Regulatory capital has three categories, each with one set of entry criteria: CET1 and Additional Tier 1 absorb losses as a going concern and Tier 2 on a gone-concern basis, and the predominant form of Tier 1 must be common shares and retained earnings (CAP10.1 to 10.3). CET1 comprises qualifying common shares, share premium, retained earnings including interim profit or loss, accumulated other comprehensive income and disclosed reserves, and qualifying minority interest, net of CAP30 adjustments (CAP10.6 to 10.7); a common share must meet all 14 criteria, among them the most subordinated claim, a perpetual principal, fully discretionary distributions paid from distributable items, first and proportionately greatest share of losses, equity classification, direct issue without bank funding, no security or guarantee, owner approval and separate disclosure (CAP10.8). Additional Tier 1 instruments must meet the criteria of CAP10.11, including subordination, perpetuity with no incentive to redeem, calls only after five years with supervisory approval and replacement or surplus capital, full discretion over coupons, a principal loss-absorption mechanism for liability-classified instruments, and a write-off or conversion clause at the authority's option on a point of non-viability trigger. Tier 2 instruments need at least five years' original maturity with straight-line amortisation over the final five years, the same call conditions and no credit-sensitive dividend (CAP10.16). Minority interest counts in CET1 only if the issuing subsidiary is a bank and the instrument would qualify as a common share if issued by the parent, and the amount recognised excludes the part of the subsidiary's surplus CET1 (above the lower of its own and its share of the consolidated 7.0% minimum plus conservation buffer) attributable to minority shareholders; parallel rules govern third-party Tier 1 and total capital (CAP10.20 to 10.26). Dividends paid other than in cash or shares need prior supervisory approval (CAP10.5).
This control maps to 1 controls across 1 other frameworks. If you already hold one of them, the evidence you collected for it is the starting point here rather than new work.
Every mapping shown was judged rather than inferred from wording similarity, and the ones that failed review are published too. See the coverage reports and what was rejected.
The graph holds this control, the 1 it maps to, and the evidence behind each claim, over MCP and REST.