ESMA Clarifies MiCA Article 67 Fixed Overheads: CASPs Must Start From All Overheads
On 27 February 2026, ESMA published an update to its MiCA Q&As, including a clarification on how CASPs calculate fixed overheads for the prudential safeguard in Article 67.
The clarification matters because it closes a gap we keep seeing in capital models: teams treat “fixed overheads” as a narrow subset of costs and try to strip out variable operating spend. ESMA’s updated Q&A (answer dated 18 February 2026) makes the direction explicit: the calculation must start from all overhead expenses, fixed and variable, based on your accounting framework. Only the deductions listed in Article 67(3)(a)–(d) are permitted, and the list is exhaustive.
In this note, we explain the rule mechanics, the modelling mistakes that create capital shortfalls, and a practical workflow for aligning Finance, Regulatory Reporting, and Compliance before supervisors start testing your prudential buffers.
Publish Date
12 Mar 2026
Reading Time
7 minutes
Category
Legal News
Jurisdiction
ESMA
What Article 67 is Trying to Achieve
MiCA’s prudential safeguard is meant to ensure a CASP can keep operating through stress and still protect clients. The mechanism is simple in concept, but unforgiving in execution: you must hold prudential safeguards equal to the higher of the minimum capital requirement or 25% of the preceding year’s fixed overheads. (MiCA Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 PDF).
That second limb is where the misinterpretation happens. “Fixed overheads” sounds like rent and salaries only. But the MiCA drafting method anchors the calculation to a broader expense base, and ESMA’s Q&A now removes most room for creative interpretation.
What ESMA Clarified in Q&A 2349
The starting point is total overhead expenses, fixed and variable
ESMA confirms that CASPs must calculate fixed overheads for the preceding year from the total of all overhead expenses, both fixed and variable, using figures resulting from the applicable accounting framework.
This is the core correction. It prevents firms from excluding meaningful operating costs on the theory that they are “variable,” or “growth-related,” or “non-core.” If it is an overhead expense in your accounting framework, it is in the starting base.
Only Article 67(3)(a)–(d) deductions are allowed
ESMA states that, when calculating fixed overheads, only the items listed in Article 67(3)(a)–(d) may be subtracted, and no additional items may be subtracted. The list is exhaustive, and neither CASPs nor national competent authorities can expand it.
This matters in group structures. It blocks the “we will agree a local interpretation with the supervisor” approach. You should plan the model as a single EU standard, then map the accounting data cleanly to that standard.
Practical translation for your capital model
If your model currently does any of the following, treat it as a red-flag review item:
- starts from “fixed costs only” rather than total overhead expenses
- removes categories of spend not explicitly listed in Article 67(3)(a)–(d)
- assumes local supervisor discretion can legitimise additional deductions
- uses internal management accounts that do not reconcile to the audited financials or applicable accounting framework
ESMA’s intent is not to punish firms. It is to ensure prudential safeguards actually reflect the real cost of operating a CASP.
A practical workflow to implement the clarification
| Workstream | Owner | Output You Need for Supervision |
|---|---|---|
| Accounting mapping | Finance | A reconciled bridge from P&L expense lines to “overhead expenses” base |
| MiCA Article 67 logic | Regulatory Reporting | Documented calculation method and deduction mapping to Article 67(3)(a)–(d) |
| Capital planning | Treasury / Finance | Model showing the higher-of test against minimum capital and 25% limb |
| Governance | Compliance / Board | Sign-off memo: assumptions, controls, review cadence, change triggers |
Step-by-step checklist for the recalculation
- Pull the preceding year’s expense data from the applicable accounting framework.
- Identify the overhead expense base, including fixed and variable overheads.
- Apply deductions only where they match Article 67(3)(a)–(d).
- Calculate 25% of the resulting fixed overheads figure.
- Compare that number to the minimum capital requirement limb and take the higher.
- Lock a review cadence and evidence pack for supervisory queries.
This sequence is intentionally linear. Teams that jump straight to “deductions” usually end up arguing about categories that MiCA does not allow them to remove.
Pitfalls We Expect Supervisors to Focus On
Misclassified overheads and unsupported exclusions
The easiest failure mode is not fraud; it is classification drift. Costs move between accounts, teams re-label expenses, and the capital model stops matching the financial statements.
Group allocations that hide real operating costs
Shared services can become a blind spot. If your CASP uses group resources, ensure the allocation methodology is defensible, consistent, and traceable to accounting outputs.
Inconsistent evidence between reporting teams
Supervisors will not accept “Compliance’s spreadsheet” if Finance cannot reconcile it. Your evidence pack should be one story: audited figures, mapping bridge, calculation logic, approvals.
FAQ About MiCA Article 67 Fixed Overheads For CASPs
Does “fixed overheads” mean only fixed costs like rent and salaries?
No. ESMA clarifies that the calculation must start from the total of all overhead expenses, fixed and variable, using figures from the applicable accounting framework.
Can we deduct additional items if our local regulator agrees?
ESMA states the deductions in Article 67(3)(a)–(d) are exhaustive. CASPs and national competent authorities cannot expand the list.
What should we change immediately in capital planning models?
Rebuild the base from total overhead expenses, then apply only the permitted MiCA deductions. After that, re-run the higher-of test against minimum capital and the 25% limb.
