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

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:

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) (recast)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2024_6969
  • Topic: Electronic fund transfers
  • 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:

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:

CVA treatment of exposures arising from centrally cleared transactions - indirect clearing flows

Does an institution which is a client of a clearing member or a lower-level client in a multi-level client structure (institution > intermediary/higher-level client > clearing member > central counterparty) need to verify that Art. 305 (2) or (3) conditions are met at every level of the structure to exclude the transaction from the own funds requirements for CVA risk in accordance with Art. 382 (3) CRR? Guidance is sought on 4 possible clearing flows: Indirect clearing flows (clients’ transactions and institution’s own transactions) Client > institution > clearing member > CCP Institution > clearing member > CCP Multi-level indirect clearing flows (clients’ transactions and institution’s own transactions) Client > institution > intermediary/higher-level client > clearing member > CCP Institution > intermediary/higher-level client > clearing member > CCP Moreover, would the determination around the exemption from the CVA risk charge change under a scenario where the clearing member (indirect clearing flow) or the intermediary/higher-level client (multi-level client clearing flow) are intragroup entities established in a third country which has not been deemed equivalent under Article 13(2) of Regulation (EU) No 648/2012? This question has been submitted jointly with Q&A 2023_6839

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2023_6840
  • Topic: Market risk
  • Date of submission:

Scope of Article 22(1) CRR

Do undertakings subject to Article 22(1) CRR Sub-consolidation in case of entities in third countries have to comply with Part Two of the CRR in full or shall they only comply with Articles 89, 90 and 91 of Part Two?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2023_6765
  • Topic: Own funds
  • Date of submission:

Interplay between Articles 49(3) and 72e(5) of the CRR

Does the exemption from the requirement to deduct holdings of own funds instruments under Article 49(3) of the CRR also apply with regard to the deductions set out in Article 72e(5)?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2023_6763
  • Topic: Own funds
  • Date of submission:

Back-to-Back in regulatory threshold

How should back-to-back trades that net off perfectly when calculating the size of their on- and off-balance-sheet business that is subject to market risk be accounted for? Should both positions be considered in absolute value, both the short and the long position, or should they not be included as the positions perfectly offset each other and do not generate capital requirements for market risk?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2023_6745
  • Topic: Market risk
  • Date of submission:

Retention obligations

An alternative investment fund (“AIF”) managed by an alternative investment fund manager (“AIFM”) pursuant to Directive (EU) 61/2011, is set up to disburse loans to be subsequently securitised. According to Regulation (EU) 2402/2017 (hereinafter, the “Securitisation Regulation”), we believe that the AIFM and the AIF could fall within the definitions of, respectively, “originator” and “original lender”. According to Article 6(1) of the Securitisation Regulation the retention obligation can be fulfilled by either the originator, the original lender or the sponsor (if there is one) of a securitisation: in the above mentioned securitisation, can the retention obligation be therefore assumed alternatively by (i) the AIF as original lender, using the funds made available to it by investors or (ii) the AIFM as originator, using its own funds (i.e. not those of the AIF it manages)?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 2017/2402 (SecReg)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2023_6741
  • Topic: Provisions applicable to all securitisations
  • Date of submission:

SRT test in securitisations

When is necessary to make de SRT test in securitisations: at initial assessment only or ongoing monitoring?  

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2022_6674
  • Topic: Securitisation and Covered Bonds
  • Date of submission:

Exemption of exposures to public sector entities

In accordance with Article 429a (1) (j) (iii) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR), as modified by Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/62, exposures to public sector entities (PSE), treated in accordance with Art. 116 (4) CRR and arising from deposits that the institution is legally obliged to transfer to this PSE for the purpose of funding general interest investment, shall be excluded from the denominator calculation of the institution´s leverage ratio.  Is there any limitation in the type of deposit assets to apply for such exclusion, particularly as regards cash-assimilated instruments (Article 4 (1)(60) CRR), which include certain categories of bonds? What is meant by “legal obligation” and what creates such obligation? Would contractual or statutory obligation qualify as such? Is there furthermore an example for “general interest investment”?  

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/62 - DR with regard to the leverage ratio
  • ID: 2022_6624
  • Topic: Leverage ratio
  • Date of submission:

Approach to determining indirect ownership control powers under the legal definition of a beneficial owner.

What approach to determining the indirect ownership control power under the legal definition of a beneficial owner (“UBO”) as set out in Article 3(6)(a)(i) of Directive (EU) 2015/849 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing, as amended by Directive (EU) 2018/843 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018 amending Directive (EU) 2015/849 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing should be applied: (a) Determining the ‘share’ of indirect control of a UBO by multiplying the shares at each level of control and checking whether the result of this multiplication is more than 25% (multiplication test); (b) Examining the chain of control whenever a particular link in the ownership chain exceeds the 25% threshold which may, ultimately, lead to a natural person holding more than 25% of the shares or votes in a given indirect parent entity (rolling test); or (c) Verifying whether there is an entity or person who “controls” the entity having more than 25% of the shares or votes in an entity being evaluated, i.e. holds more than 50% of shares or votes in such entity (dominancy test)?

  • Legal act: Directive (EU) 2015/849 (AMLD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2022_6622
  • Topic: Other topics
  • Date of submission:

Determining MREL for entities of a group for which resolution plan provides that liquidation is credible and feasible

Where liquidation is credible and feasible either for the parent entity or for all of the entities of a group what is the legal basis for determining and reaching a joint decision on MREL?

  • Legal act: Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/1075 - DR on the content of recovery and resolution plans, financial support, independent valuers, contractual recognition of write down and conversion powers, notices of suspension and resolution colleges
  • ID: 2022_6587
  • Topic: MREL
  • Date of submission:

Meaning of "established in the Union"

Article 18 of the Securitisation Regulation requires that “The originator, sponsor and SSPE involved in a securitisation considered STS shall be established in the Union”: Would this provision deemed to be fulfilled in the case of originators, sponsors and SSPEs established in an EEA country? Would it be deemed to be fulfilled in the case of an originator which is an EU branch of a subsidiary  established in an EEA State pertaining to a banking group established in the EU?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 2017/2402 (SecReg)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2022_6539
  • Topic: Simple Transparent and Standardised securitisation
  • Date of submission:

Treatment of multi-seller securitisations in CRR

It is not clear from the provisions of the CRR how to treat multi-seller securitisations.  Multi-seller securitisations are those securitisations where there is more than one originator. That is, the underlying pool of the transaction comes from more than one single entity and the originators retaining the securitisation positions are exposed to the risk of the joined portfolio and not only to the risk of the portfolio they have transferred to the SSPE.  In those cases: Should  each originator be considered as such and consider that the significant credit risk associated with its securitised exposures has been transferred to third parties in accordance with Article 244(1)(a), and therefore originators should treat their retained securitisation positions as a positions subject to the securitisation framework? Or should all the originators be considered as investors in the securitisation due to the fact that the proportion of the assets that each originator has transferred to the SSPE represents a minimum share of the overall portfolio in the SSPE?   Would that treatment also apply in those cases where the originators retain all the asset backed securities issued in the securitisation (liquidity purpose securitisation)?   Would the originators be considered as such for the purpose of the overall cap under Article 268?   Should any dominant entity contributing with a majority of assets in the pool be subject to the general SRT rules and the rest of originators be considered as investors? Which percentage should be considered to trigger such a dominant position?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2022_6494
  • Topic: Securitisation and Covered Bonds
  • Date of submission:

Scope of Prudential consolidation

Which is the applicability of Article 22 CRR for successive subsidiaries of a Significant Institution (SI) in the SSM and rest of EU, 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 EU that is the last in the chain of the successive subsidiaries of the SI?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2022_6454
  • Topic: Other issues
  • Date of submission:

EAD value for CVA calculation

Is the the EADiTotal in paragraph 1 gross of or net of incurred CVA. The definition provided by the regulation states that the effect of the collateral should be included but there is no reference as towards the incurred CVA regognised by the Bank as a write-down which under article 273 par.6 is applied in the calculation of the CCR RWA. "EAD total i = the total counterparty credit risk exposure value of counterparty ‘i’ (summed across its netting sets) including the effect of collateral in accordance with the methods set out in Sections 3 to 6 of Title II, Chapter 6 as applicable to the calculation of the own funds requirements for counterparty credit risk for that counterparty. An institution using one of the methods set out in Sections 3 and 4 of Title II, Chapter 6, may use as the fully adjusted exposure value in accordance with Article 223(5)."

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2022_6404
  • Topic: Market risk
  • Date of submission: