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

EBA Mapping Tool - Template EU KM1 Logic

In relation to the EBA Mapping Tool that specifies the mapping of the templates and tables for disclosures with those on supervisory reporting, we believe that the logic provided is incorrect for the certain cell references within the EU KM1 Template.

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

Disclosure of EU ILAC - Incorrect Mapping Logic

With regards to the disclosure of the EU ILAC template, we believe that the mapping logic provided, relating to M 03.00 is incorrect. For Row EU7 - column b, the mapping logic states: {M 03.00, r0260, c0020} + {M 03.00, r0270, c0020}. However, the reference to {M 03.00, r0270, c0020} relates to a greyed-out cell in M 03.00. For Row EU22 - column b, the mapping logic states: {M 03.00, r0590, c0020}. We believe that the logic is referencing the incorrect cell (Residual maturity of >= 1 year and < 2 years).

  • 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Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) No 680/2014 - ITS on supervisory reporting of institutions (repealed)

Entities conducting limited financial activity which qualify for exemptions from AMLD4

Dear colleagues, Art. 6 Reg. 2024/1624 stipulates that member states may provide exemptions from AML/CFT regulation for entities which engage in financial activity on an occasional or very limited basis where there is little risk of money laundering or terrorist financing. Specifically:    Exemptions for certain financial activities 1.   With the exception of persons engaged in the activity of money remittance as defined in Article 4, point (22), of Directive (EU) 2015/2366, Member States may decide to exempt legal or natural persons that engage in a financial activity as listed in Annex I, points (2) to (12), (14) and (15), to Directive 2013/36/EU on an occasional or very limited basis where there is little risk of money laundering or terrorist financing from the requirements set out in this Regulation, provided that all of the following criteria are met: (a) the financial activity is limited in absolute terms; (b) the financial activity is limited on a transaction basis; (c) the financial activity is not the main activity of such persons; (d) the financial activity is ancillary and directly related to the main activity of such persons; (e) the main activity of such persons is not an activity referred to in Article 3, point (3)(a) to (d) or (g) of this Regulation; (f) the financial activity is provided only to the customers of the main activity of such persons and is not generally offered to the public. 2.   For the purposes of paragraph 1, point (a), Member States shall require that the total turnover of the financial activity does not exceed a threshold which shall be sufficiently low. That threshold shall be established at national level, depending on the type of financial activity. 3.   For the purposes of paragraph 1, point (b), Member States shall apply a maximum threshold per customer and per single transaction, whether the transaction is carried out in a single operation or through linked transactions. That maximum threshold shall be established at national level, depending on the type of financial activity. It shall be sufficiently low in order to ensure that the types of transactions in question are an impractical and inefficient method for money laundering or terrorist financing, and shall not exceed EUR 1 000 or the equivalent in national currency, irrespective of the means of payment. 4.   For the purposes of paragraph 1, point (c), Member States shall require that the turnover of the financial activity does not exceed 5 % of the total turnover of the natural or legal person concerned. 5.   In assessing the risk of money laundering or terrorist financing for the purposes of this Article, Member States shall pay particular attention to any financial activity which is considered to be particularly likely, by its nature, to be used or abused for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing. 6.   Member States shall establish risk-based monitoring activities or take other adequate measures to ensure that the exemptions granted pursuant to this Article are not abused.   We are seeking the assistance of colleagues to understand how Member States intend to apply Art. 6.  In this respect (given that the AMLR has yet to come into effect), it would be helpful to understand the approach taken by Member States in respect of Article 2(3) 4AMLD which provides that Member States may decide that persons that engage in a financial activity on an occasional or very limited basis, where there is little risk of money laundering or terrorist financing, do not fall within the scope of 4AMLD. Specifically, it would be helpful to understand:  Has your Member State transposed the exemption provided for under Article 2(3) 4AMLD? If so, does your Member State have a registration process for those entities seeking to avail of the exemption? What is involved in the registration process and are these entities subsequently supervised or monitored in any way in your Member State? Do you conduct risk assessments of these entities on a regular or periodic basis, or at all, given their low risk? If your Member State has not transposed the exemption, how does your Member State treat such entities which are low-risk in nature and conduct limited financial activity?  We would greatly value your assistance.

  • Legal act: Directive (EU) 2015/849 (AMLD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable

Credit institutions should not consider as outsourcing

Within Title II, Section 3, Recital 28 Guidelines on outsourcing an exemption what should not be considered an outsourcing is given. Under this exemption can we consider that purchases of goods e.g., standard software or hardware without customization or integration into critical processes, are not outsourcing? For example if the SaaS application is used solely for non-critical, non-banking functions (e.g., HR training platforms, marketing tools), and does not impact the institution’s operational resilience or critical functions, can it be treated from a bank perspective as purchase of goods that fall outside the EBA guidelines on outsourcing arrangements scope?

  • Legal act: Directive 2013/36/EU (CRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: EBA/GL/2019/02 - Guidelines on outsourcing arrangements

Clarification on Q&A 2024_7073: Treatment of two-leg derivatives with respect to rate type and currency

Example 1: Fixed IR asset changed to floating with an IRS – IRS floating receiver and fixed payer - Representation in J 05.00, J 06.00 and J 07.00   Let us consider a scenario where the fixed rate asset (hedged item) is a mortgage loan that perfectly matches, in terms of notional amount and financial characteristics, the receive leg of an interest rate swap (IRS).  According to the Q&A:  For the receive leg, the notional amount must be reported in column 0260, under rows 0140 to 0170. The weighted average yield should be reported with a positive sign in column 0300, and the corresponding repricing cash flows should be reported with a positive sign in columns 0320 to 0390, all under rows 0140 to 0170.  For the payer leg, the notional amount should not be reported. The weighted average yield must be reported with a negative sign in column 0050, and the associated repricing cash flows must be reported with a negative sign in columns 0070 to 0250, again under rows 0140 to 0170.  Could you please clarify how potential asymmetries should be addressed in cases where the notional amount of the payer leg of the IRS is not reported, which may lead to both the fixed rate exposure of the hedged item and the floating rate leg of the hedging derivative being simultaneously recognized, potentially distorting the risk exposure at the total assets level? Example 2: Floating IR liability changed to fixed with an IRS – IRS floating receiver and fixed payer - Representation in J 05.00, J 06.00 and J 07.00  Let us consider a scenario where the floating rate liability (hedged item) is a debt security that perfectly matches, in terms of notional amount and financial characteristics, the receive leg of an interest rate swap (IRS).  According to Q&A:  For the receive leg, the notional amount must be reported with a positive sign in column 0260, under rows 0140 to 0170. The weighted average yield should be reported with a negative sign in column 0300, and the corresponding repricing cash flows should be reported with a negative sign in columns 0320 to 0390, all under rows 0140 to 0170.  For the payer leg, the notional amount should not be reported. The weighted average yield must be reported with a positive sign in column 0050, and the associated repricing cash flows must be reported with a positive sign in columns 0070 to 0250, again under rows 0140 to 0170.  Could you advise on how institutions should address potential asymmetries arising in cases where the notional amount of the receive leg of the IRS is reported with a positive sign, while the notional of the payer leg is not reported (i.e., reported as zero), potentially resulting in the simultaneous recognition of both the floating rate exposure of the hedged item and the floating leg of the hedging derivative?  Example 3: Other Interest rate derivatives not designed as accounting hedges – IRS floating receiver and fixed payer - Representation in J 05.00, J 06.00 and J 07.00   Could you provide guidance on how institutions should address potential asymmetries arising in cases where only the receiver leg of an IRS transaction is reported, potentially resulting in an incomplete representation of the associated risk exposure? Example 4: Fixed USD asset changed to fixed EUR with a CCS USD fixed payer / against fixed EUR receiver - Representation in J 05.00, J 06.00 and J 07.00    In this example, we report the same observations as in Example 1, considering the fixed exposure represented in EUR and USD templates.  In addition, we would appreciate confirmation regarding the appropriate representation of the average yield. Specifically, should the yield of the payer fixed USD leg be reported under template J 05.00 in EUR, as indicated in the official Q&A, or under J 05.00 in USD?

  • 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)

Validation rules taxonomy V4.0 C_17.01

The formulae v23510_h seems not relevant

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) 2024/3117 - ITS on supervisory reporting of institutions

Validation rules taxonomy V4.0 C_17.01

The formula of control v23509_h seems not relevant

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) 2024/3117 - ITS on supervisory reporting of institutions

C 73.00 validation rules v7585_m and v7630_m (outflows secured with level 2B assets)

What should be the limit for validation rules v7585_m and v7630_m, considering that some of the items reported in row 1090 of C73.00 Outflows get 25% outflow rate?

  • 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)

Appropriate CR SA sub-exposure class categorisation (line items reported within C02.00, C07.00 and C09.01, where applicable) of the portion of an exposure “secured by mortgages on immovable property” which is also secured by cash or subject to other form of credit protection such as eligible guarantees.

Some of the exposures “secured by mortgages on immovable property” existing on an institution’s loan book are also secured by other forms of credit protection, such as cash or eligible guarantees. For such exposures, it is not clear as to which sub-exposure class such portion of the exposure (e.g. the cash-secured portion) shall be attributed.   For example, assume that an institution has a non-IPRE exposure (loan to natural person) secured by residential immovable property, which is also partially secured by cash. To which of the following sub-exposure classes will the portion of the exposure that is secured by cash collateral be classified?  (i)    Secured by mortgages on residential immovable property - non-IPRE (secured) - C09.01, r0091; C02.00, r0151(ii)   Secured by mortgages on residential immovable property - non-IPRE (unsecured) - C09.01, r0092; C02.00, r0152(iii)  Secured by mortgages on residential immovable property - Other - non-IPRE - C09.01, r0093; C02.00, r0153  NB: Please also affirm that in the referenced example (i.e. retail counterparty), the Original exposure pre-conversion factors related to such cash-secured portion shall be equivalent to a risk weight of 75% in line with Art 124(1)(a), which is subsequently reduced to 0% through the reporting of CRM techniques with substitution effect via the “Other Items” exposure class (under the financial collateral simple method), in line with the principle applied in EBA Q&A 2016_2693.   In the quoted example, we understand that such portion shall be reported as “Secured by mortgages on residential immovable property - Other - non-IPRE”.

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) 2024/3117 - ITS on supervisory reporting of institutions

Can a receivable be identified as IPRE if a mortgage exists, but the securing property is not recognised as collateral?

Art. 124 para. 1 stipulates that banks receive a risk weight of 150% for IPRE receivables that do not fulfil all the conditions set out in para. 3. The question is what constellation of conditions must be met for this case to realistically materialise. An institution should normally be able to fulfil subsections a to d in para. 3. Paragraph 3 contains a reference to Article 208 and paragraph 1 of Article 229 in sub-item e. Article 229 paragraph 1 describes the property valuation and will not generally present institutions with insurmountable problems either. Article 208 begins with the statement that a property is only recognised as collateral if the following paragraphs 2 to 5 are fulfilled. One hurdle could possibly be the monitoring of the property value in accordance with paragraph 3. However, it is also conceivable that an institution will generally refrain from recognising real estate collateral due to an insignificant share in the portfolio. Can a receivable that is effectively secured by a mortgage be identified as an IRPE risk position without recognised real estate collateral, resulting in an RW of 150% under Art. 124 para. 1? Or does non-recognition also mean that the exposure is not to be regarded as collateralised (by a property) for the calculation of own funds and consequently receives the risk weight of an unsecured exposure?

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

Identificación entidad financiera responsable del reporte DORA - Identification of the financial entity responsible for the DORA reporting

  ¿Si nuestra empresa no dispone de LEI, debemos informarla mediante el código europeo? ¿Qué diferencia existe entre las celdas B_01.01_0010 y B_01.02_0010 ? If our company doesn't have an LEI, should we report it using the European code? What's the difference between cells B_01.01_0010 and B_01.02_0010?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 2022/2554 (DORA Reg)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable

Can a CASP receive / transmit / execute orders for non-EUR denominated EMTs, whose issuers are not authorised as a credit institution or as an electronic money institution?

Article 48 of MiCA states that: “A person shall not make an offer to the public or seek the admission to trading of an e-money token, within the Union, unless that person is the issuer of such e-money token and: (a) is authorised as a credit institution or as an electronic money institution...”.  The cited part of first paragraph of Art 48 of MiCA allows an interpretation in accordance with which a MiCA registered CASP can still either receive and transmit (to a non EU entity) or execute an order (on a non EU trading platform) to buy or sell a non-EUR denominated EMT whose issuer is not MiCA compliant. Namely, it seems that the provision of either of the two mentioned crypto asset services does not fall either under offer to the public nor under admission to trading.  It is quite clear that the provision of the two described crypto asset services does not fall under “seek the admission to trading.”  Nevertheless, an argument can be made that the provision of the two described crypto asset services  does not fall under “offer to public” as well. Namely, MiCA defines offer to the public “a communication (...) in any form presenting (...) sufficient information on the terms of the offer. When a CASP receives and transmits an order or when a CASP executes it, a CASP usually only receives order instructions and does not provide any information on the asset that will be bought. Consequently, it can be argued, that when acting as described, a CASP does not offer an EMT to public. This interpretation is further supported by the Recital 28. This one states that “The mere admission to trading or the publication of bid and offer prices should not, in and of itself, be regarded as an offer to the public of crypto-assets.”. Therefore, one could argue that a CASP can execute orders for non-EUR denominated EMTs, whose issuers are not authorised as a credit institution or as an electronic money institution.

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 2023/1114 (MiCAR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable

Correct classification of services related to the 'reselling' of software provided in SaaS mode

With reference to the correct identification of the type of ICT services, taking into account the types contained in ANNEX III of Regulation (EU) 2024/2956, how should services related to the 'reselling' of software provided in SaaS mode be classified?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 2022/2554 (DORA Reg)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) 2024/2956 - ITS on the register of information

Justification to consider a ‘significant penalty’ and to be excluded from the outflows

Pursuant to article 25(4)(b) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/61, does the cumulative loss of accrued interest, representing more than 50% of the total contractual interest income upon early withdrawal of term deposits (specifically those which have been active for more than 50% of their contractual term, have an original maturity longer than 30 days, and a residual maturity exceeding 30 days), constitute sufficient justification to consider this as a ‘significant penalty’ under article 25(4)paragraph (b), with the purpose of discouraging early withdrawal, and therefore allow such retail deposits (for which more  than 50% of contractual term has passed)  to be excluded from the outflows?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/61 - DR with regard to liquidity coverage requirement

Exposures to EU exchanges

Should exposures to EU exchanges be treated as exposures to institutions, under articles 119, 120 and 121?

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

Loans collateralized by immovable property in F 05.01 and F 13.01

Do loans collateralized by immovable property in templates FINREP 05.01 and FINREP 13.01 need to comply with Articles 124 - 126 of the CRR?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) 2024/3117 - ITS on supervisory reporting of institutions

Submission Error related to FC.06/L0600 “Label: Duplicate fact, not same value"

Could you please check if this duplicate ERROR is incorrect and needs to be corrected?When we try to submit the FICO IGT & RC report via local FSA Portal we get an ERROR regarding template FC.06/L0600 “Label: Duplicate fact, not same value”. It seems like the validation rule creates an ERROR if an “Identification code of the external counterparty” (column 0020) is included on more than one row. According to EU 2022/2454 Article 7.2 instruction for column 0080 it needs to be allowed to include the same ID code for the counterparty if there are more than one entity of the conglomerate involved,   I.E. two rows with the same Counterparty but two different entities of Consolidation (e.g. A & B), which get the following ERROR: Error in cell: sheet L0600, row 1, column J, with a value of A, Error in cell: sheet L0600, row 2, column J, with a value of B,. 

  • Legal act: Directive 2002/87/EC (FiCOD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) 2022/2454 – ITS on the reporting of intra-group transactions and risk concentration for financial conglomerates

CET1 buyback - sufficient certainty

Should CET1 buybacks be deducted from the CET1 capital from the moment the permission from the competent authority has been granted or from the moment the transaction has been announced?

  • 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

Risk Weights for International Organisations under the Standardised Approach

Is it permissible that exposures to NATO Communication and Information Agency are assigned a 0 % risk weight under Article 118(f) CRR?

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

Template 2: location of the collateral

Is it intentional to show the location of counterparty rather than the physical location of the property in question for Template 2 ?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) 2022/2453 - ITS on ESG disclosures