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

IFRS 9 Transitional arrangements - Calculation of the amount available for CET1 add-back

When assets were measured at amortised cost in accordance with IAS 39 then classified as FVTPL under IFRS 9, should they be included in the calculation of the ‘day 1’ static amount to be added back to CET1 as set in Article 473a(2)(b)?

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

Classification of a commitment to make under certain conditions an indemnity payment for a customer

Does a commitment to make under certain conditions an indemnity payment on behalf of a customer constitute an “off-balance sheet item other than those mentioned in (Article 166) paragraphs 1 to 8” according to Article 166(10) CRR?If so, does it constitute a medium/ low risk item according to Article 166(10)(c) CRR, specifically as one of the “other items also carrying medium/low risk and as communicated to EBA” according to Annex I, No. 3(b)(ii) CRR?

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

Treatment of off-balance sheet exposures measured at reporting date at fair value trough P&L in templates F 18.00 and F 19.00

How should we treat off-balance sheet exposures measured at reporting date at fair value trough P&L from the reporting templates F 18.00 and F 19.00 point of view? Shall we include them into templates 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)

Gross carrying amount for purchased credit-impaired assets in FINREP and COREP

How should we define gross carrying amount of purchased credit-impaired assets (POCI) for reporting into FINREP templates (i. e. F 18.00 and F 19.00)? Related to gross carrying amount in previous question, how should we in define original exposures for reporting into COREP and LE templates? How should we calculate coverage ratio by allowances or provisioning for credit losses, if the value of allowances for expected credit losses related to the POCI is positive? For example: In Q1 2018 bank A simultaneously with other forbearance measures in respected existing exposures to the debtor who is already in default, grants him a new loan in CU 100.000 (=so-called transaction price). There is evidence that the loan is already credit-impaired at initial recognition, based on that fact bank identified this exposure as an originated credit-impaired financial asset in stage 3 (=POCI).The fair value of the loan at the time of drawdown (i.e. at initial recognition) is only CU 55.000, mainly due to the significant credit risk value adjustment. Therefore, bank at initial recognition in accordance with paragraph B5.1.2A (b) of IFRS 9 recognises one-day profit or loss (P&L) in CU 45.000. Bank recognises also allowance for expected credit losses (ECL) in CU 1.000. In Q4 2018 bank find out that estimated allowance for ECL in CU 1.000 and negative fair value adjustment due to credit risk in CU 45.000, which was, taking in to account one-day P&L and calculation of credit-adjusted effective interest rate under paragraph 5.4.1 (a) of IFRS 9, too pessimistic. Therefore, bank reverses allowances from the previous period in CU 1.000. In addition, bank recognises positive amount of allowances for ECL in CU 2.000. The same situation could happened if Bank A modified financial assets, which in accordance with paragraph B5.5.25 of IFRS 9 would result in the derecognition of the existing financial asset and the subsequent recognition of the new modified financial asset. If there is evidence that the new modified financial asset is credit-impaired at initial recognition, it should be in accordance with paragraph B5.5.26 of IFRS 9 recognised as an originated credit-impaired financial asset (=POCI). Based on presented example, which option to calculate the gross carrying amount under paragraph 34 (b) of Part 2 Annex V of Regulation (EU) No 680/2014 for reporting purposes in the FINREP templates is correct: Option A: Fair value of financial asset defined at initial recognition in accordance with paragraphs 5.1.1, 5.1.1A and B5.1.2A of IFRS 9, as the starting point for using amortized cost method at subsequent measurement, because FINREP templates in general follow IFRS. According end of the Q1 and Q4 gross carrying amount is CU 55.000 (= transaction price in CU 100.000 minus recognised one day P&L in CU 45.000). Option B: Fair value of financial asset after adding back any negative fair value adjustment due to credit risk at initial recognition of financial asset, as starting point for credit losses calculation both for accounting and for capital adequacy purposes. According end of the Q1 and Q4 gross carrying amount is CU 100.000 (= transaction price). In this case negative fair value adjustment due to credit risk at initial recognition in CU 45.000 should increase amount of allowances for ECL. How should we, in respect of gross carrying amount in the example, define original exposures for the purpose of including in COREP and LE templates, in accordance with option A or option B?

  • 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)

Validation rules v5434_m to v5447_m in DPM 2.7.0

Are validation rules v5434_m to v5447_m 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)

Validation rule v2818

Is there is an error in validation rule V2818 (check between AE and FINREP CON)? It caused a blocking error on the side of our institution. ERROR : v2818_m: sum({F 32.01, r070, (c010, c060)}) = {F 04.01, r080,c010} + {F 04.02.1, r070,c010} + {F 04.02.2, r080,c010} + {F 04.03.1, r070,c010} + {F 04.04.1, r030, c010} + {F 04.06, r080, c010} + {F 04.07, r080, c010} + {F 04.08, r080, c010} + {F 04.09, r030, c050} + {F 04.10, r080, c010} : [F 32.01: 22693164316; FINREP: 734022053; 596916000; 0; 11242205575; 10104104910] It checks debt securities issued by central banks and general governments. Apparently in the control some FINREP cells for central banks are missing. For example: {F 04.01, r070,c010} {F 04.03.1, r060,c010} {F 04.04.1, r020, c010} I see no reason why these fields are missing in the rule.

  • 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)

Reactivation of v0191_m as of v2.7.

Is the reactivation of v0191_m: {C 01.00, r370, c010} = {C 05.01, r170, c060} 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)

FINREP. Validation rule v5468_m

Is validaton rule v5468_m 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)

F 04.04.1, v5662_s.

ERROR : v5662_s: [F 04.04.1 (All rows, c050;060;070;080;090)] (F 04.04.1) <= 0 The validation rule is not correct. It shouldn’t include the row 150 ( of which : purchased credit-impaired financial assets) for which it is possible to have a positive value. It is possible to have a positive impairment for the purchase credit-impaired financial assets.

  • 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)

Inconsistencies in validation rules v1974_h, v5447_m, v5475_m and v5443_m

Whilst implementing DPM 2.7 we ran into some inconsistencies in the validation rules. The inconsistencies are caused by the validation rules as mentioned below. eba_v1974_h [F 17.01 (c010)] {r231} = +{r232} + {r233} Issue: in dpm 2.7 row 380 for equity instruments was added in report F17.00 and is part of row 231 but is not part of the right side of the equation. eba_v5447_m {F 18.00.a, r180, c010} = sum({F 04.09, r140, (c010, c020)}) + sum({F 04.10, r190, (c010, c020)}) - sum({F 04.10, r190, (c015, c025)}) + sum({F 01.01, (r030, r040), c010}) Issue: in report F18.00 row 180 only contains debt securities and loans and advances, whereas in the F4.x reports equity instruments are included as well (here, report F4.08 reports equity instruments). Rule eba_v5475_m has the same issue eba_v5443_m [F 18.00.a] {F 18.00.a, r100, c010} = sum({F 04.09, r100, (c010, c020)}) + sum({F 04.10, r150, (c010, c020)}) - sum({F 04.10, r150, (c015, c025)}) + {F 01.01, r030, c010} In template 18, the amount is for credit institutions, whereas the {F 01.01, r030, c010} refers to cash at central banks. If the reference was to row 40 (other demand deposits) instead of 30, the calculation would add up The question is: How to handle these inconsistencies?

  • 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)

Validation rules v5267_m up to v5279_m

This question is for validation rules v_5267_m up till v_5279_m.Validation rule v_5267_m requires the following condition is fulfilled:  sum({F 18.00.a, c010, (r010, r181)}) = sum({F 20.04, r080, c012, (sNNN)}). Is this validation rule 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)

Application of a currency volatility adjustment in the case of a Significant Credit Risk Transfer securitisation

Should a currency volatility adjustment – as referenced to in CRR art 264 and defined in CRR art 223 - be applied in the case in which an originator synthetically securitises a partly non-EUR FX-denominated portfolio through the issuance of a EUR denominated fully funded Credit Linked Note?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: EBA/GL/2014/05 - Guidelines on significant credit risk transfer

DPM2.7.0.1 validation rules v5228_m,v5229_m,v_5231_m,v5235_m across template F18.00a, F04.04.1

v5228_m,v5229_m,v_5231_m,v5235_m: We found these validations do not take into account the expect credit loss amount calculated for other demand deposits and cash balances at central banks.  Are they 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)

Template 2 EU LI2 EBA/GL/2016/11 (Main sources of differences between regulatory exposure amounts and carrying values in fin statements)

Should original exposures after provisions or EAD (exposures at default) be used to compile data in Pillar 3 template 2 "EU LI2 - Main sources of differences between regulatory amounts and carrying values in financial statements and specifically row 10 “? (Exposure amounts considered for regulatory purposes)

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: EBA/GL/2016/11 - Guidelines on disclosure requirements under Part Eight of CRR

IFRS 9, validation rule v6030_m

Validation rule v6030_m for IFRS 9 (taxonomy 2.7) seems to be incorrect. Subsequently validation rules v6031_m, v6032_m, v6033_m, v6034_m, v6035_m, v6036_m, v6037_m and v6038_m seem also to be incorrect. Template F 12.1 contains a reconciliation of the opening and closing balances of the allowance account for financial assets measured at amortised cost and at fair value through other comprehensive income broken down by impairment stages, by instrument and by counterparty. If there are allowances for other demand deposits (table F 01.01. row 040) do these allowances have to be reported in table F 12.01.a as well? In case of that allowances for other demand deposits have to be shown in table F 12.01.a the validation v6030_m (and subsequently the validation rules v6031_m, v6032_m, v6033_m, v6034_m, v6035_m, v6036_m, v6037_m and v6038_m) can't be fullfilled as table F 04.03.1 and F 04.03.1 do not include other demand deposits.

  • 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)

Asset denominated in one currency and funded in a different currency subject to a FX Swap exchanging those two currencies

For the purpose of the credit risk standard risk-weight attribution, can we consider that 1) an asset denominated in one currency and funded in a different currency subject to a FX Swap exchanging those two currencies is equivalent to 2) an asset denominated and funded in the same currency?

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

Treatment of margined Derivatives which are physically settled in the Maturity Ladder (C66) Template

The guidance suggests that all margined derivatives should not be reported in the return for lines: "1.5 Derivatives amount payables other than those reported in 1.4" and "2.4 Derivatives amount receivables other than those reported in 2.3". How would you suggest that firms should report the cash flows relating to margined derivatives which are physically settled by the delivery of a commodity and the exchange of cash?

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

Inclusion of interim profits in CET1 on consolidated basis

1. Could the competent authority grant a permission for including interim profits on consolidated level without granting such permission on solo level?2. How should the institution calculate the pay-out ratio of dividends calculating foreseeable dividends according to Article 2(7) of RTS 241/2014 while applying for inclusion of interim profits on consolidated level? 

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) No 241/2014 - RTS for Own Funds requirements for institutions