12 Q&As on CRR

EBA has published 12 new Q&As regarding issues relating to the CRR:
—
2023_6823 – Supervisory reporting – FINREP (incl. FB&NPE) – Transfers to PPE
QUESTION: We have a collateral obtained some years back that was classified as Commercial Immovable property. In the current year the Group decided to transfer this property to PPE and use it for its own branches.
In table 25.1 the below rows exist. Where can we put the transfer (therefore outflow) mentioned above?
– Outflow for which cash was collected
– Outflow with replacement by financial instrument
– Outflow due to negative changes in value
ANSWER: There is no specific line item for this transfer in Template F 25.01. It is proposed to use the negative changes in valuation of collateral during the period as it does not fit clearly in other line items.
—
2023_6803 – Supervisory reporting – COREP (incl. IP Losses) – Bucket definition (PD range) in the ITS on supervisory reporting
QUESTION: Does Q&A 6718 also modify the definition of the row ‚PD Range‘?
ANSWER: Reporting should be based on the resultant obligor in template C 08.03, and instructions for rows will be amended accordingly.
—
2023_6800 – Supervisory reporting – Asset Encumbrance – Should collateral received via securities financing transaction that is subsequently sold short be reported as encumbered in F32.02? Follow-up question on 2014_946 related to short positions in Asset Encumbrance
QUESTION: As clarified in Q&A 946 “Selling collateral received (short sale) does not give rise to encumbrance”. Two scenarios are addressed under this Q&A and further clarity is sought on scenario one and the reporting of collateral received in template F 32.02 where such collateral is subsequently sold short. Is it the intended view that within F 32.02 where an institution receives collateral, against cash, and then uses that collateral received to cover a short position, that the received collateral should be reported as unencumbered in F 32.02, column 040? If so, can you please provide supporting rationale that selling collateral received (short sale) does not give rise to encumbrance given that once the collateral is sold short, it is not available for re-use by the institution?
ANSWER: Collateral received via securities financing transactions that is subsequently sold short does not give rise to encumbrance.
—
2023_6755 – Supervisory reporting – COREP (incl. IP Losses) – Clarification of scope of population for Corporate Bonds
QUESTION: In accordance with the instructions for row 0060 of template C 34.08 in Annex II of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/451, there is no specific definition of what the scope of corporate bonds should include.
Could you, therefore, please confirm if this should include all bonds issued by Institutions and Corporate entities and if it would also include securitisation bonds issued by these entities as well or not or, alternatively, would only non-securitisation instruments issued by entities which would qualify for the corporates credit risk exposure class under Article 112(g) of the CRR be included? We would also request clarification on securitisation bonds, whether those issued by government agencies e.g., Fannie Mae should be reported in row 0050.
ANSWER: Debt securities issued by corporates, institutions, and covered bonds should be reported in row 0060 of template C 34.08.
—
2023_6721 – Supervisory reporting – Large Exposures – COREP Large exposure, validation rule v_1678 related to POCI assets
QUESTION: In case of purchased or originated credit-impaired financial assets (POCI), it is possible that the value for positive ‚value adjustments and provisions‘ exceeds the ‚value of total original exposure‘ can be reported in COREP Large reports.
However, DPM validation rule v_1678_m does not allow reporting of such cases.
Since it is possible to have positive impairments that exceed the total original exposure for the POCI assets, could the validation rule or its severity be modified in this respect?
ANSWER: Validation rule v1678_m can be breached if exposure is a POCI and positive impairment is higher than original exposure.
—
2023_6827 – Strong customer authentication and common and secure communication (incl. access) – Trusted Beneficiaries
QUESTION: Please clarify whether under Regulation (EU) 2018/389 – RTS on strong customer authentication and secure communication (hereinafter: RTS on SCA & CSC) is it allowed to use the same SCA element to authorize a payment and at the same time (using the same session ID) approve (technically using by a checkbox) the payee as a trusted beneficiary?
If it is allowed, the payment service user (hereinafter: PSU) shall be informed (prior to authorisation) by an approval SCA element (SMS) about the payment execution and about modifying the list of the trusted beneficiaries as well?
ANSWER: Reusing the same SCA elements for both purposes is not compliant with legal requirements.
—
2023_6820 – Strong customer authentication and common and secure communication (incl. access) – Exemption from strong customer authentication
QUESTION: Do the revisions to Art.10 set out in Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/2360 of 3 August 2022 amending the regulatory technical standards laid down in Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/389 as regards the 90-day exemption for account access mean that a payment service user or account information service provider is now limited to accessing only the account balance OR the transaction details for the last 90 days when availing of the revised exemption?
ANSWER: The exemptions allow access to both the balance and transaction details for the last 90 days.
—
2023_6767 – Strong customer authentication and common and secure communication (incl. access) – App to app redirection with biometrics for PIS
QUESTION: Are ASPSPs required to offer redirected authentication with biometrics to users accessing their payment accounts through an AISP or initiating a payment through a PISP, if they offer redirected authentication with biometrics to users accessing accounts or initiating payments directly via the ASPSP?
ANSWER: ASPSPs offering redirected authentication with biometrics should also enable their PSUs to use biometrics with AISPs or PISPs.
—
2023_6744 – Major incidents reporting – Service Downtime
QUESTION: The question refers to the case that an incident with a duration of two hours that disrupts transaction processing occurs around the daily cut off time of same-day transactions processing. Thus, the incident may be of a short duration, but as a result, transactions are booked one day later.
Considering this example, what service downtime should the payment service provider (PSP) indicate in the PSD2 notification? Just the net time of the failure or the total time any payment service users are affected by delayed transactions, i.e. one day?
ANSWER: Service downtime should cover the period when payment services were affected by the incident.
—
2023_6687 – Strong customer authentication and common and secure communication (incl. access) – Period to be covered by statistics pursuant to Article 32(4) of Commission
Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/389
QUESTION: Which period should the statistics to be published by ASPSPs under Article 32(4) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/389 cover in total?
ANSWER: The Commission Delegated Regulation does not specify the overall period; the competent authority may determine an appropriate period.
—
22022_6526 – Strong customer authentication and common and secure communication (incl. access) – Evidences / Records to be stored by account servicing payment service
providers (ASPSP) for payment initiation service (PIS) and account information service (AIS) requests
QUESTION: 1. Shall ASPSP keep record of PIS requests received through a PISP and evidences on the authenticity and execution of these payment transactions when SCA is managed by ASPSP ?
2. Shall ASPSP keep record of the consent of the PSU and also of the AISrequests received through an AISP ?
3. For both evidences is there any specific retention period ?
ANSWER: ASPSPs should keep records, and retention periods should follow relevant Union and national laws.
—
2022_6481 – Other topics – Reading of the term „means of payment“
QUESTION: 1. What are the ‚means of payment‘ in the LNE Guidelines (guidelines 1.6 and 1.7)? Does the term refer to the technological level of a physical device or a digital carrier, which may accommodate several payment instruments, such as plastic card (chip or magnetic stripe), a mobile phone, a wallet, an app, a wearable, a tablet, a PC or even a specific storage location on an external server?
2. Please provide examples of ‚other means of payment‘ that are relevant in practice from the EBA’s perspective.
3. How is the definition of payment instrument according to Article 4(14) PSD2 to be read in the context of the LNE Guidelines?
4. Is the interpretation of the adjective “card-based” (in combination with means of payment) in line with the same adjective in combination with payment instruments according to Article 2(20) of Regulation (EU) 2015/751 (“IFR”)?
ANSWER: Answers provide clarifications regarding the term and its inclusivity of both physical and digital means of payment.