BCB Normative Instruction No. 707 — Clarifies conditions for real estate credit operations sharing the same property as collateral

Cocip - clarifications collateral sharing - NI

BCB NORMATIVE INSTRUCTION NO. 707, OF JANUARY 29, 2026

Clarifies the conditions to be observed in contracting real estate credit operations that share the same property as collateral.

The Head of the Department of Regulation of the Financial System (Denor), in the exercise of the attribution conferred upon him by art. 23, item I, subparagraph "a", of the Internal Regulations of the Central Bank of Brazil, annexed to BCB Resolution No. 340, of September 21, 2023, and based on art. 26 of Resolution No. 4,676, of July 31, 2018,

R E S O L V E S :

Art. 1 This Normative Instruction clarifies the conditions to be observed in contracting real estate credit operations that share the same property as collateral, as provided for in arts. 6 and 22-B of Resolution No. 4,676, of July 31, 2018.

Art. 2 For the purpose of complying with the rules that govern the credit quota limits applicable to real estate credit operations referred to 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, of Resolution No. 4,676, of 2018, due to the extension of fiduciary alienation or mortgage, the fiduciary alienation of supervening property, and the constitution of subsequent mortgages, when referring to operations contracted by natural persons guaranteed by residential real estate;

II - use the value of the property given as collateral, assessed on the date of contracting each credit operation, through an appraisal or re-appraisal carried out in accordance with current regulations; and

III - consider the credit quota limit established in art. 6, caput, item II, of Resolution No. 4,676, of 2018, in force on the date of contracting 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 the new operation; and

II - consider that the sum of the nominal value of the new operation and the outstanding balances of the already guaranteed operations must be less than or equal to the nominal value of the original credit operation on its contracting date, and the credit quota limit established in art. 6, caput, item II, of Resolution No. 4,676, of 2018, must also be observed.

Art. 4 The Annex to this Normative Instruction contains a non-exhaustive list of examples for calculating the maximum credit value 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 BCB Normative Instruction No. 652, of August 27, 2025, published in the Official Gazette of the Union on August 29, 2025, is hereby revoked.

Art. 6 This Normative Instruction enters into force on the date of its publication.

MARDILSON FERNANDES QUEIROZ

ANNEX TO BCB NORMATIVE INSTRUCTION NO. 707, OF JANUARY 29, 2026

EXAMPLES OF CALCULATION OF THE MAXIMUM CREDIT VALUE 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 July 31, 2018, considering the following factual situation:

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

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

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

SECTION II - EXAMPLE WITH PRESERVATION OF THE PROPERTY APPRAISAL VALUE

2. Considering that the property appraisal value on the date of contracting OP2 remains at R$1 million, if, on that same date, the outstanding balance of OP1 is R$400 thousand, the calculation of the maximum value of OP2 must consider the following conditions and aspects:

a) if the extension of the original collateral is used, 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 does not apply when the fiduciary alienation of supervening property is used;

b) the credit quota limit applicable to the set of operations that share the same property as collateral is 60%, and, therefore, the maximum value of OP2 will be R$200 thousand (60% x 1,000,000 – 400,000 = 200,000);

c) since the sum of the outstanding balance of OP1 and the nominal contracting value of OP2 must be less than or equal to R$600 thousand due to the applicable credit quota limit, the collateral sharing modality does not impact the maximum value to be contracted in OP2; and

d) the maximum effective credit quota, regardless of the collateral sharing modality, will be equal to 60%, given that (400,000 + 200,000)/1,000,000 = 0.6.

SECTION III - EXAMPLE WITH INCREASE IN PROPERTY APPRAISAL VALUE

3. Considering that the property appraisal value on the date of contracting OP2 increased from R$1 million to R$1.4 million, if, on that same date, the outstanding balance of OP1 is R$400 thousand, the calculation of the maximum value of OP2 must consider the following conditions and aspects:

a) if the extension of the original collateral is used, 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 does not apply when the fiduciary alienation of supervening property is used;

b) the credit quota limit applicable to the set of operations that share the same property as collateral is 60%, and, therefore, the maximum value of OP2 will be R$440 thousand (60% x 1,400,000 – 400,000 = 440,000);

c) if the extension of the original collateral is used, the maximum value of OP2 will be R$400 thousand, even if the application of the credit quota limit on the new property appraisal value allows for a higher amount (R$440 thousand);

d) if the alienation of supervening property is used, the maximum value of OP2 will be R$440 thousand (60% x 1,400,000 – 400,000 = 440,000); and

e) if the extension of the original collateral is used, the maximum effective credit quota will be equal to 57.14%, given that (400,000 + 400,000)/1,400,000 = 0.5714. On the other hand, if the fiduciary alienation of supervening property is used, the maximum effective credit quota will be equal to 60%, given that (400,000 + 440,000)/1,400,000 = 0.6.

SECTION IV - EXAMPLE WITH REDUCTION IN PROPERTY APPRAISAL VALUE

4. Considering that the property appraisal value on the date of contracting OP2 reduced from R$1 million to R$800 thousand, if, on that same date, the outstanding balance of OP1 is R$400 thousand, the calculation of the maximum value of OP2 must consider the following conditions and aspects:

a) if the extension of the original collateral is used, 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 does not apply when the fiduciary alienation of supervening property is used;

b) the credit quota limit applicable to the set of operations that share the same property as collateral is 60%, and, therefore, the maximum value of OP2 will be R$80 thousand (60% x 800,000 – 400,000 = 80,000);

c) since the sum of the outstanding balance of OP1 and the nominal contracting value of OP2 must be less than or equal to R$480 thousand due to the applicable credit quota limit, the collateral sharing modality does not impact the maximum value to be contracted in OP2; and

d) the maximum effective credit quota, regardless of the collateral sharing modality, will be equal to 60%, given that (400,000 + 80,000)/800,000 = 0.6.

NOTE 53/2026 – BCB/DENOR, OF JANUARY 27, 2026

Substantiates a proposal for the issuance of a normative instruction that clarifies the conditions to be observed in contracting real estate credit operations that share the same property as collateral.

Mr. Head of Denor,

1. This Note substantiates a 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, subparagraph "a", of the Internal Regulations of the Central Bank of Brazil, annexed to BCB Resolution No. 340, of September 21, 2023.

2. Resolution No. 4,676, of July 31, 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 value of the real estate credit operation, comprising principal and ancillary expenses, and the appraisal value of the property given as collateral, assessed on the contracting date.

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

4. With the improvements promoted, which came into force on July 1, 2025, in the event of the same property being given as collateral in more than one credit operation, the ratio between the sum of the nominal value of the new operation and the outstanding balances of the already guaranteed operations and the appraisal value of the property given as collateral on the date of contracting the new operation could not exceed the credit quota limit applicable to the predominant credit operation. The predominant operation, as established by CMN Resolution No. 5,197, of 2024, was the one that had, on that date, the highest value between the nominal value of the new operation and the outstanding balance of each of the already guaranteed operations.

5. Due to questions raised by credit institutions, BCB Normative Instruction No. 652, of August 27, 2025, clarified the method for calculating 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.

6. Subsequently, with the issuance of CMN Resolution No. 5,255, of October 10, 2025, Resolution No. 4,676, of 2018, was subject to new changes, including with regard to the rules governing the definition of the credit quota limit applicable to operations that share the same property as collateral. In these situations, with the change promoted, there is no longer a need to identify the predominant operation, and the credit quota limit defined for loan operations to natural persons guaranteed by residential properties, which currently corresponds to 60% of the property appraisal value, now applies to the set of operations that share the same property as collateral.

7. Due to this change, with a view to updating the clarifications related to the conditions to be observed in contracting real estate credit operations that share the same property as collateral, I propose to issue a normative instruction to replace BCB Normative Instruction No. 652, of 2025.

8. Additionally, with the aim of clarifying the application of the provisions of arts. 6 and 22-B of Resolution No. 4,676, of 2018, I consider it opportune to issue an annex to the proposed normative instruction, containing a list of examples on the correct calculation of the maximum credit value to be contracted in the case of operations that share the same real estate collateral.

9. These clarifications seek to increase clarity regarding the changes promoted by CMN Resolutions Nos. 5,197, of 2024, and 5,255, of 2025, avoiding divergent interpretations of their provisions and the adoption of inadequate practices, contributing to the maintenance of the robustness of real estate credit origination and contracting processes, in accordance with the provisions of the legislation and regulations issued by the National Monetary Council.

10. It should be noted that Law No. 13,874, of September 20, 2019, determines that proposals for the issuance and alteration of normative acts of general interest to economic agents, issued by bodies and entities of the direct, autonomous, 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 (AIR).

11. In turn, Decree No. 10,411, of June 30, 2020, which regulates it, in its art. 4, items II and V, subparagraph “b”, establishes that the AIR may be waived, provided there is a reasoned decision by the competent body or entity, in cases of a normative act intended to regulate rights or obligations defined in a hierarchically superior norm that does not technically or legally allow for different regulatory alternatives, and of a normative act that aims to preserve the liquidity, solvency, or soundness of the financial, capital, and exchange markets.

12. In this sense, I understand that this normative instruction meets the criteria of the aforementioned Decree for waiving the AIR, since the normative act now proposed aims only to clarify the rules to be observed for the purpose of complying with the defined credit quota limits and for the use of the institutes that share the same property as collateral, increasing clarity and security for financial market participants, in order to contribute to the preservation of its solidity and its regular functioning.

For Your consideration.

FELIPE DE OLIVIO DERZI PINHEIRO

Deputy Head

Agreed.

MARDILSON FERNANDES QUEIROZ

Head of Department