EBA · 2025_7554 Rejected question

Inconsistency between Annotated table CODIS Pillar III and Mapping_tool_including_step_2_tc (incl equity) + Rev 4.1 review_tc

Regulation
Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
Article
Point (l) of Article 439 referring to point (g) of Article 452
Topic
Transparency and Pillar 3
Submitted by
Other
Submitted
2025-08-07

Question

How should we interpret and implement the differences between the Annotated table and the Mapping Tool referring to template CCR4 - K04.00?

Background

The inconsistencies have raised the following implementation-related questions: K04.00a – The Annotated Table specifies the domain qAE:qAE2(qAE) as the dynamic key, including 18 domain values (among them qAE:qx2082), each reported separately per sheet. By contrast, the Mapping Tool includes only 12 values. Do we need to report  on K04.00a the values corresponding to the following domain values: qAE:qx2009, qAE:qx2071, qAE:qx2072, qAE:qx2073, qAE:qx2074, qAE:qx2082 which are not indicated in the Mapping tool? K04.00b – The Mapping Tool calculates the 'Total (all CCR relevant exposure classes)' row as the sum of qAE:qx2023 and qAE:qx2022. Although qAE:qx2082 is included in the K04.00a template as a separate sheet, it is not part of K04.00b, since it does not fall under either qAE:qx2023 or qAE:qx2022. As a result, the total row will not be consistent with the dynamic sheets from the K04.00a template. Is this intentional?
No answer published yet.

Original source: European Banking Authority, Q&A ID 2025_7554

This Q&A is published by European Banking Authority and is non-binding. It does not constitute legal advice. Updated weekly from official ESA sources.

Similar Q&As

More Q&As on this topic

📋 Track EU financial regulation continuously

Forseti monitors EU financial regulation and delivers personalised alerts anchored to verified official sources.

14-day free trial. No credit card required.