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

Determination of the total deposit balance of "all the client's deposit accounts"

Assuming a natural person has a bank account at a bank as a private individual. At the same time the individual is a (co)-owner of a legal entity, which qualifies as an SME, and the legal entity has a business account at the same bank. Shall the accounts of both the private individual and the legal entity be aggregated when checking the total deposit balance against the threshold of EUR 500,000? If so, how would the bank determine the appropriate share of the account balance of the legal entity (SME) if the individual is only a co-owner (e.g. 100%, 50%, etc.)?  

  • 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

Interaction between (i) CET1 deduction for minimum coverage on NPE and (ii) REA calculated under IRB-Advanced

In accordance with CRR art. 36(1)m and 47c the amount of insufficient coverage for non-performing exposures is to be deducted from CET1. Simultaneously the CRR requires institutions to calculate risk weighted exposure amounts (REA). This may result in a situation whereby for a given exposure the underlying risk is double-counted, once through available funds (deduction of CET1) and once through required funds (REA). Such double-counting is not intended, as also recognized in art. 67 of the ‘EBA REPORT ON STATUTORY PRUDENTIAL BACKSTOPS’. W.r.t. exposures under the IRB-Advanced approach the ‘EBA REPORT ON STATUTORY PRUDENTIAL BACKSTOPS’ further states in art. 69 that ‘In this respect Article 151(1) CRR clarifies that no own fund requirements should be imposed on parts of exposures that have already been deducted from CET1 while parts of exposures that have not yet been deducted from capital should still be risk-weighted to address any unexpected losses.’ While based on CRR art. 151(1) it appears clear that in theory only the exposure remaining after partial CET1 deduction (due to CRR art. 47c) is still to be risk weighted, clarification is sought on how exactly the risk weight on parts of a non-performing exposure is to be calculated in practice under the IRB-Advanced approach. Assume an exposure of 1000, under IRB-Advanced. Both the provision and the ELBE are equal to 300 (30%), while the LGD is equal to 500 (50%). In accordance with Art. 153(1) and 154(1) the REA is then calculated as 1000 * max(0, 12.5 * (LGD – ELBE)) or a REA of 2500. Now assume a minimum coverage expectation in line with art. 47c of 70%, i.e. 700. The resulting insufficient coverage thus equals 400, which is deducted from CET1. Remaining exposure to be risk weighted is 600. How to calculate the REA on this 600 given that ELBE and LGD were modelled based on an original exposure of 1000? Is our understanding correct that the REA on the remaining exposure is intended to be zero as provisions and CET1 deduction combined already exceed the (downturn) LGD? I.e. REA is only required for the 

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

PD calibration sample

Given the definition of PD calibration provided in EBA/GL/2017/16 section 2.4 paragraph 8, and the requirements for the calibration sample provided in section 5.3.5, paragraph 88 of the same guidelines, for developing a TTC model, clarification is needed on the expectation on the implementation of the back-testing performed in the validation phase: Shall the back-testing at portfolio level verify that the average PD over historical observation period is aligned with LRA DR or, instead, shall the comparison be made between PD estimates current at the validation date and the LRA DR? Does it change according to the rating philosophy? Shall the back-testing always be performed on a 1-year validation sample, regardless the type of TTC calibration philosophy and regardless the length of the calibration sample? How shall the rating philosophy be taken into consideration when assessing the outcome of back-testing at grade level? Provided that the main aim of the calibration is to reflect the LRA DR, is the any case where the alignment to 1-year default rate should get a higher weight in validation assessment, although in a TTC calibration philosophy?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: EBA/GL/2017/16 - Guidelines on PD estimation, LGD estimation and the treatment of defaulted exposures

Is the RWA capped at EAD amount for IRBA exposures as suggested by SBP validation check v6210

SBP validation check v6210 is set as an error which prevents the reporting of exposures with RWA higher than 12,5xEAD.  Verification is sought to the legal rationale behind setting such a maximum RWA limit.

  • Legal act: Directive 2013/36/EU (CRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) No 680/2014 - ITS on supervisory reporting of institutions (repealed)

Exposure to an entity that holds a loan portfolio composed of purchased or self-originated loans which are secured by real estate properties and their assignment to the regulatory asset class “exposures associated with particularly high risk”

Does an exposure representing funding to an SPV that itself originates reverse mortgages loans with returns linked to the development of the relevant housing market and a business case involving a potential sale/securitisation of the underlying portfolio (see “Background on the question”) fulfil the requirements to be assigned to the regulatory asset class “exposures associated with particularly high risk” in accordance with Article 128(3) CRR and its specification as set out in EBA/GL/2019/01, even though the bank has contractual agreements with the SPV in place (i.e. covenants and LTV restrictions) which have a certain risk mitigating effect?

  • 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

Exposure to an entity that holds a loan portfolio composed of purchased or self-originated loans which are secured by real estate properties and their assignment to the regulatory asset class “exposures associated with particularly high risk”

Does an exposure representing funding to an SPV, that itself purchases loans originated for speculative immovable financing purposes, fulfil the requirements to be assigned to the regulatory asset class 'exposures associated wth particularly high risk' in accordance with Article 128(3) CRR and its specification as set out in EBA/GL/2019/01, even though the bank has contractual agreements with the SPV in place (i.e. covenants and LTV restrictions), which have a certain risk mitigating effect?

  • 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

Residential property

Artcile 4 (75) presents the definitions for Residential property - “residential property” means a residence which is occupied by the owner or the lessee of the residence, including the right to inhabit an apartment in housing cooperatives located in Sweden; Question ID: 2015_2304 has a aswwer:  "For the avoidance of doubt, the exposure has to be secured by a mortgage on residential property which “is or shall be occupied or let by the owner”. This excludes situations where residential property “may” be built in the future (i.e. mortgages on land) but includes mortgages on building sites on which residential property will be built for the future owner of the property, or on residential property under construction, provided in both cases that there is certainty that the owner will occupy or let the property. In this sense, the 35% risk weight cannot be applied to exposures towards real estate developers. This treatment does only apply to exposures fully and completely secured by mortgages on residential property, and not where units were to be exploited commercially. " If real estate company owns houses/apartments/flats and this company leases them to natural persons (for living) does these houses/apartments are consideres as residential properties or commercial properties in Your view? Clear Yes and No answer is needed.  

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

C 27.00 - Identification of the counterparty (LE1) Report, column 040 -Residence of the counterparty

Reporting of the residence of the counterparty for a natural person. In order to report information on large exposures to natural persons the allocation in C27.00 Report column 040 -Residence of the counterparty should be done based on the country of residence or the country of nationality?

  • 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

Use of the substitution approach for retail exposures treated under IRB with a guarantee (unfunded credit protection)

The institution has exposures to retail clients (mortgage loans) that are treated under IRB. Some of these exposures have a guarantee (unfunded credit protection) that is eligible in accordance with the relevant requirements of credit risk mitigation. The institution applies Article 163 (4) and 164 (2) and adjusts PD or LGD estimates subject to requirements as specified in Article 183(1), (2) and (3) and the permission of the competent authorities. Does the institution has to use the substitution approach for this guarantee for large exposures (and thus present the counterparty giving the guarantee, and the guaranteed amount given as indirect exposure as financial guarantee under the large exposure reporting) as indicated in Article 403 (1)a?

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

Calculation of a Prudent Value in combination with CET1-Deduction according to article 89 and 90 CRR

In case of applying article 89 CRR in combination with article 90 CRR for a risk exposure (asset) is there a requirement of calculating an additional valuation adjustument (AVA) although the calculated amount of CET1-deduction of the risk exposure already lowers CET1?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) 2016/101 - RTS for prudent valuation under Article 105(14) CRR

Debt securities issued by corporate treasury entities

Can debt securities issued by corporate treasuries organised in separate legal entities be classified as “corporate debt securities” for the purpose of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/61?

  • 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

DLT issuances that are sold exclusively to retail or corporate investors

In relation with Q&A 2013_288, can fully or partially tokenized issuances that are sold exclusively to retail or corporate investors, when duly proven and verified by DLT technology, be treated as retail stable funding or corporate funding (whichever applies) under the LCR and NSFR metrics ?  

  • 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

Size of the position to calculate concentrated position AVA

Should the volume corresponding to a 10-day prudent exit period be subtracted from the size of the concentrated position to estimate concentrated position AVA?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) 2016/101 - RTS for prudent valuation under Article 105(14) CRR

Deals agreed but not yet settled

1) When we issue a securitiy to raise funding, between Trade date and Value date (ie: 2 days period)  we expect money to be received from the counterparty for the security purchase. Can it be considered as an inflow in the LCR, as cash will be recived in 2 days?  2) When we make a money market borrowing, between Trade date and Value date (ie: 3 days period)  we expect money to be received from the counterparty for the deposit. Can it be considered as an inflow in the LCR, as cash will be recived in 3 days?  If we are allowed to apply this approach, shall we apply the same approach for money market loans before settlement date (outflows as cash will be delivered to counterparty).  

  • 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

Scope of temporary treatment of unrealised gains and losses measured at fair value through other comprehensive income in view of the COVID-19 pandemic

Do exposures to “central governments, regional governments, local authorities and public sector entities” referred to in article 468 (1) of the CRR should be identified before or after applying credit risk mitigation techniques?Do exposures to “central governments, regional governments, local authorities and public sector entities” referred to in article 468 (1) of the CRR should be identified before or after applying credit risk mitigation techniques?

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

Netting of FSE holdings

Scope of EBA Q&A 2019_4517 with respect to trading book positions.

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

Netting of Financial Sector Entity (FSE) holdings

Is there a requirement to establish an additional credit risk exposure in case FSE deduction amounts are reduced by netting with eligible short FSE positions?

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

Capital increase without the issuance of new shares

Is a capital increase without the issuance of new shares in scope of article 26(3)?

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

Calculation of the amount of holdings of own Common Equity Tier 1 instruments on the basis of the net long position

How should the condition in  Article 42 a) i)  “(i) the long and short positions are in the same underlying exposure and the short positions involve no counterparty risk”  be applied when there are long and short positions on the same underlying reference with the same counterparty under the same master netting agreement ?   Are the single net amounts fixed by such contracts to be considered rather than the gross amounts?  Explanatory note: The master netting agreement we are considering complies with the conditions required under CRR (Article 206)    

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

Calculation of the amount of holdings of own Common Equity Tier 1 instruments on the basis of the net long position

Could it be assumed that short positions maintained with a Qualifying Central Counterparty do not involve counterparty risk according to Article 42 a) i) CRR and thus be netted for the purposes of the calculation of the amount of holdings of own Common Equity Tier I instruments to be deducted under point (f) of Article 36(1)?

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