1. Article 124(1) states that any part of a non-ADC exposure exceeding the nominal amount of the lien on the property should be risk-weighted as an unsecured exposure (for non-IPRE) or assigned a 150% risk weight (for IPRE). The calculation of which part of the exposure exceeds the lien amount is assumed to use the exposure value as defined in Article 111. For example, if an IPRE exposure consists of an amount owed and an undrawn but committed amount, the exposure value is calculated accordingly (e.g., 900,000 EUR owed + 250,000 EUR undrawn × 0.4 = 1,000,000 EUR exposure value). This approach aligns with the amended CRR, where the exposure value under Article 111 is the basis for determining the risk-weighted portion under Articles 125(1) and 126(1).

2. Following Article 124(6), the ETV ratio is calculated by dividing the gross exposure amount by the property value. The regulation refers to exposures secured by mortgages on immovable property, and paragraph 2 specifies non-ADC exposures up to the nominal amount of the lien. The question arises whether the ETV should be calculated for the amount up to the nominal of the lien or the whole loan. For example, if a loan is 300,000 EUR, the lien is 100,000 EUR, and the property value is 200,000 EUR, clarification is sought on whether the ETV is based on the full loan or only the lien amount.

3. It is unclear whether a single ETV should be calculated using the sum of all property values (residential and commercial) or if separate ETVs should be calculated for each lien/property. For example, a loan secured by both a residential and a commercial property could have the ETV calculated as either a single ratio (using the aggregate property value) or as separate ratios for each property, leading to different risk weights for each portion of the exposure.

4. Article 124 Point 3b specifies that an exposure must be secured by a first lien held by the institution, but does not address cases where multiple first liens exist, with some held by the institution and others by third parties. In syndicated financing, participating institutions may share both the financing and the collateral (senior liens), all ranking pari passu. It is unclear whether, for ETV calculation, the gross exposure should be adjusted to reflect other first liens held by third parties, or if this adjustment only applies under the loan-splitting approach in Articles 125(1) or 126(1).

5. In syndicated financing, it is common for institutions to share both the financing and the corresponding collateral, with all liens ranking equally (pari passu). It is unclear how, in such cases, the exposure should be compared to the nominal amount of the lien for risk weighting purposes under Article 124(1).

6. Article 124(6) second paragraph states that if an institution has multiple exposures secured by the same property, these exposures should be summed and considered as one gross exposure for ETV purposes. However, it does not specify how to handle further junior liens, especially regarding the allocation of property value in the ETV calculation. It is unclear whether the property value can be distributed among mortgages to optimize ETV ratios, particularly when the sequence of liens is broken (e.g., a junior lien held by a third party).

7. Articles 124(2), 125(2) subpara 2, and 126(2) subpara 2 CRR allow for the loan-splitting approach instead of ETV-based risk weighting for IPRE exposures. The regulation does not clarify how to handle cases secured by multiple properties, some qualifying for loan-splitting and others not (e.g., residential vs commercial, or properties in different countries). It is unclear whether it is permissible to split the secured loan into parts, treating one part under loan-splitting and the other under ETV, and if so, whether specific rules (such as pro-rata splits based on asset values) should be applied.