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

Treatment of two-leg derivatives with respect to rate type and currency

What is the expected representation for two-legs derivatives in the templates "BREAKDOWN OF SENSITIVITY ESTIMATES (J 02.00, J 03.00 and J 04.00)" and REPRICING CASH FLOWS (J 05.00, J 06.00 and J 07.00)?

  • 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_7073
  • Topic: Interest Rate Risk for Banking Book (IRRBB)
  • Date of submission:

Level of application of permissions for consolidated netting

How should the term “consolidated basis” be read? Should such permissions be granted only to the highest EU consolidated entity or is it possible to grant these permissions also to several EU sub-consolidated entities? If it is possible to apply this requirement also on sub-consolidated basis, should the netting of the positions only refer to undertakings included in such entity’s sub-consolidating group?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2024_7058
  • Topic: Market risk
  • Date of submission:

LCR treatment of a committed facility provided to multiple borrowers

What is the LCR treatment of a committed credit facility provided to multiple borrowers where:each individual borrower might draw the full (undrawn) amount of the committed credit facility;all borrowers belong to the same overarching group which, from group perspective, would qualify as a non-financial corporate; whileone or more of the individual borrowers might qualify as a financial customer under Article 411(1) CRR on a stand-alone basis.

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/61 - DR with regard to liquidity coverage requirement
  • ID: 2024_7055
  • Topic: Liquidity risk
  • Date of submission:

Interest flows

Interest flows for retail on sight accounts (without contractual maturity)

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2024_7052
  • Topic: Liquidity risk
  • Date of submission:

Alternative arrangements for variable remuneration in investment firms

Can the use of alternative arrangements for the payment of variable remuneration be approved where the use of instruments under art 32(1)(j) IFD is theoretically possible but might endanger the stability of the investment firm?

  • Legal act: Directive (EU) 2019/2034 (IFD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: EBA/GL/2021/14 - Guidelines on internal governance under Directive (EU) 2019/2034
  • ID: 2024_7040
  • Topic: Remuneration
  • Date of submission:

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:

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:

Eligibility of funded credit protection received from third parties

Can cash collateral received from third parties via funded credit protection arrangements (i.e. funded guarantees or credit derivatives) qualify as collateral for the purposes of K-TCD and K-CON? 

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 2019/2033 (IFR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2024_6994
  • Topic: K-factor requirements
  • 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:

Optionality of certain payer information required to accompany transfers of funds

Is Article 4(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2015/847 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on information accompanying transfers of funds and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1781/2006 (‘TFR’) (and the successor provisions found in Articles 4(1)(c) and 14(1)(d) of Regulation (EU) 2023/1113 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 May 2023 on information accompanying transfers of funds and certain crypto-assets and amending Directive (EU) 2015/849 (‘TFCR’) to be read such that the payer’s (as well as, from 30 December 2024, the originator’s) date and place of birth constitute an alternative data point to:                               all preceding data points listed in Article 4(1)(c) of TFR (Articles 4(1)(c) and 14(1)(d) of TFCR as from 30 December 2024), such that transfers may, along with the information required under the other points of Article 4(1) of TFR (Articles 4(1) and 14(1) of TFCR), be accompanied by the payer’s or originator’s date and place of birth alone; or, exclusively, the data point referenced immediately prior in Article 4(1)(c) of TFR (Articles 4(1)(c) and 14(1)(d) of TFCR as from 30 December 2024), i.e., the customer identification number, such that transfers must, along with the information required under the other points of Article 4(1) of TFR (Articles 4(1) and 14(1) of TFCR), always be accompanied by the payer’s or originator’s address and official personal document number, as well as either their customer identification number or their date and place of birth? 

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) 2015/847 (WTR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2024_6969
  • Topic: Electronic fund transfers
  • 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:

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:

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: