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

Treatment of subordinated loans in respect of Art 133 (3) CRR

Could you please confirm that subordinated loans according to Art 62.a CRR, which are acknowledged as Tier 2 are not regarded as equity exposures according to Art. 133.3 CRR.

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2014_1384
  • Topic: Own funds
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 11/02/2022

Short positions in financial institution capital instruments

(1) Where a bank holds an item which is treated as a financial institution capital instrument under CRR, can a guarantee or credit default swap over that instrument be considered a short position for the purposes of Articles 45(a), 59(a) or 69(a)? (2) Where a bank has an indirect holding of a financial institution capital instrument, can a guarantee or credit default swap over the host item be considered a short position in the underlying capital instrument for the purposes of Articles 45(a), 59(a) or 69(a)?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2014_1382
  • Topic: Own funds
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 20/02/2015

In the case of a repurchase of CET 1 instruments, AT 1 instruments, or T 2 instruments for market making purposes, competent authorities may give their permission in advance to reducing own funds for a certain predetermined amount.

Would such a frame given in advance to reduce own funds for a certain predetermined amount for market making purposes result in a deduction from own funds at the time when permission is given or would a deduction from own funds be made at the time when the actual repurchase of capital instruments takes place? It should be noted that the question being posed is linked to the situation where a permission is given in advance to repurchase own capital instrument for market making purposes. The question being posed is not linked to a situation where a permission is given in advance to repurchase own capital instrument in order to reduce own funds on a permanently basis.

  • 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
  • ID: 2014_1352
  • Topic: Own funds
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 31/10/2014

Grandfathering of own funds instruments

Is buying back parts of an issued Tier 1 instrument that do not meet the requirements of Article 53 in Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR) but are eligible for grandfathering possible, or would it make the remaining outstanding amount disqualified for grandfathering? This question is similar to Question 2013_18, but keeps the contract of the instrument unchanged.

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2014_1253
  • Topic: Own funds
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 24/10/2014

Inclusion of interim profits in CET1

If a credit institution includes interim profits in Common Equity Tier 1 capital (with the prior permission from the competent authority in accordance with Article 26(2) of the CRR), can the institution decide that in the following interim period it will not apply for a permission concerning interim profits for that (current) interim period, but to use the (previously permitted) amount of interim profits for the previous interim period? For example, a credit institution received a prior permission from the competent authority and included interim profits reported on 30 June in its CET1 capital. When calculating CET1 capital on 30 September, can it choose not to apply for a prior permission from the competent authority to use interim profits reported on 30 September and, instead, include the amount of interim profits reported on 30 June (the same amount it has included in the calculation in the previous quarter)?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2014_1242
  • Topic: Own funds
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 08/05/2015

Eligibility of subordinated loans for classification as Tier 2 instruments when the rules governing their issue contemplate an obligation of the issuer to repurchase a percentage of them (eligibility limited to the amount of subordinated loans not subject to such repurchase obligation).

Pursuant to the combined application of articles 63 letter k) and 66 letter a) it is correct that a clause – also included in the rules governing the issue of subordinated loans – according to which an issuer is obliged to repurchase a specified amount of subordinated loans does not prevent from classifying such financial instruments as Tier 2 instruments if, in compliance with article 66 letter a), the percentage of subordinated loans that shall be repurchased by the issuer is deducted from Tier 2 items? In other words, a subordinated loans can be classified as Tier 2 instruments if the provisions governing their issue contemplate the undertaking of the issuer to repurchase a specified percentage of the issued subordinated loans provided that - in compliance with article 66 letter a) of CRR - such percentage is deducted from Tier 2 items? The undertaking of the issuer to repurchase part of subordinated loans deriving from the rules governing the issue of such subordinated loans can be considered as a repurchase “contractual obligation” and as a consequence may it fall within one of the cases contemplated under the provisions of article 66 letter a) of CRR?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2014_1226
  • Topic: Own funds
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 29/08/2014

Inclusion of consolidated current and year-end profits in Common Equity Tier 1 Capital

According to Articles 18 and 19 of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR), institutions have to carry out a prudential consolidation. The scope of entities included in prudential consolidation can differ from the scope of full financial consolidation. For the purposes of meeting the requirements of Article 26(2) of the CRR, should the current as well as year-end profits resulting from the prudential consolidation also be verified by persons independent of the institution that are responsible for the auditing of the accounts of that institution? Is the General Meeting of Shareholders obliged to confirm the year-end profit for the Group prudentially consolidated, in addition to the year-end profit for the Group financially consolidated?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2014_1221
  • Topic: Own funds
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 20/03/2015

Own Funds - Subordinated loans as Tier 2 instruments

Our interpretation of Article 63 (g) of the Capital Requirements Regulation (Regulation 575/2013 is that subordinated loans which are perpetual (i.e. do not have a maturity date) would also qualify as Tier 2 instruments under article 63 (g) of the CRR, given that the original maturity would exceed five years (i.e. it would be for an indefinite period). Do you agree with our interpretation? Or is it only subordinated loans with a fixed redemption date (and whose original maturity is of at least five years) which should be recognised as Tier 2 instruments?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2014_1220
  • Topic: Own funds
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 29/08/2014

Excess General Credit Risk Adjustments - Standardised Approach (SA)

Can institutions use the excess of SA general credit risk adjustments over the 1.25% cap to reduce SA exposure value under own funds requirements, or reductions to SA original exposure value are just limited to specific credit risk adjustments? If so, where should the excess of general provisions, not considered as Tier 2 due to the 1.25% cap, be deducted (i.e. Retail class)?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) No 183/2014 - RTS for the calculation of specific and general credit risk adjustments
  • ID: 2014_1199
  • Topic: Own funds
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 12/12/2014

Groups including an investment firm referred to in Article 95(1) of the CRR controlled by a financial holding company or mixed financial holding company

How shall the own funds requirements be calculated for a group including an investment firm referred to in Article 95(1) controlled by a financial holding company or mixed financial holding company (and no credit institutions)?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2014_1105
  • Topic: Own funds
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 01/08/2014

Treatment as own funds under Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)

Confirmation is sought that instruments that initially qualified for transitional treatment in a higher own funds category according to CRR transition rules in Articles 484ff, but for which documentation had to be altered to a lower own funds category as instructed by a court ruling following a litigation, are to be reported as fully compliant with that lower own funds category. More background information on the instruments will be made available directly to EBA.

  • 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
  • ID: 2014_1071
  • Topic: Own funds
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 06/06/2014

Requisito minimo Basilea 1 / Basel 1 minimum requirement

L'art. 500, comma 1 b) del regolamento 575/2013 richiede che i Fondi Propri (Common Equity Tier 1 + Additional Tier1 + Tier 2) siano sempre pari o superiori all'80% del Requisiti Patrimoniali Minimi Basilea 1 (REQBIS1). Inoltre, l'art 500 comma 4, richiede che i Fondi Propri siano integralmente corretti in modo da riflettere il differente trattamento delle perdite attese ed inattese ( Shortfall IRB , Excess IRB) , ma non indica una modalità di calcolo. Si richiede se l'approccio seguente sia corretto: 80% * REQBIS1 >= (Common Equity Tier 1 + Additional Tier1 + Tier2) + |Shortfall IRB| - |Excess IRB|. EN TRANSLATION Article 500(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 requires that own funds (Common Equity Tier 1 + Additional Tier 1 + Tier 2) are at all times more than or equal to 80% of the minimum capital requirements of Basel I (REQBIS1). In addition, Article 500(4) requires that own funds shall be fully adjusted to reflect the separate treatments of expected loss and unexpected loss (Shortfall IRB, Excess IRB), but does not indicate a method of calculation. Is the following approach correct? 80% * REQBIS1 <= (Common Equity Tier 1 + Additional Tier1 + Tier2) + |Shortfall IRB| - |Excess IRB|.

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2014_1030
  • Topic: Own funds
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 14/11/2014

Netting of DTAs and DTLs

1. For the purposes of netting DTAs and DTLs, Art. 38 (5) Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR) requires a pro rata allocation of DTLs between DTAs which are below the 10%-threshold mentioned in Art. 48 (1) (a) CRR and all other DTAs, which rely on future profitability. With this requirement, it seems that institutions are not permitted to net DTAs and DTLs before they enter into the threshold treatment (as the pro rata relation for the allocation of DTLs has to be fixed already based on those which are below the threshold), which seems to be different from the rules as set out in the Basel III framework. Could the EBA or the EU Commission confirm that Art. 38 (5) CRR indeed requires a different procedure for allocating DTLs to DTAs which rely on future profitability than the one set out in the Basel III text? 2. If the above understanding of the CRR text is confirmed, could the EBA or the EU Commission clarify whether the 10% basket mentioned in Art. 48 (1) CRR may only be filled with gross DTAs or whether an iterative calculation is permissible under the CRR? 3. If the suggested iterative calculation is permissible, we also seek clarification on how and at which point the proportion between the DTLs that may be allocated to DTAs related to temporary differences and those that may be allocated to other DTAs relying on future profitability is established. 3. If the suggested iterative calculation is permissi-ble, we also seek clarification on how and at which point the proportion between the DTLs that may be allocated to DTAs related to temporary differences and those that may be allocated to other DTAs relying on future profitability is established.

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2014_980
  • Topic: Own funds
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 27/06/2014

Application transitional provisions: Deduction half from Tier 1 and half from Tier 2

The residual amount of specific items (e.g. point (d) of Article 36(1) CRR) shall be deducted half from Tier 1 items and half from Tier 2 items during transitional provisions (see for example 472 (6) and (11) CRR). Please specify the calculation logic to be considered by CRR users.

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2014_986
  • Topic: Own funds
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 11/07/2014

Deductions of holdings of own funds instruments issued by financial sector entities included in the scope of consolidated supervision under art 49.2 CRR

For what specific purposes competent authorities may determine deductions of holdings of own funds instruments issued by financial sector entities included in the scope of consolidated supervision, apart from purposes mentioned in art 49.2: i.e. structural separation of banking activities and resolution planning? Should competent authorities determine deductions for all institutions in the member state or should it be more institution specific decision? In case of institution specific decision, should it be subject to joint decision, taken by the competent authorities of the home and host Member States?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2014_908
  • Topic: Own funds
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 11/02/2022

Confirmation of waiver in particular situations

Is it confirmed that the waiver of the provisions in respect of deduction applies to capital instruments or subordinated loans that an entity holds or has granted temporarily for the purposes of a financial assistance operation designed to reorganize and save another entity even prior to the CRR/CRDIV regulations coming into force? Is it confirmed that the waiver of the provisions in respect of deduction for capital instruments or subordinated loans envisaged for the purposes of a financial assistance operation designed to reorganize and save the entity still applies also with reference to holdings already acquired but still necessary for the purposes of the financial assistance operation?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2014_875
  • Topic: Own funds
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 11/02/2022

Definition of a financial institution

Following the corrigendum of November 30 2013, the definition of a “financial sector entity” (FSE) was modified, however, the definition of a “financial institution” (FI) remained unchanged. We seek clarification for the following two main issues: 1) Clarification is sought on whether all “undertakings other than institutions, the principal activity of which is to acquire holdings” – irrespective of whether the holdings in question relate to undertakings in- or outside of the financial sector – qualify as a financial institution (FI) (and accordingly as a financial sector entity (FSE) pursuant to Article 4(1)(27) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)) for prudential consolidation purposes and also for purposes of capital deductions for investments in FSEs. 2) As the CRR does not give a definition of what “principal activity” means in relation to FI, there is room for interpretation leading to divergent treatment across Member States – in particular, where a bank owns shares in a holding company that owns a non-financial group (i.e. a group that does not undertake an activity under Annex 1 of Directive 2013/36/EU (CRD)). We seek clarification on whether an undertaking’s principal activity (e.g. to acquire holdings) needs to be determined on an individual basis (i.e. also in the case of holding companies) or whether it can be determined on the basis of its consolidated situation (i.e. including the holding company plus its non-financial subsidiaries and holdings) and by taking into account all relevant qualitative and quantitative criteria (e.g. proportion of assets, of profits and of capital resulting from the acquisition of holdings versus operating activities, including activities listed in Annex I to CRD; human resources deployed; etc) on group level.

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2014_857
  • Topic: Own funds
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 18/07/2014

Calculation of the threshold deductions (from CET1) during the transitional period

In calculating the threshold deductions from Common Equity Tier 1 during the transitional period [Article 470] should the following items be fully or partially deducted from Common Equity Tier 1 according to the national discretion phase-in and/or filter? (i.e. should the “transitional period threshold” be exactly equal to the “full application threshold” or the former should be determined considering the national discretions phase-in/filter effects). More specifically: - Unrealized losses measured at fair value: in countries where national discretion rules provide [Article 467(2)] for a filter to not include in any element of own funds unrealised gains or losses on exposures to central governments classified in the “Available for Sale” category of EU-endorsed IAS 39, the Common Equity Tier 1 considered for the calculation of the threshold deductions during transitional period should be determined with or without those specific unrealized losses measured at fair value? - Loss carry forward: in countries where national discretion rules provide for a phasing-in of loss carry forward deductions (deferred tax assets that rely on future profitability and do not arise from temporary differences) [Article 469 (1)], the Common Equity Tier 1 considered for the calculation of the threshold deductions during transitional period should be determined by subtracting all the loss carry forward or just the applicable percentage determined by the national authority? - Shortfall of expected losses to provision: in countries where national discretion rules provide for a phasing-in of shortfall of expected losses to provision deductions (negative amounts resulting from the calculation of expected loss amounts for IRB institutions) [Article 469 (1)], the Common Equity Tier 1 considered for the calculation of the threshold deductions during transitional period should be determined by subtracting all the shortfall of expected losses to provision or just the applicable percentage determined by the national authority?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2014_842
  • Topic: Own funds
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 11/07/2014

Clarifications with respect to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No. 1423/2013 (ITS on disclosure of own funds requirments)

1) Further guidance is requested on the disclosure relating to ‘governing law of the instrument’ as securities can be issued in one country (e.g. the USA) but governed or have subordination provisions based on the law of the country in which the issuing bank resides (e.g. the UK) The 'governing law of the instrument’ is required to be populated in row 3 of Annex II. 2) More refined language is requested for the disclosure relating to ‘If convertible, specify instrument type convertible into’. Specifically clarification on whether disclosure is required for conversion within the same category of capital (e.g. securities that qualify as AT1 and can convert into preference shares that would also qualify as AT1). This is required to complete row 28 of Annex II. 3) Possible options for specifying non-compliant features should be included in the guidance thereby ensuring consistency across banks. This is required to complete row 36 of Annex II. 4) Guidance is requested on the publishing mechanism. We would like to clarify whether there is a requirement to publish on the external website or in the printed financial statements. A possible date for publishing the table would ensure consistency across banks although this disclosure may need to tie to the date of results presentation. 5) Guidance is requested to provide the expected frequency of update. When a change in security is incorporated in the table is it expected that the value change (as at the last reporting date) for all securities is reported? (expected to arise when the update frequency is semi annual or less frequent). Also guidance is requested with respect to the time line within which the schedule is required to be updated. 6) Further guidance is requested for the type of Instrument (row 7). The current guidance under Annex III indicates 'menu options to be provided to institutions by each jurisdiction...' 7) Current guidance under Annex III for row 8 indicates '...total amount of the instrument recognised in regulatory capital before transitional provisions for the relevant level of the disclosure...'. Our interpretation of the text in the law requires disclosing the value of each security in the composition of regulatory capital prior to the grandfathering cap. Our interpretation, therefore requires disclosing within row 8 the value of the security that is different from the value included in the calculation of regulatory capital (calculated post the application of the cap). This seems to be inconsistent with the purpose of EU 1423/2013 where all articles included therein are closely linked and therefore amounts disclosed in each of the schedules are expected to reconcile. Please advise if our interpretation is in line with your understanding of the regulation.

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) No 1423/2013 - ITS on disclosure of own funds requirements
  • ID: 2014_800
  • Topic: Own funds
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 28/05/2014