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

Collateral haircuts for third-country equivalent PSE-RGLA’s

For the purposes of Article 197(2)(a) and (b) CRR, should the references to PSEs and RGLAs in Articles 115(2) and 116(4) CRR be interpreted as encompassing the third-country equivalent entities referred to in Articles 115(4) and 116(5) CRR, such that debt securities issued by those entities qualify for the treatment provided under Article 197(1)(b) CRR? 

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2026_7989
  • Topic: Credit risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 15/09/2026

Use of the EBA’s aggregated loss data for “All national markets outside the Union” for the purposes of Articles 125 and 126 CRR.

Does the row “All national markets outside the Union” in the EBA publication Immovable-property loss data, Q4 2025 constitute a publication of loss-rate data that may be relied upon, in respect of immovable property situated in Switzerland, for the purposes of the loss-rate requirements referred to in Article 125(3), second subparagraph, and Article 126(3), second subparagraph, CRR? In particular, may an institution use the losses and exposure amounts reported in that aggregated row to assess whether the applicable loss-rate thresholds are met for exposures secured by residential or commercial immovable property situated in Switzerland, notwithstanding that Switzerland is not presented as a separate national immovable property market?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2026_7980
  • Topic: Credit risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 15/09/2026

Treatment of the secured portion of defaulted IPRE exposures under the Standardised Approach

Under the Standardised Approach for credit risk, Article 127(3) CRR states that: "The exposure value remaining after specific credit risk adjustments of non-IPRE exposures secured by residential property or commercial immovable property in accordance with Articles 125 and 126, respectively, shall be assigned a risk weight of 100 % if a default has occurred in accordance with Article 178." Articles 125(2) and 126(2) establish dedicated treatments for income-producing real estate (IPRE) exposures through ETV-based risk-weight buckets. Following the CRR3 amendments, Article 127(3) explicitly refers only to non-IPRE exposures and does not specify the treatment of the secured portion of IPRE exposures after default.  Could the EBA clarify the prudential treatment of a defaulted IPRE exposure that satisfies all requirements of Article 124 and is secured by residential property or commercial immovable property? In particular: Should the secured portion of a defaulted IPRE exposure continue to be risk weighted according to the ETV buckets in Article 125(2) or Article 126(2), as applicable? Alternatively, should the secured portion of a defaulted IPRE exposure be reported in the exposure class "Exposures in default" and be assigned a risk weight of 100%, analogously to the treatment laid down in Article 127(3) for non-IPRE exposures, despite IPRE exposures not being explicitly referred to in that provision   If neither of the above approaches is correct, what is the appropriate risk-weight treatment and COREP reporting treatment for the secured portion of defaulted IPRE exposures under the Standardised Approach? 

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2026_7979
  • Topic: Credit risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 15/09/2026

Application of the SME supporting factor to exposures financing private purposes following CRR III

Following the amendments introduced by Regulation (EU) 2024/1623 (CRR III), Article 501(2)(b) CRR defines an SME by reference to Article 5, point (9), CRR rather than to Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC. Where the obligor is a natural person who carries out an economic activity and meets the turnover criterion in Article 5, point (9), should SME status be determined once at obligor level — so that the adjustment under Article 501(1) applies to all non-defaulted exposures to that obligor meeting Article 501(2)(a) — or should it continue to be assessed exposure by exposure by reference to the purpose of the individual financing, as set out in EBA Q&A 2021_6301?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2026_7971
  • Topic: Credit risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 15/09/2026

Treatment of the Right Way Risk in Call Warrant

Is a call warrant issued by the counterparty  that is also the issuer of the underlying shares exempt from counterparty credit risk requirements?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2026_7911
  • Topic: Credit risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 15/09/2026

Historical valuation series considered in determining the average value of real estate collateral

Considering that institutions may rely on comparable real estate valuation indices to fill in periods where no formal property revaluation exists, in order to construct the required equally distant interval valuation points, is there any requirement or expectation to extend the historical series beyond the minimum three data points, covering the full reference period (e.g., six years for RRE and eight years for CRE)?  The reasoning underlying this question is illustrated in the following example: RRE: Case 1 - Exclusive reliance on three data points derived from formal property revaluation exercises Period 0: Property value at origination Period 1: -- Period 2: -- Period 3: First formal property revaluation Period 4: -- Period 5: -- Period 6: Second formal property revaluation RRE: Case 2 - Use of real‑estate price valuation indices to construct the historical period Period 0: Property value at origination Period 1: First property value collected using real‑estate valuation indices Period 2: Second property value collected using real‑estate valuation indices Period 3: Third property value collected using real‑estate valuation indices Period 4: Fourth property value collected using real‑estate valuation indices Period 5: Fifth property value collected using real‑estate valuation indices Period 6: First formal property revaluation RRE: Case 3 - Use of real‑estate price valuation and indices to construct the historical period Period 0: Property value at origination Period 1: First formal property revaluation Period 2: First property value collected using real‑estate valuation indices Period 3: Second property value collected using real‑estate valuation indices Period 4: Third property value collected using real‑estate valuation indices Period 5: Fourth property value collected using real‑estate valuation indices Period 6: Second formal property revaluation

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2026_7810
  • Topic: Credit risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 15/09/2026

Application of the current market value as a cap for immovable property collateral

Should the most recent market value constitute the maximum permissible (“cap”) for prudential purposes, even when the revaluation mechanisms under Article 229 would otherwise yield a higher value?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2026_7809
  • Topic: Credit risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 15/09/2026

Historical valuation data predating the origination of the exposure for eligible immovable property collateral

For the purpose of calculating the average property value for exposures where the available valuation history does not meet the minimum historical period of six years for residential real estate (RRE) and eight years for commercial real estate (CRE), may the missing historical period be supplemented by using real estate price valuation indices for comparable properties predating the origination date of the exposure?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2026_7762
  • Topic: Credit risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 15/09/2026

Type of exposures to report on r0152 of C10.00 COREP Template

Considering the scope of the row 0152 on C10.00 template, does the exposures that should be reported refer to UNSECURED exposures?

  • 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
  • ID: 2026_7689
  • Topic: Credit risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 15/09/2026

Clarification of ETV calculation for mortgages securing more than one exposure

Article 124 paragraph 6 Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR) specifies the calculation of ETV for IPRE exposures. In order to calculate ETV, the gross value of an exposure should be divided by the value of property. Additionally, this article clarifies that: “For the purposes of the first subparagraph, point (a), where an institution has more than one exposure secured by the same immovable property and those exposures are secured by liens on that immovable property that are sequential in ranking order without any lien held by a third party ranking in-between, the exposures shall be treated as a single combined exposure and the gross exposure amounts for the individual exposures shall be summed up to calculate the gross exposure amount for the single combined exposure.” Our question refers to calculation ETV for joint mortgages – so the mortgage which secures more than one exposures and additionally these exposures may have other mortgages assigned. Based on the above, it’s clear that numerator should include the gross value of all exposures secured by this joint mortgage. Nevertheless, it’s unclear which value should be used in the denominator of ETV in the real life example described below.

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2026_7922
  • Topic: Credit risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 06/07/2026

Risk weights assignment to IPRE exposures secured by many properties

Articles 125 and 126 paragraph 2 Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR) specify the rules for risk weights assignment to IPRE exposures, respectively secured by residential and commercial properties. However, these regulations don’t clarify how risk weights should be assigned to IPRE exposure when it’s secured by both residential and commercial property – especially when one property is IPRE (income producing property) and the second one is non-IPRE (the residential property, let’s assume that this is the flat of a counterparty). 

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2026_7923
  • Topic: Credit risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 06/07/2026

Definition of "official export credit agency" for the calculation of deduction for non-performing exposures

Article 47c(4a) of the CRR exempts the part of a non‑performing exposure guaranteed or insured by an “official export credit agency” (ECA) from the deduction requirements laid down in Article 47c. However, the CRR does not define the term “official export credit agency”. In this context, what are the criteria for qualifying as an “official export credit agency” and how can it be determined whether an export credit agency and the guarantee or insurance provided meets the criteria for applying the derogation as provided in CRR Article 47c(4a)?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2026_7818
  • Topic: Credit risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 12/05/2026

Treating lease exposures as collateralised under the F-IRB approach

Is a permission of the competent authority under Article 199(6) of the CRR required for treating lease exposures as collateralised under the F-IRB approach if the lease object corresponds to other physical collateral?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2026_7712
  • Topic: Credit risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 11/05/2026

Application of Article 199(6)(d) for low default portfolios

In cases where institutions do not have a sufficient internal track record of default and liquidation events due to the low-default nature of certain portfolios, is there an alternative approach, such as the use of relevant external data, market evidence, or a combination of internal and external information, that could be considered acceptable to demonstrate compliance with Article 199(6)(d) for eligible physical collateral?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2026_7806
  • Topic: Credit risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 11/05/2026

Incorporation of historical data from integrated entities when historical information is not representative of current underwriting standards

Should an institution incorporate historical default data from acquired or merged entities into its IRB model estimates for PD, LGD, and CCF when calculating RWA for the acquiring institution’s exposures originated before and after the merger? 

  • 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
  • ID: 2026_7701
  • Topic: Credit risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 31/03/2026

Assigning risk-weight to a credit facility where the drawdown is contingent on non-credit risk related conditions that are required to be met by the obligor prior to any initial or subsequent drawdown and where the conditions for the drawdown are not met.

What risk-weight should be assigned to a credit facility where the drawdown is contingent on non-credit risk related conditions that are required to be met by the obligor prior to any initial or subsequent drawdown and where the conditions for the drawdowns are not met per the reporting date?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2026_7722
  • Topic: Credit risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 13/03/2026

Definition of Default (CRR Article 178) – Application of contagion and the 20% “significant part” threshold in the presence of joint credit obligations where default is applied at facility level

When the Definition of Default for retail exposures is applied at facility level, how should institutions apply the contagion and pulling effects set out in Article 178 CRR and EBA/GL/2016/07 in the presence of joint credit obligations, given that paragraphs 96–99 are articulated for obligor level default, while Article 178 CRR allows default recognition at facility level. In particular: Should a joint obligor (i.e. a specific set of obligors jointly liable) be treated as a separate obligor for the purposes of assessing contagion and the “significant part” (20%) threshold? How should contagion be assessed between:  joint credit obligations of the same set of obligors, individual exposures of the obligors participating in the joint obligation, and other joint credit obligations of those individual obligors with different counterparties, where default is recognised at facility level (including defaults identified through indications of unlikeliness to pay)? How should this be applied in practice for the 3 illustrative examples given?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: EBA/GL/2016/07 - Guidelines on the application of the definition of default under Article 178 CRR
  • ID: 2026_7736
  • Topic: Credit risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 10/03/2026

Clarification on the application of Article 215.2(b) of the CRR

Can guarantees issued by a central government for residential mortgages, that covers losses resulting from the non-payment of interest and other types of payments which the borrower is obliged to make, be used for unfunded credit protection if the final guarantee value is determined based on the residual value between an executive sale of underlying residential mortgage collateral and a max guaranteed amount?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2025_7666
  • Topic: Credit risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 27/02/2026

Calculation of the unmargined exposure value for a netting set with multiple margin agreement or including both transaction subject to a margin agreement and transaction not subject to a margin agreement

How to calculate the capped exposure value, i.e., the exposure value of the netting set in the event that it is not subject to any type of margin agreement, when there are multiple margin agreements applicable to this netting set or when this netting set includes both transactions subject to a margin agreement and transactions not subject to a margin agreement? For the calculation of the unmargined value, should all deals be included in a single sub-netting set (the one containing contracts not subject to margining) and not divided as required by paragraph 4 of Article 274, or should the sub-netting sets remain separate and their value be calculated as if they were unmargined?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2025_7649
  • Topic: Credit risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 26/01/2026

Inconsistency in the formulation of conditions for Hard Tests

Can Art. 199 para. 3, para. 4 CRR be interpreted in line with amended Art. 125 para. 2 sub-para. 3 and para. 3 sub-para. 1 6, 126 para. 2 sub-para. 3 and para. 3 sub-para. 1, 199 para. 4a CRR; hence, is it sufficient that a member state’s competent authority publishes loss rates despite different wording in Art. 199 para. 3, 4 CRR?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2025_7437
  • Topic: Credit risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 26/01/2026