Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupport
Contact Us
Search
Close

EBA Opinion on Commission’s proposed amendments to draft RTS on equivalent mechanism for unfinished property

By Simon Lovegrove (UK), Jochen Vester (UK) & Michael Born (DE) on February 26, 2026
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

On 26 February 2026, the European Banking Authority (EBA) issued an Opinion following the European Commission’s (Commission) amendments to the final draft regulatory technical standards specifying what constitutes an equivalent legal mechanism to ensure the completion of a residential property under construction within a reasonable timeframe, as laid down in the Capital Requirements Regulation.

The Opinion considers that two of the Commission’s proposed amendments introduce substantive changes that are not consistent with the prudential safeguards underpinning the preferential treatment for residential property exposures.

The two proposed amendments are that the Commission propose to:

  • Increase the cap on the risk weight applicable to the protection provider from 20% to 30% under the Standardised Approach. The EBA considers that maintaining the original 20% threshold is important to preserve consistency within the overall prudential framework. As a general principle, the capital treatment of an exposure should not be more favourable than what is justified by the credit quality of the counterparty providing the protection. Allowing eligibility for protection providers attracting a 30% risk weight could, in certain cases, lead to a preferential capital treatment that is not fully aligned with this principle.
  • Remove the requirement that the completion guarantee be mandated by the law of the Member State where the residential property is being built. The EBA considers this requirement fundamental to ensuring that the mechanism qualifies as a legal mechanism, rather than a purely private contractual arrangement. It’s removal could reduce legal certainty and dilute the robustness of the framework.
Photo of Simon Lovegrove (UK) Simon Lovegrove (UK)
Read more about Simon Lovegrove (UK)Email
Photo of Jochen Vester (UK) Jochen Vester (UK)
Read more about Jochen Vester (UK)Email
Photo of Michael Born (DE) Michael Born (DE)
Read more about Michael Born (DE)Email
  • Posted in:
    Banking, Finance and Securities
  • Blog:
    Global Regulation Tomorrow
  • Organization:
    Norton Rose Fulbright
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo