BCB Normative Instruction No. 652

BCB NORMATIVE INSTRUCTION No. 652, OF 27 AUGUST 2025

Clarifies the credit quota limits applicable to real estate credit operations and the conditions to be observed when contracting real estate credit operations that share the same property as collateral.

The Head of the Department of Regulation of the Financial System (Denor), using the authority conferred on him by art. 23, item I, subitem "a", of the Internal Rules of the Central Bank of Brazil, annexed to BCB Resolution No. 340, of 21 September 2023, in view of the provisions of arts. 6 and 22-B of Resolution No. 4,676, of 31 July 2018,

D E C I D E S :

Art. 1 This Normative Instruction clarifies the credit quota limits applicable to real estate credit operations and the conditions to be observed when contracting real estate credit operations that share the same property as collateral, provided for in Resolution No. 4,676, of 31 July 2018.

Art. 2 For the purpose of complying with the rules governing the credit quota limits applicable to real estate credit operations established in art. 6 of Resolution No. 4,676, of 2018, financial institutions and other institutions authorized to operate by the Central Bank of Brazil must:

• I - observe the provisions of art. 6, §§ 2 to 4, of Resolution No. 4,676, of 2018, due to the extension of the fiduciary transfer or the mortgage, the fiduciary transfer of supervening property and the creation of a mortgage in subsequent ranks, when referring to operations contracted by natural persons secured by residential real property;

• II - use the value of the property given as collateral determined on the date of contracting of each credit operation, by means of an appraisal or reappraisal carried out in accordance with the regulations in force; and

• III - consider the credit quota limit applicable to the predominant operation in force on the date of contracting of the new credit operation, in the case of operations that share the same property as collateral.

Art. 3 For the purpose of complying with the provisions of art. 22-B of Resolution No. 4,676, of 2018, financial institutions and other institutions authorized to operate by the Central Bank of Brazil must:

• I - consider as the maximum term limit for contracting new operations the remaining term of the original credit operation, verified on the date of contracting of the new operation; and

• II - consider that the sum of the nominal value of the new operation and the outstanding balances of the operations already secured must be less than or equal to the nominal value of the original credit operation on the date of its contracting, and the applicable credit quota limit must also be observed.

Art. 4 The Annex to this Normative Instruction contains a non-exhaustive list of examples of calculation of the applicable credit quota limit and of the maximum credit amount to be contracted for operations that share the same real estate collateral, with a view to contributing to the correct understanding of the provisions of arts. 6 and 22-B of CMN Resolution No. 4,676, of 2018.

Art. 5 This Normative Instruction enters into force on the date of its publication.

MARDILSON FERNANDES QUEIROZ

ANNEX TO BCB NORMATIVE INSTRUCTION No. 652, OF 27 AUGUST 2025

EXAMPLES OF CALCULATION OF THE APPLICABLE CREDIT QUOTA LIMIT AND OF THE MAXIMUM CREDIT AMOUNT TO BE CONTRACTED IN OPERATIONS THAT SHARE THE SAME REAL ESTATE COLLATERAL

SECTION I - GENERAL INFORMATION

1. The examples discussed below illustrate the application of the rules provided for in arts. 6 and 22-B of Resolution No. 4,676, of 31 July 2018, considering the following factual situation:

• 1.1 value of the residential property offered as collateral, determined on the date of contracting of the original operation: R$1 million;

• 1.2 original operation (OP1): financing for acquisition of residential property using the price amortization system in the amount of R$800 thousand, which corresponds to the maximum financeable amount due to the applicable credit quota (80%); and

• 1.3 new operation (OP2): loan to a natural person secured by the same residential property (credit quota limit equal to 60%).

SECTION II - EXAMPLES WITH PRESERVATION OF THE APPRAISAL VALUE OF THE PROPERTY

2. Considering that the appraisal value of the property on the date of contracting of OP2 remained at R$1 million, if, on that same date:

• I - the outstanding balance of OP1 were R$400 thousand, the calculation of the maximum amount of OP2 should consider the following conditions and aspects:

  • a) if the extension of the original collateral were used, the first condition to be observed would be that the sum of the outstanding balance of OP1 and the nominal value of OP2 must be less than or equal to the nominal contracting value of OP1 (R$800 thousand). This condition would not apply when the fiduciary transfer of supervening property is used;

  • b) if OP2 had a nominal value of up to R$400 thousand, OP1 would be predominant, and the credit quota of that operation modality (80%) would apply to the set of operations;

  • c) if OP2 had a nominal value greater than R$400 thousand, it would be the predominant operation, and the credit quota of that operation modality (60%) would apply to the set of operations;

  • d) if the extension of the original collateral were used, the first condition would prevent OP2 from having a nominal value greater than that of OP1 and, therefore, from being the predominant operation, since the sum of the values of these operations would be greater than R$800 thousand. In this case, the maximum amount of OP2 would be R$400 thousand (800,000 – 400,000);

  • e) if the transfer of supervening property were used, the conditions related to the credit quotas would also prevent OP2 from being the predominant operation, since even if the largest credit quota (80%) were used, the maximum amount of OP2 would be R$400 thousand (80% x 1,000,000 – 400,000); and

  • f) the maximum effective credit quota, whatever the modality of collateral sharing, would be equal to 80%, given that (400,000 + 400,000)/1,000,000 = 0.8;

• II - if the outstanding balance of OP1 were R$350 thousand, the determination of the maximum amount of OP2 should consider the following conditions and aspects:

  • a) if the extension of the original guarantee were used, the first condition to be observed would be that the sum of the outstanding balance of OP1 and the nominal amount of OP2 must be less than or equal to the nominal contracting amount of OP1 (R$800 thousand). This condition would not apply when the fiduciary transfer of the supervening property is used;

  • b) if OP2 had a nominal amount of up to R$350 thousand, OP1 would be predominant, applying to the set of operations the credit quota of that type of operation (80%);

  • c) if OP2 had a nominal amount greater than R$350 thousand, it would be the predominant operation, applying to the set of operations the credit quota of that type of operation (60%);

  • d) if the extension of the original guarantee were used, the first condition would not prevent OP2 from having a nominal amount greater than that of OP1 and, therefore, from being the predominant operation, since the sum of the amounts of these operations would not necessarily be greater than R$800 thousand. In this case, any amount of OP2 between R$350,000.01 and R$450,000 would comply with the first condition and would make OP2 predominant;

  • e) if OP2 were predominant, the credit quota applicable to the credit type of OP2, which is 60%, would be applied to the set of operations. In this case, since the appraisal value of the property is R$1 million and the outstanding balance of OP1 is R$350 thousand, the maximum credit amount that could be obtained in OP2 would be equal to R$250 thousand (60% x 1,000,000 - 350,000). Thus, the credit quota that would apply to the set of operations if OP2 were the predominant one would, in practice, prevent such a situation from occurring in the proposed factual scenario. The same would occur if the fiduciary transfer of the supervening property were used;

  • f) the maximum credit amount of OP2, in this case, would be limited to R$350 thousand. This amount would comply with the credit quota applicable to the set of operations, which is 80%; and

  • g) the maximum effective credit quota, whatever the type of guarantee sharing, would be equal to 70%, given that (350,000 + 350,000)/1,000,000 = 0.7; and

• III - if the outstanding balance of OP1 were R$200 thousand, the determination of the maximum amount of OP2 should consider the following conditions and aspects:

  • a) if the extension of the original guarantee were used, the first condition to be observed would be that the sum of the outstanding balance of OP1 and the nominal amount of OP2 must be less than or equal to the nominal contracting amount of OP1 (R$800 thousand). This condition would not apply when the fiduciary transfer of the supervening property is used;

  • b) if OP2 had a nominal amount of up to R$200 thousand, OP1 would be predominant, applying to the set of operations the credit quota of that type of operation (80%);

  • c) if OP2 had a nominal amount greater than R$200 thousand, it would be the predominant operation, applying to the set of operations the credit quota of that type of operation (60%);

  • d) if the extension of the original guarantee were used, the first condition would not prevent OP2 from having a nominal amount greater than that of OP1 and, therefore, from being the predominant operation, since the sum of the amounts of these operations would not necessarily be greater than R$800 thousand. In this case, any amount of OP2 between R$200,000.01 and R$600,000 would comply with the first condition and would make OP2 predominant;

  • e) if OP2 were predominant, the credit quota applicable to the credit type of OP2, which is 60%, would be applied to the set of operations. In this case, since the appraisal value of the property is R$1 million and the outstanding balance of OP1 is R$200 thousand, the maximum credit amount that could be obtained in OP2 would be equal to R$400 thousand (60% x 1,000,000 - 200,000). The same would occur if the fiduciary transfer of the supervening property were used; and

  • f) the maximum effective credit quota, whatever the type of guarantee sharing, would be equal to 60% (200,000 + 400,000)/1,000,000 = 0.6.

SECTION III - EXAMPLES WITH INCREASE IN THE APPRAISAL VALUE OF THE PROPERTY

3. Considering that the appraisal value of the property on the date of contracting OP2 rose from R$1 million to R$1.4 million, if, on that same date:

• I - if the outstanding balance of OP1 were R$600 thousand, the determination of the maximum amount of OP2 should consider the following conditions and aspects:

  • a) if the extension of the original guarantee were used, the first condition to be observed would be that the sum of the outstanding balance of OP1 and the nominal amount of OP2 must be less than or equal to the nominal contracting amount of OP1 (R$800 thousand). This condition would not apply when the fiduciary transfer of the supervening property is used;

  • b) if OP2 had a nominal amount of up to R$600 thousand, OP1 would be predominant, applying to the set of operations the credit quota of that type of operation (80%);

  • c) if OP2 had a nominal amount greater than R$600 thousand, it would be the predominant operation, applying to the set of operations the credit quota of that type of operation (60%);

  • d) if the extension of the original guarantee were used, the first condition would prevent OP2 from having a nominal amount greater than that of OP1 and, therefore, from being the predominant operation, since the sum of the amounts of these operations would be greater than R$800 thousand. In this case, the maximum amount of OP2 would be R$200 thousand, even though the 80% credit quota of the new appraisal value of the property would allow a higher amount;

  • e) if the transfer of the supervening property were used, the conditions related to the credit quotas would also prevent OP2 from being the predominant operation, given that, even if the higher credit quota (80%) were used, the maximum amount of OP2 would be R$520 thousand (80% x 1,400,000 - 600,000), an amount insufficient for OP2 to be characterized as predominant; and

  • f) if the extension of the original guarantee were used, the maximum effective credit quota would be equal to 57.14%, given that (600,000 + 200,000)/1,400,000 = 0.5714. On the other hand, if the fiduciary transfer of the supervening property were used, the maximum effective credit quota would be equal to 80%, given that (600,000 + 520,000)/1,400,000 = 0.8; and

• II - the outstanding balance of OP1 were R$400 thousand, the determination of the maximum amount of OP2 should consider the following conditions and aspects:

  • a) if the extension of the original guarantee were used, the first condition to be observed would be that the sum of the outstanding balance of OP1 and the nominal value of OP2 must be less than or equal to the nominal contracting value of OP1 (R$800 thousand). Such condition would not apply when the fiduciary transfer of the supervening property were used;

  • b) if OP2 had a nominal value of up to R$400 thousand, OP1 would be predominant, applying, to the set of operations, the credit quota of that modality of operation (80%);

  • c) if OP2 had a nominal value greater than R$400 thousand, it would be the predominant operation, applying, to the set of operations, the credit quota of that modality of operation (60%);

  • d) if the extension of the original guarantee were used, the first condition would prevent OP2 from having a nominal value greater than that of OP1 and, therefore, from being the predominant operation, since the sum of the values of these operations would be greater than R$800 thousand. In this case, the maximum amount of OP2 would be R$400 thousand, even though the credit quota of 80% of the new appraisal value of the property would allow a higher amount;

  • e) if the fiduciary transfer of the supervening property were used, OP2 could be the predominant operation. In this case, applying the credit quota incident on the credit modality of OP2 (60%), the maximum amount of OP2 would be R$440 thousand (60% x 1,400,000 – 400,000); and

  • f) if the extension of the original guarantee were used, the maximum effective credit quota would be equal to 57.14%, given that (400,000 + 400,000)/1,400,000 = 0.5714. On the other hand, if the fiduciary transfer of the supervening property were used, the maximum effective credit quota would be equal to 60%, given that (400,000 + 440,000)/1,400,000 = 0.6.

SECTION IV - EXAMPLES WITH REDUCTION OF THE APPRAISAL VALUE OF THE PROPERTY

4. Considering that the appraisal value of the property on the date of contracting OP2 were R$800 thousand, if, on that same date:

• I - the outstanding balance of OP1 were R$400 thousand, the determination of the maximum amount of OP2 should consider the following conditions and aspects:

  • a) if the extension of the original guarantee were used, the first condition to be observed would be that the sum of the outstanding balance of OP1 and the nominal value of OP2 must be less than or equal to the nominal contracting value of OP1 (R$800 thousand). Such condition would not apply when the fiduciary transfer of the supervening property were used;

  • b) if OP2 had a nominal value of up to R$400 thousand, OP1 would be predominant, applying, to the set of operations, the credit quota of that modality of operation (80%);

  • c) if OP2 had a nominal value greater than R$400 thousand, it would be the predominant operation, applying, to the set of operations, the credit quota of that modality of operation (60%);

  • d) if the extension of the original guarantee were used, the first condition would prevent OP2 from having a nominal value greater than that of OP1 and, therefore, from being the predominant operation, since the sum of the values of these operations would be greater than R$800 thousand. In this case, the maximum amount of OP2 would be limited by the credit quota incident on the set of operations and would be equal to R$240 thousand (80% x 800,000 – 400,000);

  • e) if the transfer of the supervening property were used, the conditions related to the credit quotas would also prevent OP2 from being the predominant operation, given that, even if the higher credit quota (80%) were used, the maximum amount of OP2 would be R$240 thousand (80% x 800,000 – 400,000), an amount insufficient for OP2 to be characterized as predominant; and

  • f) the maximum effective credit quota, whatever the modality of guarantee sharing, would be equal to 80%, given that (400,000 + 240,000)/800,000 = 0.8;

• II - the outstanding balance of OP1 were R$300 thousand, the determination of the maximum amount of OP2 should consider the following conditions and aspects:

  • a) if the extension of the original guarantee were used, the first condition to be observed would be that the sum of the outstanding balance of OP1 and the nominal value of OP2 must be less than or equal to the nominal contracting value of OP1 (R$800 thousand). Such condition would not apply when the fiduciary transfer of the supervening property were used;

  • b) if OP2 had a nominal value of up to R$300 thousand, OP1 would be predominant, applying, to the set of operations, the credit quota of that modality of operation (80%);

  • c) if OP2 had a nominal value greater than R$300 thousand, it would be the predominant operation, applying, to the set of operations, the credit quota of that modality of operation (60%);

  • d) if the extension of the original guarantee were used, the first condition would not prevent OP2 from having a nominal value greater than that of OP1 and, therefore, from being the predominant operation, since the sum of the values of these operations would not necessarily be greater than R$800 thousand. In this case, any value of OP2 between R$300,000.01 and R$500,000 would respect the first condition and would make OP2 predominant;

  • e) if OP2 were predominant, however, the credit quota incident on the credit modality of OP2, which is 60%, would be applied to the set of operations. As the appraisal value of the property is R$800 thousand and the outstanding balance of OP1 is R$300 thousand, the maximum credit amount that could be obtained in OP2 would be equal to R$180 thousand (60% x 800,000 – 300,000), preventing OP2 from being predominant. In this case, the credit quota that would apply to the set of operations if OP2 were the predominant one would prevent, in practice, such a situation from occurring in the proposed factual scenario. The same would occur if the fiduciary transfer of supervening property were used;

  • f) the maximum credit amount of OP2 would thus be limited to R$300 thousand. This amount would respect the credit quota applicable to the set of operations, which is 80%; and

  • g) the maximum effective credit quota, whatever the type of collateral sharing, would be equal to 75%, given that (300,000 + 300,000)/800,000 = 0.75; and

• III - if the outstanding balance of OP1 were R$200 thousand, the determination of the maximum amount of OP2 should consider the following conditions and aspects:

  • a) if the extension of the original collateral were used, the first condition to be observed would be that the sum of the outstanding balance of OP1 and the nominal amount of OP2 must be less than or equal to the nominal contracting amount of OP1 (R$800 thousand). Such condition would not apply when the fiduciary transfer of supervening property is used;

  • b) if OP2 had a nominal amount of up to R$200 thousand, OP1 would be predominant, and the credit quota of that type of operation (80%) would apply to the set of operations;

  • c) if OP2 had a nominal amount greater than R$200 thousand, it would be the predominant operation, and the credit quota of that type of operation (60%) would apply to the set of operations;

  • d) if the extension of the original collateral were used, the first condition would not prevent OP2 from having a nominal amount greater than that of OP1 and, therefore, from being the predominant operation, since the sum of the amounts of these operations would not necessarily be greater than R$800 thousand. In this case, any amount of OP2 between R$200,000.01 and R$600,000 would respect the first condition and would make OP2 predominant;

  • e) if OP2 were predominant, the credit quota applicable to the type of credit of OP2, which is 60%, would apply to the set of operations. Since the appraisal value of the property is R$800 thousand and the outstanding balance of OP1 is R$200 thousand, the maximum credit amount that could be obtained in OP2 would be equal to R$280 thousand (60% x 800,000 – 200,000). The same would occur if the fiduciary transfer of supervening property were used; and

  • f) the maximum effective credit quota, whatever the type of collateral sharing, would be equal to 60%, given that (200,000 + 280,000)/800,000 = 0.6.

NOTE 526/2025–BCB/DENOR, OF 27 AUGUST 2025

It supports the proposal for the issuance of a normative instruction that clarifies the credit quota limits applicable to real estate credit operations and the conditions to be observed in contracting real estate credit operations that share the same property as collateral.

Mr. Head of Denor,

This Note supports the proposal for the issuance of a normative instruction by the Department of Regulation of the Financial System (Denor), in the exercise of the attribution conferred upon it by art. 23, item I, subitem "a", of the Internal Regulations of the Central Bank of Brazil, annexed to Resolution BCB No. 340, of 21 September 2023.

2. Resolution No. 4,676, of 31 July 2018, which provides for the general conditions and criteria for contracting real estate credit, establishes, in its art. 6, rules on the credit quota limits that must be observed by institutions regulated by this Central Bank. The credit quota is the percentage resulting from the ratio between the nominal amount of the real estate credit operation, comprising principal and ancillary expenses, and the appraisal value of the property given as collateral, determined on the date of contracting.

3. By virtue of the issuance of Law No. 14,711, of 30 October 2023, which introduced into the Brazilian legal framework the figures of the extension of fiduciary transfer, the extension of mortgage, and the fiduciary transfer of supervening property, which enable the sharing of collateral by more than one credit operation, the National Monetary Council issued Resolution No. 5,197, of 19 December 2024, making adjustments to Resolution No. 4,676, of 2018, especially with regard to the credit quota limits to be observed by credit institutions, given that these limits were originally established under the premise that fiduciary transfer could only be used as collateral for a single obligation.

4. With the improvements made, which came into effect as of 1 July 2025, in the event that the same property serves as collateral for more than one credit operation, the ratio between the sum of the nominal amount of the new operation and the outstanding balances of the operations already secured and the appraisal value of the property given as collateral on the date of contracting the new operation cannot exceed the credit quota limit applicable to the predominant credit operation. The predominant operation, under the terms of the normative act issued, is the one that has, on that date, the highest amount between the nominal amount of the new operation and the outstanding balance of each of the operations already secured.

5. Due to questions raised by credit institutions, I deem it appropriate to clarify that, for the purpose of complying with the rules governing credit quota limits, financial institutions and other institutions authorized to operate by this Central Bank must:

• I - observe the provisions of art. 6, §§ 2 to 4 of Resolution No. 4,676, of 2018, in the event that the same property serves as collateral for more than one credit operation, regardless of the form in which this occurs, whether by reason of the extension of fiduciary transfer or mortgage, the fiduciary transfer of supervening property, and the creation of mortgage in subsequent ranks;

• II - use the value of the property given as collateral determined on the date of contracting each credit operation, by means of an appraisal or reappraisal carried out in accordance with the regulations in force; and

• III - consider the credit quota limit applicable to the predominant operation in force on the date of contracting the new credit operation, in the cases of operations that share the same property as collateral.

6. Additionally, Resolution No. 4,676, of 2018, in its art. 22-B, details conditions established by Law No. 14,711, of 2023, relating to limits of terms and amounts of new credit operations to be guaranteed through the extension of the fiduciary alienation and the mortgage. With a view to providing a better understanding on the part of the regulated institutions, it is necessary to clarify that:

• I - the maximum term limit for contracting new operations is the remaining term of the original credit operation, verified on the date of contracting the new operation; and

• II - the sum of the nominal amount of the new operation and the outstanding balances of the operations already guaranteed must be less than or equal to the nominal amount of the original credit operation on the date of its contracting, and the applicable credit quota limit must also be observed.

7. Furthermore, with the objective of clarifying the application of the provisions set forth in arts. 6 and 22-B of Resolution No. 4,676, of 2018, I deem it appropriate to include an annex to the normative instruction hereby proposed, containing a list of examples that contribute to the correct calculation of the applicable credit quota limit and of the maximum credit amount to be contracted in the case of operations that share the same real estate guarantee.

8. These clarifications seek to increase clarity for the changes promoted by Resolution No. 5,197, of 2024, avoiding divergent interpretations of its provisions and the adoption of inadequate practices, thus contributing to the maintenance of the robustness of the processes of origination and contracting of real estate credit operations, in line with the provisions of the legislation and regulation issued by the National Monetary Council.

9. It should be noted that Law No. 13,874, of 20 September 2019, determines that proposals for the issuance and amendment of normative acts of general interest to economic agents, issued by bodies and entities of the direct, autarchic and foundational federal public administration, as well as by collegiate bodies through the body or entity responsible for providing administrative support, must be preceded by a Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA).

10. In turn, Decree No. 10,411, of 30 June 2020, which regulates it, in its art. 4, items II and V, subitem "b", establishes that the RIA may be waived, provided there is a reasoned decision by the competent body or entity, in the cases of a normative act intended to discipline rights or obligations defined in a hierarchically superior norm that does not permit, technically or legally, different regulatory alternatives, and of a normative act aimed at preserving liquidity, solvency or soundness of the financial, capital and foreign exchange markets.

11. In this sense, I understand that this normative instruction meets the criteria of the aforementioned Decree for waiver of the RIA, since the normative act hereby proposed aims only to clarify the norms to be observed for the purposes of complying with the defined credit quota limits and for the use of the institutes that share the same real estate as guarantee, increasing clarity and security for the participants of the financial market, so as to contribute to the preservation of its soundness and its regular functioning.

For the consideration of Your Honor.

FELIPE DE OLIVIO DERZI PINHEIRO Deputy Head

Agreed.

MARDILSON FERNANDES QUEIROZ Department Head