Search for Q&As Submit a question

List of Q&As

Interplay between subordination and calibration for MREL

Shall subordination and calibration requirements set out in Art. 45b and 45c BRRD be met at all times, independently from each other?

COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable

ID: 2019_4863| Topic: MREL| Date of submission: 09/08/2019

Reference to provisions governing the access to extraordinary financing in MREL calibration

Is the reference to the provisions governing the access to extraordinary financing (37(10), 44(5) and 44(8) BRRD) a mandatory component of MREL calibration for resolution and non-resolution entities?

COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable

ID: 2019_4862| Topic: MREL| Date of submission: 09/08/2019

Transition period for MREL

1) Can resolution authorities set transition periods with an end-date before 1 January 2024? 2) Can resolution authorities set a transition period with an end-date before 1 January 2022 (date referred to in the context of the "intermediate target" introduced in the legislation?

COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable

ID: 2019_4861| Topic: MREL| Date of submission: 09/08/2019

Treatment of intragroup liabilities when one of the institutions is established in a country being a member of EEA and EFTA (i.e. non-EU Member State but EEA Member State), which has implemented Directive 2014/59/UE, but entry into force of the Decision of the EEA Joint Committee (‘JCD’) No 21/2018 of 9 February 2018 is pending and the draft JCD incorporating Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 is under consideration by the EU (EEAS) and the EFTA States (Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway)

Should, according to Article 5(1)(a) of the Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63, intragroup liabilities be deducted from the contribution base when one side of the transaction is an institution established in a country being a member of the EEA and EFTA (e.g. Norway), but (according to information available on www.efta.int, retrieved on 1 August 2019) entry into force of the Joint Committee Decision (JCD) No 21/2018 of 9 February 2018 incorporating Directive 2014/59 and Joint Committee Decision (JCD) No 79/2019 of 29 March 2019 incorporating Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 and Directive 2013/36/EU is pending and the draft Joint Committee Decision incorporating Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 is under consideration by the EU (EEAS) and the EFTA States?

COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 - DR on ex ante contributions to resolution financing arrangements

ID: 2019_4857| Topic: Resolution financing arrangements| Date of submission: 07/08/2019

Autorizzazione ad offrire servizi di PIS e AIS per conto di altre Legal Entity appartenenti allo stesso Gruppo societario

In un Gruppo societario, che non è iscritto al registro dei Gruppi Bancari e al cui interno sono presenti sia un Istituto di moneta elettronica che un Ente creditizio, l’Istituto di moneta elettronica può offrire i servizi di PIS e AIS, anche per conto dell’Ente creditizio del Gruppo in qualità di fornitore del servizio stesso? L’Istituto di moneta elettronica che offre i servizi di PIS e AIS ai clienti dell’Ente creditizio di Gruppo, in qualità di fornitore del servizio, si deve presentare verso gli altri ASPSP con il proprio certificato, con il certificato di Gruppo oppure con il certificato dell’Ente creditizio? O in quanto mero fornitore del servizio, il certificato da esporre è quello dell’Ente creditizio? Un Gruppo societario può richiedere un certificato di Gruppo per presentarsi alle altre ASPSP e/o TPP?

COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) 2018/389 - RTS on strong customer authentication and secure communication

ID: 2019_4754| Topic: Authorisation and registration| Date of submission: 29/05/2019

Eligibility of mortgage mandates under Belgian law

Are mortgage mandates under Belgian law eligible as immovable property collateral? Is there a difference between the SA and IRB approach?

COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable

ID: 2019_4721| Topic: Credit risk| Date of submission: 15/05/2019

Partial Waiver of Art 6(1) CRR according to Art 7(3) CRR

Can a bank apply for a partial waiver of Article 6(1) of the CRR as described in art 7(3)?

COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable

ID: 2019_4720| Topic: Liquidity risk| Date of submission: 15/05/2019

Moment of deduction for cooperative shares

In the case of a cooperative institution, should deductions from own funds with regard to a permission to reduce CET1 capital in accordance with Article 77(a) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR) and Article 32 of the RTS on Own Funds be made right after the permission from the competent authority (CA) is granted (as laid down in Article 28 (2) of the RTW on Own Funds ) or could it be later for instance at the time when the institution receives the notification of the intention to redeem from the shareholder?

COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) No 241/2014 - RTS for Own Funds requirements for institutions

ID: 2019_4719| Topic: Own funds| Date of submission: 14/05/2019

Classification of “Undrawn term loans” under Art.23.1.b of CDR (EU) 2015/61

Where the drawdown of undrawn term loans is gradually disbursed in phases over a certain drawing window and where these drawdowns are contingent to predefined milestones whereby the credit institution has to evaluate whether the milestone is achieved, could these term loans be classified as ‘Undrawn loans and advances to wholesale customers’ according to Article 23.1.b of the Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/61?

COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/61 - DR with regard to liquidity coverage requirement

ID: 2019_4717| Topic: Liquidity risk| Date of submission: 14/05/2019

Prudential consolidation: definition of "undertaking" and "dominant influence"

For the purpose of the application of CRR Art 18 (1) and CRR article 18 (8) could you clarify whether: - the term “undertaking” means necessarily “entity” having a legal personality; - the term “dominant influence” has to be understood in a broader sense than within the meaning of the article 1 (1) of the Directive 83/349/EEC;

COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable

ID: 2019_4716| Topic: Own funds| Date of submission: 14/05/2019

Scope of Prudential consolidation

Which is the applicability of article 22 CRR for successive subsidiaries of a SI in the SSM and rest of UE, when the subsidiary in a third country as referred in article 22 CRR is held by the subsidiary in the SSM or rest of the UE that is the last in the chain of the successive subsidiaries of the SI?

COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable

ID: 2019_4711| Topic: Passporting and supervision of branches| Date of submission: 14/05/2019

Net cash out-/inflow from cash settled futures (“ICE Brent Crude futures contract”)

How to calculate the expected liquidity net cash outflow/inflow from a future contract with daily variation margin and an expected final cash settlement?

COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/61 - DR with regard to liquidity coverage requirement

ID: 2019_4705| Topic: Liquidity risk| Date of submission: 13/05/2019

Application of the LGD floor

Are there any specific requirements regarding the adjustment for the LGD floor? More specifically, is it a sufficient condition to ensure (may be on a daily basis) that the exposure weighted average LGD just needs to meet the floor on a portfolio level and the respective adjustments on the facility level are at the discretion of the bank?

COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable

ID: 2019_4680| Topic: Credit risk| Date of submission: 24/04/2019

Retail exposures of subsidiary / branch of an EU credit institution established outside the EU

Could the subsidiary/ branch of an EU credit institution established outside the EU use local criteria (i. e. criteria widely used by credit entities and public bodies in the relevant foreign jurisdiction) to classify an undertaker as a small or medium-sized enterprise in order assign to its exposures a risk weight of 75% according to Article 123

COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable

ID: 2019_4590| Topic: Credit risk| Date of submission: 28/02/2019

Provisions as part of the own funds

Art. 322(b) CRR requires institutions to "calculate its own fund requirement as comprising both expected and unexpected loss, unless expected loss is adequately captured in its internal Business practices". The delegated Regulation 2018/959 provides more guidance in Art,33(d), where it states "that the offsets the Institution allows for expected loss in each operational risk category are capital substitutes or that they are otherwise available to cover expected loss with a high degree of certainty over the one-year period." Can provisions that are made against loss events in the past (i.e. previous accounting periods) be used as a capital substitute to cover future losses? Are these provisions available with a high degree of certainty?

COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable

ID: 2019_4583| Topic: Own funds| Date of submission: 28/02/2019

Speculative immovable property financing definition with respect to Debt-for-asset swaps

Article 4 par.1, point 79 of the CRR states that "Speculative Immovable Property financing" means loans for the purposes of the acquisition of or development or construction on land in relation to immovable property or of an in relation to such property with the intention of reselling for profit. A Bank that as an extention of its banking activities proceeds with Debt-for-Asset Swaps (DFAS) and creates separate legal entities (SPVs) to carry these assets until they are sold. By doing this in the SPV's balance sheet an asset (property) and a liability (loan from the Bank) is created. At the same time in the Bank's books there is a loan to the SPV shown as an asset. In the Bank's books, the loan was given out not for property financing with the intention of reselling for a profit but with the intention of cutting its losses. Given the above, in the Individual level of reporting,should these exposures to the SPVs treated as "Speculative Immovable Property Financing" and be risk weighted at 150% under article 128 of the CRR, or should they be RW at 100% which reflects the RW of the property included in the Consolidated level of reporting (intercompany balances are eliminated and the asset remaining in the consolidated balance sheet is the property held for sale)?

COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable

ID: 2019_4559| Topic: Credit risk| Date of submission: 18/02/2019

Reporting of instruments in regulatory own funds for which the prior permission of the competent authority is required

If an institution issued capital instruments before a reporting reference date (e.g. 31.12) and receives the permission to classify them as CET1 instruments in the period between this reporting reference date and the next reporting remittance date (e.g. 11.2), can these instruments be reported as of this reporting reference date (31.12) as CET1 instruments at the related reporting remittance date (11.2)? If the answer is yes, would the bank be allowed to re-submit its COREP if the permission is granted after the relevant reporting remittance date? The same questions are relevant for issuance of AT1/T2 instruments in those countries that have a prior approval process in place pursuant to recital 75 of the CRR.

COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable

ID: 2019_4531| Topic: Own funds| Date of submission: 11/02/2019

Eligibility of convertible instruments as financial collateral

Do financial instruments that are not included in a main index and not trades on a recognised exchange, but that can be converted anytime at the discretion of the owner of the instrument into equities that are included in a main index or are traded on a recognised exchange qualify as eligible financial collateral?

COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable

ID: 2019_4509| Topic: Credit risk| Date of submission: 04/02/2019

Technical past due situation - Factoring

How should be treated the situation in terms of technical default when there are two past due purchased receivables (each individually material) and one of them is repaid by the obligor while the second one is still due? First example (simplified) • The bank has two purchased receivables (both recorded on its balance sheet and each individually material). The first receivable was due on 31 December 2021 and the second receivable was due on 31 January 2022. • On 14 February 2022 the obligor repaid the first receivable, however the second receivable remained unpaid. Second example (simplified) • The bank has two purchased receivables (both recorded on its balance sheet and each individually material). The first receivable was due on 31 December 2021 and the second receivable was due on 10 January 2022. • The obligor did not repay the first receivable on 31 December 2021. Thus, it can be regarded as in the technical past due situation until 30 January 2022 (due date 31 December 2021 + 30 days). • On 14 February 2022 the obligor repaid the first receivable, however the second receivable remained unpaid.

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: 2019_4505| Topic: Credit risk| Date of submission: 01/02/2019

Calculation of past due days on material credit obligations

For the purpose of the definition of default, should days when material credit obligation was past due but repaid later on be included in the calculation of 90 (180) consecutive days according to Article 178 of CRR, paragraph 1, point (b)?

COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable

ID: 2019_4504| Topic: Credit risk| Date of submission: 01/02/2019

PDF