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

Calculation of the EAD in BA-CVA

To compute the BA-CVA, on netting sets for which an institution computes the EAD using its IMM model, can you confirm that the EAD calculated using current market data should be used?

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

Grace period for existing contractual arrangements in the register of information

As stated in Regulation (EU) No 2022/2554 (DORA) Article 28, paragraph 3 - As part of their ICT risk management framework, financial entities shall maintain and update at entity level, and at sub-consolidated and consolidated levels, a register of information in relation to all contractual arrangements on the use of ICT services provided by ICT third-party service providers. Is there a grace period for the existing contractual arrangements, or does all the information have to be collected and recorded in the register of information before the regulatory deadline in January 2025? 

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

Metric Amount Weigthted at 50% for Equity AT1 an AT2 between 6 months and 1 Year

When could we have the NSFR Template with EQUITY AT1 and AT2 between 6 months and 1 year weighted at 50% instead 0% today?

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

FINREP_3.2.1; F 40.01; Validation Rule EBA_v10676

Template F40.01 contains (among others) column 0110 (Accumulated equity interest [%]) and 0120 (Voting Rights [%]) which are left empty for some rows and therefore trigger a validation error as defined by the EBA. In our reporting empty does NOT mean 0 and therefore using empty fields instead of zero is a more appropriate approach to complete form 40,01. Is this approach correct? What should be reported?

  • 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 F 16.08 validation rule eba_v8193_s

Is it possible to report negative amounts in r 0040 c 0010 (taxes and duties) due to VAT tax refunds from the previous year?

  • 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

Template F 16.08 validation rule eba_v8193_s

Is it possible to report negative amounts in r 0040 c 0010 (taxes and duties) due to VAT tax refunds from the previous year?

  • 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

Reporting of matching liabilities in AE F36.01 template

As the name of columns in AE F36.01 template is “Collateral Type - Classification by Asset type” should matching liability be reported in the same column as assets encumbered against that liability? Or matching liabilities should be reported in columns depending on the nature of the liability itself (so that encumbered asset and matching liability will be reported in different columns of the template)?

  • 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

EBA validation rule v2853

EBA validation rule v2853 requires OTC derivatives in template AE-SOU (F32.04; r0030,c0010) not to be higher than OTC derivatives in FINREP (sum({F 10.00, c0020, (r0300-0320)}) + sum({F 11.01, c0020, (r0510-0530)}) + sum({F 11.02, c0007, (r0240-0260). However in FINREP the net carrying amount should be reported as in the AE-SOU template the gross carrying amount should be reported. The gross carrying amount before accounting netting can be higher than the net carrying amount. Is this validation rule still correct?

  • 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

Determination of exposure value cap for netting sets subject to a margin agreement.

The final answer to EBA Q&A 2023_6962 states that when capping the exposure value of a margined netting set at the exposure value of the same netting set not subject to any form of margin agreement “The term NICA, included in the formula set out in Article 275(1) and defined in Article 272(12a), does not include the variation margin posted or received.”   We believe that this is an incorrect reading and could lead to significant under estimation of RWAs whenever the institution is posting significant excess collateral to its client. This can happen particularly when trades with a large MTM unwind at maturity and the collateral balance is exchange back only on T+1 basis.   Take the following example scenario. If calculating the EAD per the margined methodology the variation margin posted to the client offsets some of the MTM of the derivatives and the add-on is fully added to EAD as the multiplier remains 1.    However under the unmargined methodology if I disregard the posted collateral then the negative current replacement cost works to significantly offset the add-on and can actually result in an EAD below the EAD incurred on only the actual replacement cost/current exposure (in this example 140).   Example Scenario       MTM of Derivatives -50 Variation Margin posted to client 150 Replacement Cost (Margined) 100 Add-on (pre multiplier) 100 Multiplier 1 EAD per margined methodology 280     MTM of Derivatives -50 Variation Margin posted to client (ignored as not NICA) 0 Replacement Cost (Unmargined ignoring VM posted) 0 Add-on (pre multiplier) 100 Multiplier 0.78 EAD per unmargined methodology 109     Final capped EAD to unmargined 109   Our understanding is that the wording in Article 274(3) which says “the exposure value of a netting set that is subject to a contractual margin agreement shall be capped at the exposure value of the same netting set not subject to any form of margin agreement” instead of meaning that there is no variation margin and hence this should be completely removed in the unmargined cap calculation should actually be read in conjunction with Article 272(12a) to define that in the absence of a margin agreement there can be nothing classed as “variation margin” and therefore all collateral is part of NICA – “NICA means the sum of the volatility-adjusted value of net collateral received or posted, as applicable, to the netting set other than variation margin”.   If we follow the previous Q&A answer then we will see significant reductions in RWA which we feel are unwarranted vs the counterparty risk for netting sets which exhibit the same portfolio dynamic as in the example above. The purpose of the cap is only to ignore exposure from large threshold amounts and not to avoid exposure from large amounts of posted collateral which are still owed back 

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

Standardansatz für das Gegenparteiausfallrisiko

Guten Tag Wir haben nun eine Unklarheit bezüglich dem CELEX 32019R0876, Art 274 Abs 5 a) Der Netting-Satz besteht ausschliesslich aus verkauften Optionen. Frage: Sind die verkauften Optionen aus Banksicht oder aus Kundensicht gemeint d.h. ist der Kunde short die Optionen oder die Bank ? Vielen Dank & freundliche GrüsseDenis Meylan P.S. Das EAD kann auf 0 gesetzt werden, bei einem reinen short Option Portfolio (aus Kundensicht oder Banksicht - darum die Frage).

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/62 - DR with regard to the leverage ratio

Calculation of loss rates for income producing real estate (IPRE) under the standardized approach for credit risk under the CRR III (Regulation (EU) 2024/1619)

What is the correct calculation of loss rates for the purposes of Articles 125 para. 2 subpara. 3 and 126 para. 2 subpara. 3 CRR (as amended by regulation (EU) 2024/1623, ie. CRR III)?

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

Regulatory Reporting treatment in COREP of credit risk exposures linked to participated loans

Should exposures linked to loans participated in by other parties and de-recognised under IFRS 9 3.2.5 be reported as ORIGINAL EXPOSURE PRE CONVERSION FACTORS and mitigated by the amount received as the price paid for the participation or shall de-recognition allow the institutions to report ORIGINAL EXPOSURE PRE CONVERSION FACTORS equal to zero. 

  • 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

Taxonomy 3.2: Is the validation rules v4745_s consistent for fair-value in short position disclosed in the cell C09.04, row 0040, columns 0010 ?

For information this request replace 2024_7015 In Annex II to Regulation (EU) 2021/451, chapter 3.4.3 referring to template C 09.04, the row of the line 0040  contains “Value of trading book exposures under internal models”. By this way, how to disclose the fair-value of a non-deritivative in a short position, in which the value is negative, whereas the CFV v4745_s expects only positive value used for long position ? Should this validation rule should exclude line 0040 ?

  • 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

Taxonomy 3.2: Is the validation rules v4745_s consistent for fair-value in short position disclosed in the cell C09.04, row 0040, columns 0010 ?

In Annex II to Regulation (EU) 2021/451, chapter 3.4.3 referring to template C 09.04, the row of the line 0040  contains “Value of trading book exposures under internal models”. By this way, how to disclose the fair-value of a non-deritivative in a short position, in which the value is negative, whereas the CFV v4745_s expects only positive value used for long position ? Should this validation rule should exclude line 0040 ?

  • 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

Regulatory Reporting treatment in COREP of credit risk exposures linked to participated loans

Should exposures linked to loans participated in by other parties and de-recognised under IFRS 9 3.2.5 be reported as ORIGINAL EXPOSURE PRE CONVERSION FACTORS and mitigated by the amount received as the price paid for the participation or shall de-recognition allow the institutions to report ORIGINAL EXPOSURE PRE CONVERSION FACTORS equal to zero. 

  • 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

The SA exposure class (CRR Art 112) of the exposure amounts with an LTV ratio between 80% and 100%: secured or unsecured?

Art 125(2)((d) splits the secured part of a exposure secured by mortgages on immovable in a part with an LTV ratio lower than 80%, to which the 35 % risk weight is assigned, and a remaining part. The remaining part has an LTV ratio between 80% and 100% and gets the same treatment as the unsecured part. But should it still be considered a secured part of the exposure under art 112(i)?

  • 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

Treatment of feature of tranching for mortgage backed securities

Under the US NPR,  the Fed has indicated that because the credit risk is to the agency and not the pool, the tranching doesn't count for CSR purposes, and thus the proper risk class to calculate is CSR_NS (not CSR_SNC). Banks in the US subject to FRTB have been following this convention as part of the Fed's Hypothetical Portfolio Exercise. Does the EU expect to follow this interpretation as well?

  • 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

C 02.00 OWN FUNDS REQUIREMENTS CA2 - Row 0585

Hello,   As a bank reporting software company, we would like more information about FRTB.   In the Reporting framework 4.0, for Corep, for the template : C 02.00           OWN FUNDS REQUIREMENTS   CA2 We have a question about the row “0585- 1.3.4 Risk exposure amount for on- and off-balance sheet subject to market risk of entities applying only the Alternative Internal Models Approach (AIMA) or a combination of AIMA and ASA” There is a mention “See MKR AIMA SUM” in the “2.2 Annex II - Part II - Capital adequacy”   But the template “C 95.00     Alternative internal model approach: Summary of own funds requirements            MKR AIMA SUM” is postponed to 2026.   Can we conclude that this row is empty for 2025 ?   Thanks in advance,   Regards

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

Inclusion of Interim profits in CET1 ratio at half year

At the half year, where an institution has accrued for an interim cash dividend in line with its approved dividend policy and the policy also allows for the distribution of excess capital at the discretion of its Board, is the institution also required to deduct for a potential full year share buyback in its half year CET1 ratio where:  (i) its Board has not made any decision on an interim or full year share buyback and its distribution policy does not formally commit the institution to an interim / full year share buyback;  (ii) no share buyback application has been made to the ECB;  (iii) no explicit guidance on the quantum of a share buyback has been given to the market (at either the HY or FY), and therefore undistributed capital is fully available for use in H2 to cover unexpected risk or losses should they occur

  • 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