email)

Do transactions initiated via electronic mail (email) qualify as initiations pursuant to Article 97 para. 1 (b) PSD2 and are therefore subject to the RTS SCA requirements?

  • Legal act: Directive 2015/2366/EU (PSD2)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) 2018/389 - RTS on strong customer authentication and secure communication

Validation rule v09753_m

Should the validation rule v09753_m  be adapted for column 0060 “Number of obligors”?

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

Deactivating Validationrule v10549_h

The validation rule v10549_h should be deactivated?

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

FINREP - Validation rules EBA_v10610 on F18.0

During the last reporting of 30/06/2021 and 30/09/2021 we received a return from ACPR about the validation rule EBA_v10610 on F18.0. The message is : "Failed XBRL rule v10610_m: [F 18.00.a (r0005;0010;0020;0030;0040;0050;0060;0070;0080;0090;0100;0110;0120;0130;0140;0150;0160;0170;0180;0181;0182;0183;0184;0185;0186;0191;0192;0193;0194;0195;0196;0900;0903;0197;0910;0913;0201;0330;0335)] {c0020} = {c0056} + {c0057} + {c0058}" We think the check is wrong on row 330. On this row, column 020 is the sum of rows 0180 + 0201 + 0231. Line 0231 corresponds to DEBT INSTRUMENTS AT STRICT LOCOM, OR FAIR VALUE THROUGH PROFIT OR LOSS OR THROUGH EQUITY NOT SUBJECT TO IMPAIRMENT or which the Finrep does not request a breakdown on the columns 0056 + 0057 + 0058.

  • 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

Calculation of NPE ratio and coverage of NPEs with accumulated impairment and collateral following changed definition of gross carrying amount of debt instruments at fair value through other comprehensive income (in continuation: debt instruments at FVOCI) from "carrying amount before adjusting for any loss allowance" to "the amortised cost before adjusting for any loss allowance"

Should enter into calculation of NPE ratio and coverage of NPEs with accumulated impairment and collateral in case of debt instruments at FVOCI   "carrying amount before adjusting for any loss allowance" or "the amortised cost before adjusting for any loss allowance"?

  • 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

Reporting of specific information concerning template C106.01: “Instrument 23”

Our issue and its corresponding question rely on the manner we should report a specific information concerning the template C106.01 “SBM.Risk sensitivities by Instrument” – 2022 benchmarking exercise – based on a constraint of this template regarding the number of lines we can report. That is: “Institutions shall report each combination of Instrument number, Risk identifier (column 0010), Bucket (column 0020) and Additional identifier (column 0030) only once.” Our doubt is linked to the “instrument 23” and to the new benchmarking sensitivities’ template submission. Concretely, we have received a validation due to a negative volatility we reported within the template. The reason is that “instrument 23” Collar component is based on two transactions: a 7.5% Cap and a 2.5% Floor. The Vega Net sensitivity of both transactions (therefore, the Collar Vega sensitivity) is positive, even though one of the transaction’s Vega is positive while the other one is negative. Since the Collar figures must be reported only with one “line”, it forces us to reach a negative Collar FRTB-SA weighted Vega value with the multiplication of a positive Collar Vega sensitivity and a positive “average” volatility, which mathematically speaking is not possible.

  • 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)

MREL/TLAC EBA template – split of liabilities by creditor hierarchy

Does the maturity split of own funds and potentially eligible liabilities for MREL in template M 06.00 of the ITS on disclosure and reporting on MREL and TLAC include prudential filters or not?

  • Legal act: Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) 2021/763 – ITS with regard to the supervisory reporting and public disclosure of MREL

Definition of EU OV1, row 1 Credit risk (excluding CCR)

Shall the CVA from reporting template CA2, row 0640, respectively from disclosure template EU OV1, row EU 8b, be deducted from EU OV1, row 1 (Credit risk (excluding CCR))?  

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

Warning in COREP C42.00 (LR3) template validation regarding column 010, row 010 and row 020

Does COREP C42.00 template expect “Common Equity Tier 1 capital – fully phased-in definition” in row 010 column 010 should match with “Common Equity Tier 1 capital – transitional definition” row 020 column 010?

  • 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

Warning in COREP C07.00 (CR SA) template validation regarding column 040 and column 110

Does COREP C07.00 template expect “Exposure net of value adjustments and provisions” in row 070 column 040 to match with “Net exposure after CRM substitution effects pre conversion factors” row 070 column 110? If yes, then how should the effect of CRM in column 050-100 be reported in C07.00 template?

  • 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

Articulation and interaction of the second and the third sub-paragraph of Article 74 (1) of the PSD2

In cases where the payer could not possibly detect the loss, theft or misappropriation of his instrument before it was used, is it correct to state that there can be no liability at all, including if the payer has acted with gross negligence?

  • Legal act: Directive 2015/2366/EU (PSD2)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable

Reporting of gold positions in C 22.00

What is the correct treatment of gold positions for the purpose of reporting the currency breakdown in COREP template C 22.00?

  • 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

Validation rules V08993_M and V08988_M

The below (linked) validation errors were received on the funding plan reporting: V08993_M: (P 01.02, r145, c010) = xsum((F 08.01.a, (r070, r080, r090, c010, c020, c030, c034, c035))) => The vaildation rules compare the outstanding amount under central bank deposits in the FP template (P 01.02) to the carrying amount of central bank deposits in the FINREP template (F08.01.a V08988_M: (P 01.02, r010, c010) = xsum((F 08.01.a, (r100, r150, r200, r250, r300, r350, c010, c020, c030, c034, c035))) => This vaildation rule compare the outstanding amount under repurchase amounts in the FP template (P 01.02) to the carrying amount of repurchase agreements in the FINREP template (F08.01.a)   The Funding Plan instructions specifically mention that the ECB TLTRO should be reported in row 010 of template P 02.02 (Guideline EBA/GL/2019/05). Funding received through central bank funding programmes such as the ECB TLTRO shall be reported in this row independent from the legal form of this transaction, i.e. whether conducted as repo transaction or otherwise. Following validation rule v4135_m, which connects the item in P 02.02, r010 to item P 01.02, r010 (Repurchase agreements), the TLTRO is reported as a repo transaction in row 010 of template P 01.02 in the Funding Plans.   The Finrep instructions (Annex V) define repurchase agreements as transactions in which the institution receives cash in exchange for financial assets sold at a given price under a commitment to repurchase the same (or identical) assets at a fixed price on a specified future date. Transactions involving the temporary transfer of gold against cash collateral shall also be considered repurchase agreements. Amounts received by the institution in exchange for financial assets transferred to a third party (‘temporary acquirer’) shall be classified under repurchase agreements where there is a commitment to reverse the operation and not merely an option to do so. Repurchase agreements shall also include repo-type operations which may include amounts received in exchange for securities temporarily transferred to a third party in the form of securities lending against cash collateral, and amounts received in exchange for securities temporarily transferred to a third party in the form of sale/buy-back agreement. In our case the TLTRO is performed using the securities of the banks as collateral. However, the banks does not sell securities to the central bank with an agreement to buy them at a later date. As a collateralization technique the central bank uses a pool of assets. A counterparty includes eligible marketable assets in the pool of assets at the central bank by ensuring the maximum pledge on such assets in favour of the central bank. Individual assets are therefore not linked to specific credit operations. Such credit operations are therefore reported in Finrep as Deposits with agreed maturity. Following the above TLTRO is reported differently in Finrep (as a deposit with agreed maturity) as in Funding plans (as a repurchase agreement). Do we have to report the TLTRO operations in Finrep as repurchase operations?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: EBA/GL/2019/05 – Guidelines on harmonised definitions and templates for funding plans of credit institutions under Recommendation A4 of ESRB/2012/2 - repealing EBA/GL/2014/04

Validation rule v8727_m seems to be incorrect

Validation rule v8727_m is incorrect.

  • 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

Applicability of the SME supporting factor for financing private purposes

Where a natural person’s business activities meet the criteria for an SME, does the SME supporting factor according to Article 501 CRR also apply to exposures from financing private investments of this natural person not directly related to that business?

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

In template C 34.02, the column Exposure Pre-CRM (column 150) aims to report EAD of all CCR exposures following articles 274 or 281 or 282 (according respective CCR method) and sub-sequent articles defining the effects of margin agreements or aims to report a new EAD value gross of all forms of collaterals and margins included in the margin agreement

​To comply with the requirement of columns 150, 160 of C 34.02 of Annex 1 of Regulation (EU) 2021/451 (ITS on Supervisory Reporting) we seek clarification regarding what is expected to be delivered in these 2 columns. Does any of the below 3 scenarios describe correctly the interpretation of the ITS guidance? If none of below scenarios reflect the correct interpretation, what is the calculation expected to be performed to derive the EAD Pre-CRM and EAD Post-CRM? Scenario 1: for EAD Pre-CRM value apply all SACCR formulas as if the netting set is unmargined and no form of collateral is accepted For banks under SACCR, for margined and un-margined netting sets the EAD should be calculated as follows: Maturity factor at trade level should use the following formula: MF(unmargined) = sqt root [ (min {M;1year})/ 1year] RC (replacement Cost) = max { sum V; 0} Multiplier = min { 1; Floor + (1-Floor)*exp[ sum(V)/(2*(1-Floor)*AddOnaggregate)] Exclude from all steps of the EAD calculation: Initial margin given or received Variation margin given or received Any instrument identified as NICA:Collaterals or guarantees received Collaterals or guarantees given Scenario 2: For EAD Pre-CRM value, apply all SACCR formulas as if the netting set is unmargined For banks under SACCR, margined netting sets will be treated as unmargined netting sets. The EAD should be calculated as follows: Maturity factor at trade level should use the following formula: MF(unmargined) = sqt root [ (min {M;1year})/ 1year] RC (replacement Cost) = max { sum V-C; 0} Multiplier = min { 1; Floor + (1-Floor)*exp[ sum(V-C)/(2*(1-Floor)*AddOnaggregate)] Where V includes: initial margin given Collaterals or guarantees given identified as NICA Where C includes: Collaterals or guarantees received identified as NICA Initial margin received According to scenario 2, exclude from all steps of the EAD calculation (RC or PFE multiplier) the following items: Variation margin given Variation margin received Scenario 3: For EAD Pre-CRM (col150), apply all SACCR formulas as prescribed in Chapters 4 and 6 of Title II of Part Three CRR, and for EAD Post-CRM (col160) show the effects of a third-party collateral/guarantee received pledging the netting set(s), mitigants of which, are out of the netting or margin agreement with the counterparty EAD Pre-CRM (col 150 of c34.02) calculation follows the respective formulas for SACCR (simplified SACCR or OEM according to Chapters 6 of Title II of Part Three CRR articles 274 or 281 or 282 accordingly) depending if margined or unmargined netting sets. Therefore, EAD Pre-CRM includes all the below items which are contractually part of the margining agreement with the counterparty, and which intrinsically are part of the EAD calculation and do not constitute an actual transfer of risk as per credit risk mitigation: Initial margin given or received to/from Variation margin given or received Any instrument identified as NICA:Collaterals or guarantees received Collaterals or guarantees given EAD Post-CRM (C34.02 col160) reflects the effects of any mitigants given by a third-party (different entity from margin agreement counterparty). These mitigants may pledge one or more, derivative or SFT’s netting sets. As these mitigants are given by a different counterparty from the counterparty with who the reporting entity has a margin agreement, and consequently the covered portions by these mitigants are subject to different risk weight and there is an actual transfer of risk, it is relevant to trace what is the EAD Post-CRM value net of the effects of these mitigants.

  • 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

Clarification on the protection requirements of a CustomerID when included in a payer-presented QR-code for the initiation of (instant) credit transfers at the Point of Interaction (POI)

  Are the Customer ID’s security measures (e.g., encryption, tokenisation, transport layer security) mentioned under Q&A 5476 to be always applied in any payer-presented QR code, regardless of who generates it (e.g., including a non-PSP)?

  • Legal act: Directive 2015/2366/EU (PSD2)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable