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

Holdings of own funds instruments issued by financial sector entities included in the scope of consolidated supervision not deducted from own funds on an individual basis

According to Article 49(2) of Regulation (EU) No. 575/2013 (CRR) “for the purposes of calculating own funds on an individual basis and a sub-consolidated basis, institutions subject to supervision on a consolidated basis in accordance with Chapter 2 of Title II of Part One shall not deduct holdings of own funds instruments issued by financial sector entities included in the scope of consolidated supervision, unless the competent authorities determine those deductions to be required for specific purposes, in particular structural separation of banking activities and resolution planning. Such provisions mean, if understood correctly, that starting from 1 January 2014, all significant investments in financial entities of a bank subgroup will not be deducted from own funds on an individual basis, but according to Article 49(4) of the CRR will be risk weighted according to Article 133 (for standardised approach). With the above in mind, what risk weight should be applied for such exposures? According to Article 133(2) of the CRR “equity exposures shall be assigned a risk weight of 100 %, unless they are required to be deducted in accordance with Part Two, assigned a 250 % risk weight in accordance with Article 48(4), assigned a 1250 % risk weight in accordance with Article 89(3) or treated as high risk items in accordance with Article 128.” In Article 133(2) of the CRR there is no reference to equity exposures treated under Article 49(2). Does this mean that such exposures should be treated simply with 100% risk weight?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2013_268
  • Topic: Own funds
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 31/01/2014

Treatment of Tier 1 securities with calls every 5 years (as opposed to quarterly calls)

Could a Tier 1 security with an incentive to redeem and a first call date post January 1, 2014 (say, in 2016) and which is callable every 5 years after the first call date count as Tier 2 if not called at the first call date? This question is partly based on the answer to the question 2013_15, where the EBA gives clarity on the fact that non-called Tier 1 cannot count as Tier 2 post the first call date, as they are callable every quarter on so do not comply with Tier 2 requirement - which is not the case here.

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2013_48
  • Topic: Own funds
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 31/01/2014

Valuation of qualifying holdings outside the financial sector for the purposes of Article 89 of Regulation (EU) No. 575/2013

What is the correct valuation to determine the 15% threshold of the eligible capital under Article 89(1) of Regulation (EU) No, 575/2013? Are the provisions of Article 4(77) also relevant for this purpose or should it be generally the amortized cost?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2013_367
  • Topic: Own funds
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 24/01/2014

Tap issues

Article 484 and 486 of Regulation (EU) No. 575/2013 (CRR) provide for the grandfathering treatment of Tier 2 instruments that do not meet the criteria of Articles 62 and 63. Article 63 provides that callable Tier 2 should have a first call date not before five years after the date of issuance or raising (except Article 78(4)). When an institution has issued before 31/12/2011 a callable (non step) Lower Tier 2 bond with a first call date at year 5 and then has made a tap on that issue (i.e. increased the amount of the original issue a year later, for example), what is the grandfathering treatment of the amounts raised through the tap? Is it the same as the original bond (i.e. fully eligible) or should the tap be considered non fully eligible Tier 2 because, as of the tap date, the first call was before year 5, in which case the tap should be included in the amortized stock according to Article 86.

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2013_238
  • Topic: Own funds
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 24/01/2014

Eligibility of Tier 2 after contractual change if already in amortisation phase

This is a follow up question to 2013_16, where it is stated that "A material change in the terms and conditions of a pre-existing instrument shall be considered in the same way as the issuance of a new instrument, meaning that the changes shall aim at ensuring a full eligibility...". Does this principle apply only to changes that would lead to inclusion in grandfathering or also to instruments which after a contractual change (removal of call rights) would be fully eligible but already are within the last 5 years of their maturity and therefore recognized according to amortization rules?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2013_174
  • Topic: Own funds
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 24/01/2014

Grandfathering of own funds instruments

Based on the answer to question 2013_16, if a step-up Tier 2 bond’s terms were changed so that all call options were removed – before the entry in force of the Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR) – could it be considered as fully eligible in Tier 2 capital assuming that the capital instrument meets the other conditions laid down in Article 63 of the Regulation?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2013_61
  • Topic: Own funds
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 24/01/2014

Inclusion of incurred (IFRS) CVA in the IRB Provision shortfall calculation

Can the incurred CVA charge related to IRB exposures be treated as an eligible provision for the purposes of calculating the own funds reduction for IRB provision shortfall (per Article 159 of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR))?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2013_245
  • Topic: Own funds
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 20/12/2013

Treatment of non-grandfathered amount of bonds

1. As of January 1, 2014, if an innovative Tier 1 security has more than 5 years to the first call date (e.g., a first call in 2020), does the non-grandfathered amount of bonds (i.e. 100%-80% = 20% in 2014) have any regulatory value? Could this be Tier 2 until 2015, given it will have at least 5 years to the first call date as per Article 63 Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)? 2. In a similar vein, can the non-grandfathered part of non-innovative Tier 1 with no incentive to redeem count as Tier 2, either pre- or post-first call date?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2013_47
  • Topic: Own funds
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 20/12/2013

Treatment of existing Tier 1 and Tier 2 instruments

This question is a supplement to Question 2013_46. For Tier 1 or Tier 2 instruments with an incentive to redeem and quarterly/semi-annual/annual calls beyond the first call date, would these instruments qualify as Tier 2 capital if the issuer gave an undertaking to its regulator and the market that it would not exercise its call option for at least 5 years after the first call date? This would save the issuer the time and expense of having to modify the actual instrument documentation but would achieve a similar outcome in terms of its capital position/quality.

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2013_105
  • Topic: Own funds
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 13/12/2013

Inclusion of year-end profit in Common Equity Tier1 Capital as of the end of first quarter of the following year.

Can the year-end profit (reduced by the expected burdens and dividends), after verification by persons independent of the institution that are responsible for the auditing of the accounts of that institution, be included in Common Equity Tier1 Capital of the institution as of the end of first quarter of the following year without the prior permission of the competent authority in the situation in which the General Meeting of Shareholders approves the financial statements with the year-end profit (and approves the dividend in the amount reducing the year-end profit in the calculation) before the issuing date of the first quarter financial statements, but after the date of first quarter reporting period?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2013_208
  • Topic: Own funds
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 06/12/2013

Possibility to remove a Tier 1's call options to make the securities Tier 2 compliant

Based on the answer to question 2013_16, if a step-up Tier 1 bond’s terms were changed (which had a call date in, say, 2016) so that all call options were removed, this could not prolong its grandfathering as Tier 1, if that were the sole rationale for removing the calls. However, if a removal of calls is to make the Tier 1 bonds count as eligible Tier 2 (as there is no call feature), then could they be reclassified as Tier 2?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2013_49
  • Topic: Own funds
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 06/12/2013

Grandfathering

Article 486(3)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR) states: “the amount of instruments referred to in Article 484(4) which on 31 December 2012 exceeded the limits specified in the national transposition measures for point (a) of Article 66(1) and Article 66(1a) of Directive 2006/48/EC;..” is to be deducted from the amount eligible for inclusion.” This same rule is also applied for Tier 1 grandfathering under CRR. This in effect preserves the current Tier 2 restrictions. Because that amount is at an aggregate level i.e. not by instrument, how then are the individual instruments to be treated under CRR? Each instrument may have different terms including maturity and so how should aggregated restricted amount be spread across instruments?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2013_60
  • Topic: Own funds
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 29/11/2013

Old-style Tier 1 requalifying as CRR Tier 2 capital

When an old-style Tier 1 instrument with an incentive to call passes its step-up date and ceases to be recognised as grandfathered Tier 1 capital under Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR), can it qualify as Tier 2 capital going forward if it were to meet all the requirements of Article 63 of CRR? For many existing instruments, the quarterly calls following the first call date of the Tier 1 instrument would prevent the inclusion in Tier 2 capital under CRR. If an old-style Tier 1 instrument had the Issuer's Call entirely removed from the instrument's documentation by the Issuer or Trustee, could it theoretically requalify as Tier 2 if it met all the other provisions for Tier 2 capital (Article 63 etc) after the removal of the Call provision?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2013_46
  • Topic: Own funds
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 29/11/2013

Grandfathering, cascading and phasing out limits

In the case of an issuer whose outstanding Tier 2 instruments as at December 2012 are fully CRR compliant (ie bullet Tier 2 bonds), should Article 486(4) apply? To put it simply: can an issuer still have some disqualfied parts of Tier 1 instruments (for limit reasons) cascaded into Tier 2 even if the issuer has no phased out Tier 2 amount as at December 2012 (and hence no phased out limits for Tier 2) ?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2013_44
  • Topic: Own funds
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 29/11/2013

Recognised amount as regulatory capital for an Additional Tier 1 with a write-down mechanism

According to Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR) Article 54(3): “The amount of Additional Tier 1 instruments recognised in Additional Tier 1 items is limited to the minimum amount Common Equity Tier 1 items that would be generated if the principal amount of the Additional Tier 1 instruments were fully written down or converted into Common Equity Tier 1 instruments”. Given the fact that a write-down may be seen as a profit under local accounting GAAP, and hence taxable (NB: true should the issuer be supposed to pay taxes at this time. However, it is unlikely that the issuer records a profit at a time where a write-down is operated), one can think that the recognized amount as Additional Tier 1 at the issue date is the nominal amount less the foreseeable paid tax amount in case of write-down. What's the final view of EBA? Can the entire nominal issue amount be recognized as Additional Tier 1 at the issue date or only a reduced amount (i.e. the nominal amount - the foreseeable paid tax amount in case of write-down)?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2013_29
  • Topic: Own funds
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 29/11/2013

Grandfathering limit

Once applicable percentages in the range are specified by the local regulator, would it be applied: (1) at the beginning of the period; (2) at the end of the period or (3) on a straight-line basis throughout the 12 months period?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2013_30
  • Topic: Own funds
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 29/11/2013

Anerkennung der Kapitalrücklage "zugehörig zu" deutschen Vorzugsaktien als Kernkapital - Recognition as Tier 1 equity of share premiums related to German preference shares

Sind deutsche Vorzugsaktien nach der Aktienrechtsnovelle kernkapitalfähig, so dass auch das Agio, das mit dem Instrument "verbunden" ist, im Kernkapital anerkannt werden kann?Translation to EN: Do German preference shares qualify as Tier 1 capital under the amended Companies Act, which would mean that share premium accounts ‘linked to’ the instrument may be recognised as part of Tier 1 capital?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2013_24
  • Topic: Own funds
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 29/11/2013

Grandfathering on own funds instruments

What will be the treatment of the "phased-out" amounts which exceed the applicable percentages according to Article 486 (5)) of grandfathered Additional Tier 1 instruments which are non-eligible due to an incentive to redeem (accord. to Art 489) or a coupon pusher (accord. to Art 53 (a)), during the grandfathering period (accord. to Art. 486 (5)). Will the phased-out amounts flow into grandfathered Tier 2 amounts (subject to applicable limits) or will they lose their regulatory recognition completely (i.e. are these amounts entirely eliminated from regulatory own funds)?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2013_56
  • Topic: Own funds
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 15/11/2013

Grandfathering of Non-Step Tier 1 instruments

A Tier 1 instrument, with no incentive to redeem, was issued prior to 31 December 2011, and, at the time of issue, was not callable for 5 years. It reaches its first call date in May 2014, and is callable quarterly thereafter. It is not called at its first call date. It does not meet all of the requirements as T1 capital under Article 52. Subject to grandfathering limits, does the instrument continue to count as Tier 1 capital? If it does not count toward Tier 1, would it count as Tier 2?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2013_52
  • Topic: Own funds
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 15/11/2013