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

Modelling the risk of migration from NMDs to term deposits in the context of the constant balance sheet assumption in the NII SOT.

Is it modelling the risk of migration from NMDs to term deposits consistent with the constant balance sheet assumption in the NII SOT?

  • Legal act: Directive 2013/36/EU (CRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: EBA/GL/2022/14 - Guidelines on interest rate risk arising from non-trading book activities
  • ID: 2024_7035
  • Topic: Interest Rate Risk for Banking Book (IRRBB)
  • Date of submission:

Calculation of the LTV ratio in FinRep

Article 239x from Annex V mentions that the LTV ratio should be calculated in accordance with the method for the calculation of the ‘current loan-to-value ratio’ (LTV-C) laid down in section 2, chapter 1, paragraph 1 of the ESRB Recommendation on closing real estate data gaps. According to Annex IV, Art 2.3 (b) of the ESRB Recommendation, VC is adjusted for changes in the prior liens on the property. The version from 2016 of the Recommendation also contained an additional passage which was deleted in the 2019 update: (d) Is adjusted by the total amount of the outstanding RRE loan, disbursed or not, that is secured through ‘prior’ liens on the property. In the case of more senior liens on the property, the full amount of the debt secured by these more senior liens needs to be deducted. In the case of ‘equal ranking liens’, an appropriate proportional adjustment should be made. In the current version of the Recommendation or in Annex V it is not clear how VC is adjusted regarding the prior liens on the property (e.g. they are deducted from the full value of the property, proportional adjustments are performed).

  • 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
  • ID: 2024_7024
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - FINREP (incl. FB&NPE)
  • Date of submission:

Disclosures in case of lack of label in EPCs

What shall be reported in columns h-n in case local EPCs do not present labels in the form of letters (A-G), but only level of energy efficiency? Shall these columns be left blank or “0” can be disclosed? Is it acceptable that the banks remove these columns from the template and do not disclose them at all? In addition, what shall be reported in this case in columns o and p? Column “o” is named as “Without EPC label of collateral” and it may indicate that the values to be disclosed in this column refer to the information in columns h-n.  

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) 2022/2453 - ITS on ESG disclosures
  • ID: 2024_7013
  • Topic: Transparency and Pillar 3
  • Date of submission:

Template C90 at consolidated level

Should the threshold template for market risk at the consolidated level, C90, be filled out netting intra-group positions even if one does not have the permission required by Article 325b? Or should it be compiled as the sum of the individual templates in this case?

  • 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
  • ID: 2024_7008
  • Topic: Market risk
  • Date of submission:

F 46 EBA_v1226

Where to recognise foreign exchange differences in template F46 for 0010 (Capital) and c0020 (Share Premium)?

  • 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
  • ID: 2024_7005
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - FINREP (incl. FB&NPE)
  • Date of submission:

Template 9.1 – Mitigating actions: Assets for the calculation of BTAR

Should institutions check the compliance of ‘do no significant harm’ and ‘minimum safeguards’ requirements for BTAR exposures?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) 2022/2453 - ITS on ESG disclosures
  • ID: 2024_7004
  • Topic: Transparency and Pillar 3
  • Date of submission:

Criteria for selecting the operations to be included in the calculation of fraud rates for the transaction risk analysis (TRA) exemption

Which of the following would be the correct temporal criterion for selecting the unauthorized transactions to be included in the numerator of the fraud rates calculated for the transactions risk analysis (TRA) exemption? a) the transaction date, i.e., the date on which the transaction was executed regardless of the date on which it is classified as unauthorized or fraudulent b) the registration date, i.e., the date on which the transaction is registered as unauthorized or fraudulent regardless of the date on which it was carried out 

  • Legal act: Directive 2015/2366/EU (PSD2)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) 2018/389 - RTS on strong customer authentication and secure communication
  • ID: 2024_6989
  • Topic: Strong customer authentication and common and secure communication (incl. access)
  • Date of submission:

Qualification of a branch as originator, designation of Competent Authority and compliance with STS requirements

May a branch of a credit institution be considered as an entity within the meaning of Article 2.3 of the Regulation (EU) 2017/2402 and hence as originator under Article 29(5) thereto?  Should the answer to the above question be affirmative, which Competent Authority (home or host) should be responsible to supervise the STS requirements set out in Articles 18 to 27 of the Regulation (EU) 2017/2402?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 2017/2402 (SecReg)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2024_6984
  • Topic: Other topics
  • Date of submission:

Template 2 - EBA val rules and Column 0160 Of which level of energy efficiency EP score in kWh_m of collateral estimate

Question 1: Are the validation rules v16092_m; v16090_m; v16088_m; v16086_m; v16084_m;v16082_m; v16080_m; v16078_m; v16049_m correctly defined?    Question 2:  How to deal with exposure for which and EPC is available, but the Level of energy efficiency (EP score in kWh/m² of collateral) is absent from the EPC?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) 2022/2453 - ITS on ESG disclosures
  • ID: 2024_6983
  • Topic: Transparency and Pillar 3
  • Date of submission:

Template 3: Banking book - Indicators of potential climate change transition risk: Alignment metrics

In relation to the minimum ‘list of NACE sectors to be considered’ in template 3, when detailed assumptions/ specific scenarios are not available on the IEA website for one of the NACE codes included in the “the minimum ‘list of NACE sectors to be considered’” (e.g. 29.32 Manufacture of other parts and accessories for motor vehicles), should it be left blank in the template?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) 2022/2453 - ITS on ESG disclosures
  • ID: 2024_6974
  • Topic: Transparency and Pillar 3
  • Date of submission:

Card data (PAN) to be returned in AISP calls

Does the ASPSP have to return the card number (PAN) attached to a fetched payment account in case the user can access this data during a standard session with its ASPSP in the direct internet banking interface? In case of "YES", does the TPP that is fetching this data have to be PCI DSS certified, since this data has to be encrypted based on the PCI DSS requirements? Moreover, could be the "card number (PAN)" considered sensible, since it could be potentially used for fraud?

  • Legal act: Directive 2015/2366/EU (PSD2)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) 2018/389 - RTS on strong customer authentication and secure communication
  • ID: 2023_6946
  • Topic: Other topics
  • Date of submission:

Template 1 - exposures towards companies excluded from EU Paris-aligned Benchmarks

Should the EU Paris-aligned Benchmarks exclusion criteria be applied at consolidated group level and to that end, exclude the total gross carrying amount of the exposure towards the consolidated group level?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) 2022/2453 - ITS on ESG disclosures
  • ID: 2023_6940
  • Topic: Transparency and Pillar 3
  • Date of submission:

Validation rules v11886_m and v11887_m

v11886_m states that with regard to C 08.03 {c0050, s0001} = emptyv11887_m states that with regard to C 08.03 {c0070, s0001} = emptyIs it correct that the validation rules v11886_m and v11887_m are only applicable for s0001 (AIRB) at total level and that there are no such validation rules for s0002 (FIRB) at total level?When the validation rules v11886_m and v11887_m are only applicable for s0001 (AIRB), why is this validation rule not applicable to C34.07 as well as there the same information is requested? In other words, are the validation rules with regard to the exposure weighted average PD %) and exposure weighted average LGD (%) consistently applied throughout the DPM?

  • 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
  • ID: 2023_6933
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - COREP (incl. IP Losses)
  • Date of submission:

Secure corporate payment processes and protocols and inactivity time period

May the period time of inactivity required by the (EU) 2018/389 - RTS on strong customer authentication and secure communication (hereinafter: RTS on SCA & CSC) Article 4 (3) (d) be changed from 5 minutes to 20 minutes if the exemption based on Article 17 of RTS on SCA & CSC has been granted by the competent authority to the Payment service provider?

  • Legal act: Directive 2015/2366/EU (PSD2)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) 2018/389 - RTS on strong customer authentication and secure communication
  • ID: 2023_6949
  • Topic: Strong customer authentication and common and secure communication (incl. access)
  • Date of submission:

Categorisation of indirect exposures to collateral issuers

The guidance for c120 to c170 states "The institution shall report the original amount of the indirect exposures in the column that corresponds to the type of direct exposure guaranteed or secured by collateral such as, when the direct exposure guaranteed is a debt instrument, the amount of ‘Indirect exposure’ assigned to the guarantor shall be reported under the column ‘Debt instruments’" This example makes intuitive sense for guarantees as the nature of the indirect exposure is based upon the form of the exposure which has been guaranteed and through substitution effect transferred to the guarantor. However should the same logic also apply to exposures secured by collateral where the indirect exposure is based upon a reduction in exposure of the collateral received rather than through a substitution effect to the original type of exposure? For example, if i have a derivative exposure for which i have reduced the original exposure to the client through receipt of a debt instrument as collateral should the indirect exposure arising to the issuer of the collateral be reported in c120 for debt instrument or c140 for derivative?

  • 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
  • ID: 2023_6927
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - Large Exposures
  • Date of submission:

Definition of default for open-end investment funds

Should an open-end investment fund be considered an obligor under Art. 178 (1) CRR, irrespective of whether it has legal personality under a Member States’ regulations on investment funds?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2023_6925
  • Topic: Credit risk
  • Date of submission:

Reference of the cells and reports layouts to use for the public disclosures (NOT the XBRL reporting)

Question 1: What are the cells references that must be publicly disclosed into annual and semiannual public disclosures: the reference of the cells from the ITS or the references of the cells from the XBRL? Question 2: What are the reports layouts that must be publicly disclosed into annual and semiannual public disclosures: the layout from the ITS or the layout from the XBRL?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) 2022/2453 - ITS on ESG disclosures
  • ID: 2023_6915
  • Topic: Transparency and Pillar 3
  • Date of submission:

Risk retention

In a situation where an entity: is not considering being itself at any time the legal owner of the securitised receivables, but has made its own decision to invest in the receivables by procuring the purchase thereof by an SSPE directly from the seller, based on its own audit of the portfolio, and has negotiated the terms and conditions of the sale and purchase independently and directly with the seller, is contractually and economically irrevocably committed to: procure the purchase of these receivables by an SSPE directly from the seller, not later than an agreed closing date, under a sale and purchase agreement entered into between such entity and the seller, failing which it would be liable for contractual damages to the seller, in an amount significant enough to evidence that it is in its economic interest to avoid such liability by performing its obligation, arrange and appoint any service providers, for the purposes of the structuring and syndication of a financing of the purchase price in the form of a securitisation of these receivables not later than the closing date, where: it would have a right of active control over the servicing, either by itself or by an appointed third-party servicer, of the securitised assets, that would be determinant for the performance of the portfolio, it would bear at least the first loss risk of the securitised portfolio, in an amount that exceeds the expected loss of the portfolio, by subscribing the first losses tranche, it would expect to receive a remuneration that would be directly dependent on the performance of the portfolio, it would be committed to fund 100% of defaulting or ineligible receivables, can this entity be considered as limb(b) originator under Regulation (EU) No 2017/2402 and as such, act as risk retention holder under Article 6(3)(d)? Would the same analysis apply with respect to future receivables that the same entity would contractually irrevocably commit, pursuant to the same sale and purchase agreement, to purchase after the closing date under the same terms and conditions, during a certain period of time, provided that they comply with the same eligibility criteria (both individually and on an aggregate basis) and up to an agreed aggregate amount, by having them assigned by the seller to the same SSPE?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 2017/2402 (SecReg)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2023_6911
  • Topic: Provisions applicable to all securitisations
  • Date of submission:

Interpretation of payment instrument

What devices or procedures can be considered as payment instrument as per Art. 4(14) of PSD2?

  • Legal act: Directive 2015/2366/EU (PSD2)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2023_6910
  • Topic: Other topics
  • Date of submission: