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

C 14.00 – DETAILED INFORMATION ON SECURITISATIONS (SEC DETAILS) - FIELD 210

Field 210 - (-) Value Adjustments and Provisions. Do the value adjustments and provisions reported here related to the securitised exposures or the securitised positions? Guidelines are contradictory.

  • 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Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) No 680/2014 - ITS on supervisory reporting of institutions (repealed)
  • ID: 2014_906
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - COREP (incl. IP Losses)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 05/09/2014

C 14.00 – DETAILED INFORMATION ON SECURITISATIONS (SEC DETAILS) - FIELD 100

Field 100 - Compliance with the Retention Requirement?. How do we report for Investor positions originated prior to 2011?

  • 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Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) No 680/2014 - ITS on supervisory reporting of institutions (repealed)
  • ID: 2014_905
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - COREP (incl. IP Losses)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 05/09/2014

C 14.00 – DETAILED INFORMATION ON SECURITISATIONS (SEC DETAILS) - FIELD 090

Field 090 - % of Retention at Reporting Date. Do we report percentage retention at reporting date or at origination? Secondly, how are Investor positions to be reported given the information is not publicly available?

  • 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)
  • ID: 2014_902
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - COREP (incl. IP Losses)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 05/09/2014

C 14.00 – DETAILED INFORMATION ON SECURITISATIONS (SEC DETAILS) - FIELD 050

Field 050 - Accounting Treatment: Securitised Exposures are kept or removed from the Balance Sheet?. How should Investor positions be reported here?

  • 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)
  • ID: 2014_899
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - COREP (incl. IP Losses)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 05/09/2014

C 14.00 – DETAILED INFORMATION ON SECURITISATIONS (SEC DETAILS) - FIELD 020

Field 020 - Identifer of the Securitisation. What should be reported here when the first eight characters of the ISIN are not common to all tranches of a securitisation? Secondly, different securitisations can have the same first eight characters, is this a problem?

  • 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)
  • ID: 2014_896
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - COREP (incl. IP Losses)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 05/09/2014

C 07.00 CR SA STD Column 215: which amount should be display in Column 215 for exposures NOT subject to SME-supporting factor? Should we display 0 or the amount of risk weighted assets?

C 07.00 CR SA STD Column 215: which amount should be display in Column 215 for exposures NOT subject to SME-supporting factor? Should we display 0 or the amount of risk weighted assets?

  • 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)
  • ID: 2014_891
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - COREP (incl. IP Losses)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 05/09/2014

Discrepancy between taxonomy expectation and ITS

In the report CR SEC DET, C14.00, the ITS clearly says that column 290 and 300 must written according to the following format : MM/YYYY In the taxonomy published in december those cells are defined as DATE. The problem here is that many of our customers only collect Month and Year for those columns in their information system, but not the day as it was not required first. And as far as i know, in the taxonomy a DATE information muste have a Day to be valid (year and month are not sufficient) => Will you keep those fields as date? if so, is it possible to send those fields with a fixed day?

  • 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)
  • ID: 2014_838
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - COREP (incl. IP Losses)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 05/09/2014

Annex XV Validation formulae

Ilogical validations in Annex XV

  • 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)
  • ID: 2014_854
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - COREP (incl. IP Losses)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 05/09/2014

C0700 : Descrepancy between Taxonomy and ITS

In the ITS, the row 280 of the reporting C0700 is forbidden for the following exposure classes : -Government, -Corporates, -Institutions, -Retail. When we look at the taxonomy it seems that no particular control is done to forbid figures for those cells. Does the EBA expects any figures for those cells?

  • 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)
  • ID: 2014_833
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - COREP (incl. IP Losses)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 05/09/2014

Label discrepancy

By comparing the ITS published on the EC : http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/bank/regcapital/legislation_in_force... And the Taxonomy published by the EIOPA last year it seems that some "rows label" and "column labels" are not exactly the same. Which label should be considered as the correct one? instance : - Form C0200 EBA Taxo: Row 020 : Of which: Investment firms under Article 90 paragraph 2 and Article 93 of CRR EC : Row 020 : Of which: Investment firms under Article 95 paragraph 2 and Article 98 of CRR EBA Taxo: Row 030 : Of which: Investment firms under Article 91 paragraph 1 and 2 and Article 92 of CRR EC : Row 030 : Of which : Investment firms under Article 96 paragraph 2 and Article 97 of CRR - Form C0501 EBA Taxo: Row 090 : 1.2.2 Transitional recognition in consolidated own funds of minority interests and qualifying Additional Tier 1 and Tier 2 capital EC : Row 090 1.2.2 Transitional recognition in consolidated own funds of minority interests EBA : Row 100 : 1.3 ADJUSTMENTS TO DEDUCTIONS EC : Row 100 : 1.3 OTHER TRANSITIONAL ADJUSTMENTS [...]

  • 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)
  • ID: 2014_832
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - COREP (incl. IP Losses)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 05/09/2014

C21 Additional requirements for options (non-delta risks) : reporting requirements

In the report C21, the taxonomy, accordingly with the ITS last functional XLS templates allows the row 090 to be fed for other column that capital requirements. But, this seems very strange from some of our customers as in all other Market risk templates ( ie. MKR SA COM, MKR SA FX) this row must only be fed for the column "Own fund requirements". => In the report C21.00, for rows "090" shall we report figures in column "010" to ""050"?

  • 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)
  • ID: 2014_829
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - COREP (incl. IP Losses)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 05/09/2014

Inconsistency between taxonomy and ITS - MKR SA TDI

In the taxonomy it seems that the following cells may be fed for all exposures classes (In the taxonomy the facts are "open" for the cells of the following rows ) : - row 325 column 610 - row 330 column 610 Bu tin the same time for those cells, the ITS clearly says that " It shall only be reported on Total level of the MKR SA TDI ". So based on the ITS some of our customers do not want to give a split by currency for those cells. => May you confirm if the EBA expects or not to receive a breakdown by currency for the following cells? => Do you thing that the ITS or the taxonomy will be updated accordingly?

  • 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)
  • ID: 2014_826
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - COREP (incl. IP Losses)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 05/09/2014

Inconsistency between taxonomy and ITS - report CR SA

In the taxonomy it seems that the cells from the following rows may be fed for all exposures classes (In the taxonomy the facts are "open" for the cells of the following rows ): - 020 : of which SME - 030 : of which : SME subject to SME-supporting factor - 040 : of which : Secured by mortgages ... But in the last version of the ITS (and also in the old one), the functional text mentions that those rows should only be displayed for some specific exposures classes (i.e screen shot below). Some of our customers think that, accordingly to the ITS, the following rows must be "closed" for non listed exposures classes like "Institutions", "central governments or central banks", "Covered Bonds" ... Indeed, for them those reporting SME details for an exposure on "central governments or central banks" is just functional non-sense. => May you confirm that rows "020" to "040" must only be reported for the exposure classes listed in the ITS? => If so, can we expect that a future version of the taxonomy will close the facts relative to those rows for the ITS unlisted exposure classes.

  • 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)
  • ID: 2014_825
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - COREP (incl. IP Losses)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 05/09/2014

COREP NACE codes

Has a revised list of NACE codes been issued or are the current NACE codes based on the Regulation (EC) No 1893/2006 to be used when reporting under COREP?

  • 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)
  • ID: 2014_821
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - Other
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 05/09/2014

Instructions - Annex II CRSA

We are not clear about how should we report exposures with following combination of exposure class on row 020 and 030 of Total Sheet. Should defaulted exposure to SME (subject to supporting factor ) in Corporate / Retail/ Immovable property , be reported on Total Sheet on Row 020 and 030 ? Should exposure to Corporate SME (subject to supporting factor ) which has been reassigned an exposure class "High Risk", be reported on Total Sheet on Row 020 and 030 as well as "Items associated with particular high risk " ?

  • 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)
  • ID: 2014_763
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - COREP (incl. IP Losses)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 05/09/2014

Reporting of credit risk mitigation on the CR IRB template (C 08.01)

The COREP CR IRB guidelines seem to be conflicting with the validation rules in respect to reporting the substitution effect of Credit Risk Mitigation (CRM), columns 40-80 of the CR IRB template. The instruction for column 040 (Guarantees) is ambiguous, on the other hand it states: "If the CRM effect of the guarantee is calculated by recognition of the substitution effect, the Adjusted Value (Ga) as defined in Article 236 of CRR shall be provided." but also: "When Own estimates of LGD are used: Article 183 of CRR, except paragraph 3. The nominal amount of the guarantees shall be reported." For the substitution approach, the adjusted value of guarantee has to be reported in the column 070 (outflows). The COREP CR IRB template states that the column 070=040+050+060. This formula woud result in the nominal (pre-currency/maturity mismath adjustment) value being transferred from the original obligor's exposure class to the protection provider's exposure class, instead of the adjusted amount. Please clarify which amount is to be reported in the columns 040-050, nominal or adjusted credit protection amounts? In case the answer is different for banks using own LGD estimates and those not, please specify why should this be the case.

  • 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)
  • ID: 2014_700
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - COREP (incl. IP Losses)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 05/09/2014

Validation Rule

Original question: Stimmt die EBA den folgenden validation rules für Tabelle 7 Spalte 100 zu: F07.00 (c100; r060) = F04.04 (c050; r010) bis F07.00 (c100; r180) = F04.04 (c050; r130) Translated question: Does the EBA agree with the following validation rules for table 7 column 100: F07.00 (c100; r060) = F04.04 (c050; r010) to F07.00 (c100; r180) = F04.04 (c050; r130)

  • 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)
  • ID: 2013_606
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - FINREP (incl. FB&NPE)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 29/08/2014

Validation Rule

Original question: Stimmt die EBA den folgenden validation rules für Tabelle 7 Spalte 090 zu: F07.00 (c090; r060) = F04.04 (c040; r010) bis F07.00 (c090; r180) = F04.04 (c040; r130) Translated question: Does the EBA agree with the following validation rules for table 7 column 090: F07.00 (c090; r060) = F04.04 (c040; r010) to F07.00 (c090; r180) = F04.04 (c040; r130)

  • 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)
  • ID: 2013_605
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - FINREP (incl. FB&NPE)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 29/08/2014

Validation Rule

Original question: Stimmt die EBA den folgenden validation rules für Tabelle 7 Spalten 080 und 110 zu: F07.00 (c080; r060) = F04.04 (c030; r010) bis F07.00 (c080; r180) = F04.04 (c030; r130) F07.00 (c110; r010) = F04.03 (c040; r010) bis F07.00 (c110; r050) = F04.03 (c040; r050) Translated question: Does the EBA agree with the following validation rules for table 7 columns 080 and 110: F07.00 (c080; r060) = F04.04 (c030; r010) to F07.00 (c080; r180) = F04.04 (c030; r130) F07.00 (c110; r010) = F04.03 (c040; r010) to F07.00 (c110; r050) = F04.03 (c040; r050)

  • 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)
  • ID: 2013_604
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - FINREP (incl. FB&NPE)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 29/08/2014

Eligibility of subordinated loans for classification as Tier 2 instruments when the rules governing their issue contemplate an obligation of the issuer to repurchase a percentage of them (eligibility limited to the amount of subordinated loans not subject to such repurchase obligation).

Pursuant to the combined application of articles 63 letter k) and 66 letter a) it is correct that a clause – also included in the rules governing the issue of subordinated loans – according to which an issuer is obliged to repurchase a specified amount of subordinated loans does not prevent from classifying such financial instruments as Tier 2 instruments if, in compliance with article 66 letter a), the percentage of subordinated loans that shall be repurchased by the issuer is deducted from Tier 2 items? In other words, a subordinated loans can be classified as Tier 2 instruments if the provisions governing their issue contemplate the undertaking of the issuer to repurchase a specified percentage of the issued subordinated loans provided that - in compliance with article 66 letter a) of CRR - such percentage is deducted from Tier 2 items? The undertaking of the issuer to repurchase part of subordinated loans deriving from the rules governing the issue of such subordinated loans can be considered as a repurchase “contractual obligation” and as a consequence may it fall within one of the cases contemplated under the provisions of article 66 letter a) of CRR?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2014_1226
  • Topic: Own funds
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 29/08/2014