1.   Institutions shall determine the exposure value of the derivate contracts listed in Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 575/2013, including those that are off-balance sheet, in accordance with the Mark-to-Market Method set out in Article 5b.

When determining the exposure value, institutions may take into account the effects of contracts for novation and other netting agreements in accordance with Article 5d. Cross-product netting shall not apply. However, institutions may net within any single product category included in Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 when they are subject to a contractual cross-product netting agreement.

2.   Where the provision of collateral related to derivative contracts reduces the amount of liabilities under the applicable accounting framework, institutions shall reverse that reduction.

3.   For the purposes of paragraph 1, institutions may deduct from the current replacement cost portion of the exposure value the variation margin paid in cash to the counterparty in so far as under the applicable accounting framework the variation margin has not already been recognised as a reduction of the exposure value and provided that all of the following conditions are met:

(a)	for trades not cleared through a qualifying central counterparty as defined in Article 4(1), point (88), of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013, the cash given to the recipient counterparty is not segregated;

(b)	the variation margin is calculated and exchanged on a daily basis, based on a mark-to-market valuation of derivative positions;

(c)	the variation margin given in cash is in the same currency as the currency of settlement of the derivative contract;

(d)	the variation margin exchanged is the full amount that would be necessary to fully extinguish the mark-to-market exposure of the derivative subject to the threshold and minimum transfer amounts applicable to the institution;

(e)	the derivative contract and the variation margin between the institution and the counterparty to that contract are covered by a single netting agreement that the institution may treat as risk-reducing in accordance with Article 5d.

For the purposes of point (c) of the first subparagraph, where the derivative contract is subject to a qualifying master netting agreement, the currency of settlement means any currency of settlement specified in the derivative contract or the governing qualifying master netting agreement.

Where under the applicable accounting framework an institution recognises the variation margin received in cash from the counterparty as a payable liability, it may exclude that liability from the exposure measure provided that the conditions set out in the first subparagraph, points (a) to (e), are met.

4.   For the purposes of paragraph 3, the following shall apply:

(a)	the deduction of variation margin paid shall be limited to the negative current replacement cost portion of the exposure value;

(b)	an institution shall not use variation margin paid in cash to reduce the potential future credit exposure amount, including for the purposes of Article 5e(1), point (b)(ii).

5.   By way of derogation from paragraph 1, institutions may use the Simplified Exposure Method set out in Article 5c to determine the exposure value of derivative contracts listed in points 1 and 2 of Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 575/2013, provided that the size of the on- and off-balance-sheet derivative business of those institutions meets the conditions set out in Article 273a(2) of that Regulation.

Institutions that apply that Simplified Exposure Method shall not reduce the exposure measure by the amount of variation margin received in cash.

1.   The current replacement cost of liabilities arising from derivative contracts at netting set level shall be the absolute value of the net market value of those contracts within the netting, gross of any collateral held or posted where positive and negative market values are netted in computing the net market value. For that purpose, institutions shall treat an individual derivative transaction as its own netting set.

2.   In order to determine the potential future credit exposure, institutions shall multiply the notional amounts or underlying values, as applicable, by the percentages set out in Table 1 and in accordance with the following:

(a)	derivative contracts which do not fall within one of the five categories set out in Table 1 shall be treated as contracts concerning commodities other than precious metals;

(b)	for derivative contracts with multiple exchanges of principal, the percentages shall be multiplied by the number of remaining payments still to be made in accordance with the contract;

(c)

for derivative contracts that are structured to settle outstanding exposure following specified payment dates and where the terms are reset so that the market value of the derivative contract is zero on those specified dates, the residual maturity shall be equal to the time until the next reset date; in the case of interest-rate contracts that meet those criteria and have a remaining maturity of over one year, the percentage shall be no lower than 0,5 %. Table 1 Residual maturity Interest-rate contracts Contracts concerning foreign-exchange rates and gold Contracts concerning equities Contracts concerning precious metals other than gold Contracts concerning commodities other than precious metals 1 year or less 0  % 1  % 6  % 7  % 10  % Over 1 year, not exceeding 5 years 0,5  % 5  % 8  % 7  % 12  % Over 5 years 1,5  % 7,5  % 10  % 8  % 15  %

3.   The exposure value shall be the sum of current replacement cost and potential future credit exposure.

1.   Under the Simplified Exposure Method, institutions shall determine the exposure value by multiplying the notional amount of each instrument by the percentages set out in Table 2.

Table 2

Original maturity	Interest-rate contracts	Contracts concerning foreign-exchange rates and gold
1 year or less	0,5  %	2  %
Over 1 year, not exceeding 2 years	1  %	5  %
Additional allowance for each additional year	1  %	3  %

2.   Institutions may, when calculating the exposure value of interest-rate contracts, use either the original or residual maturity.

1.   Institutions shall treat contractual netting agreements as follows:

(a)

in the case of contracts for novation, institutions may weigh the single net amounts fixed by such contracts rather than the gross amounts involved; In the application of Article 5b, institutions may take the contract for novation into account when determining: — the current replacement cost referred to in Article 5b(1); — the notional principal amounts or underlying values referred to in Article 5b(2). In the application of the Simplified Exposure Method, in determining the notional amount referred to in Article 5c(1), institutions may take into account the contract for novation for the purposes of calculating the notional principal amount. In such cases, institutions shall apply the percentages of Table 2.

(b)

in the case of other netting agreements, institutions shall apply Article 5b as follows: (i) the current replacement cost referred to in Article 5b(1) for the contracts included in a netting agreement shall be obtained by taking account of the actual hypothetical net replacement cost which results from the agreement; in the case where netting leads to a net receivable for the institution calculating the net replacement cost, the current replacement cost shall be calculated as ‘0’; (ii) the figure for potential future credit exposure referred to in Article 5b(2) for all contracts included in a netting agreement shall be reduced in accordance with the following formula: PCEred = 0,4 • PCEgross + 0,6 • NGR • PCEgross where: PCEred = the reduced figure for potential future credit exposure for all contracts with a given counterparty included in a legally valid bilateral netting agreement; PCEgross = the sum of the figures for potential future credit exposure for all contracts with a given counterparty which are included in a legally valid bilateral netting agreement and are calculated by multiplying their notional principal amounts by the percentages set out in Table 1; NGR = the net-to-gross ratio calculated as the quotient of the net replacement cost for all contracts included in a legally valid bilateral netting agreement with a given counterparty (numerator) and the gross replacement cost for all contracts included in a legally valid bilateral netting agreement with that counterparty (denominator).

2.   When calculating the potential future credit exposure in accordance with the formula set out in paragraph 1, point (b)(ii), institutions may treat perfectly matching derivative contracts included in the netting agreement as if those contracts were a single contract with a notional principal equivalent to the net receipts.

When applying Article 5c(1), institutions may treat perfectly matching derivative contracts included in the netting agreement as if those contracts were a single contract with a notional principal equivalent to the net receipts, and the notional principal amounts shall be multiplied by the percentages laid down in Article 5c, Table 2.

For the purposes of this paragraph, perfectly matching derivative contracts mean forward foreign-exchange contracts or similar contracts in which a notional principal is equivalent to cash flows if the cash flows fall due on the same value date and are fully in the same currency.

3.   For all other derivative contracts included in a netting agreement, institutions may reduce the percentages applicable as indicated in Table 3.

Table 3

Original maturity	Interest-rate contracts	Foreign-exchange contracts
1 year or less	0,35  %	1,50  %
More than 1 year but not more than 2 years	0,75  %	3,75  %
Additional allowance for each additional year	0,75  %	2,25  %

4.   In the case of interest-rate contracts, institutions may choose either original or residual maturity.’