{"id":447,"date":"2026-04-01T01:50:45","date_gmt":"2026-04-01T01:50:45","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blog.deepdigitalventures.com\/?p=447"},"modified":"2026-04-24T08:32:26","modified_gmt":"2026-04-24T08:32:26","slug":"european-banks-vs-us-banks-better-capitalized","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/banking.deepdigitalventures.com\/blog\/european-banks-vs-us-banks-better-capitalized\/","title":{"rendered":"European vs. U.S. Large Banks: Who Has More CET1 Capital in 2026?"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>If you ask the question in the bluntest possible way, the answer in 2026 is narrower than the headline version usually implies: <strong>among large banks, European banks look better capitalized than U.S. banks on CET1<\/strong>. This is not a claim about every capital metric, every bank, or a perfectly synchronized quarter-end race. It is a CET1 comparison using EU bank-level data from <strong>June 30, 2025<\/strong>, U.S. bank-level Call Report data from <strong>December 31, 2025<\/strong>, and the EBA&apos;s official Q4 2025 sector benchmark.<sup>[1]<\/sup><sup>[2]<\/sup><sup>[3]<\/sup><sup>[4]<\/sup><\/p> <p>Capital comparisons across banking systems are often sloppy. Analysts mix a European sector aggregate with a U.S. leverage measure, compare consolidated groups in one region with bank subsidiaries in another, or ignore that official reporting dates do not line up perfectly. That produces heat, not clarity.<\/p> <h2>Comparison Framework<\/h2> <table><thead><tr><th>Region<\/th><th>Source<\/th><th>Reporting date<\/th><th>Scope<\/th><th>Median CET1<\/th><th>Asset-weighted CET1<\/th><th>Main caveat<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>EU\/EEA<\/td><td>EBA official sector release plus author-calculated bank-level data from the local Banking Intelligence database<sup>[1]<\/sup><sup>[4]<\/sup><\/td><td>Official sector: Dec. 31, 2025; bank-level: June 30, 2025<\/td><td>Large consolidated European banking groups with reported assets of at least EUR 100 billion; 76 usable observations in the local extract<\/td><td><strong>16.65%<\/strong> author-calculated<\/td><td><strong>15.50%<\/strong> author-calculated<\/td><td>Bank-level data lags the Q4 sector release and is generally group-level consolidated data<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>U.S.<\/td><td>FFIEC Call Report field RBCT1CER from the local Banking Intelligence database; FDIC QBP for sector timing and context<sup>[2]<\/sup><sup>[3]<\/sup><\/td><td>Dec. 31, 2025<\/td><td>Large U.S. bank legal entities with reported assets of at least USD 100 billion; 34 usable observations in the local extract<\/td><td><strong>13.44%<\/strong> author-calculated<\/td><td><strong>14.55%<\/strong> author-calculated<\/td><td>Legal-entity Call Report scope is not the same as European group-level reporting<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table> <p>The EBA&apos;s official sector number is different from the table&apos;s medians: it reported a <strong>16.3% CET1 ratio<\/strong> for the EU\/EEA banking sector at year-end 2025. The median and asset-weighted figures in the table are author-calculated bank-level comparisons, not official aggregate CET1 ratios.<\/p> <p>Using the local Banking Intelligence database and official supervisory sources, the cleanest answer is that Europe holds the edge on CET1 entering 2026, with the limits above attached. The <strong>European Banking Authority published its Q4 2025 Risk Dashboard on March 23, 2026<\/strong> and reported that the EU\/EEA banking sector&apos;s <strong>CET1 ratio remained stable at 16.3%<\/strong> at year-end 2025.<sup>[1]<\/sup> On the U.S. side, the <strong>FDIC published its Q4 2025 Quarterly Banking Profile on February 24, 2026<\/strong>.<sup>[2]<\/sup> Because that publication does not present a directly comparable whole-system CET1 ratio in the same way, the most defensible U.S. comparison comes from aggregating official bank-level CET1 ratios from <strong>December 31, 2025<\/strong> Call Reports.<sup>[3]<\/sup><\/p> <p>The result is consistent but narrower than a regional safety ranking. Europe leads on median CET1 and still leads, though by less, after weighting each bank-level ratio by reported asset size. The table is there because the answer changes quality when the dates and scope are visible upfront.<\/p> <h2>Key Takeaways<\/h2> <ul><li>This is a <strong>CET1-only, large-bank comparison<\/strong>, not a full judgment on bank safety.<\/li><li>The EBA&apos;s official Q4 2025 Risk Dashboard, published March 23, 2026, reported a 16.3% CET1 ratio for the EU\/EEA banking sector.<sup>[1]<\/sup><\/li><li>In author-calculated local data, large European banks had a median CET1 ratio of about 16.65%, versus 13.44% for large U.S. banks.<\/li><li>When asset-weighted, the gap narrows to about 15.50% for Europe versus 14.55% for the U.S.<\/li><li>The direction of the result is clear, but comparability is limited by scope, consolidation, reporting-date differences, risk-weighting models, and accounting treatment.<\/li><\/ul> <h2>The Short Answer<\/h2> <p>If the question is strictly about <strong>CET1 capital<\/strong>, Europe is ahead. That is true in the EBA&apos;s official sector snapshot and in the author-calculated large-bank data used inside Banking Intelligence. The U.S. banking system is not weakly capitalized by any normal standard, but Europe&apos;s large-bank universe looks stronger in the middle of the distribution and slightly stronger even after size-weighting.<\/p> <p>That matters because CET1 is still the core regulatory capital yardstick. It is the highest-quality loss-absorbing capital, built mainly from common equity and retained earnings after regulatory deductions. If you want to compare who has more real buffer against credit losses and balance-sheet stress, CET1 is the right starting point.<\/p> <h2>What the Official Sources Say<\/h2> <p>The official European message is direct. In its Q4 2025 Risk Dashboard release dated <strong>March 23, 2026<\/strong>, the EBA said the EU\/EEA banking sector remained strongly capitalized and that the <strong>CET1 ratio stayed at 16.3%<\/strong> at the end of 2025.<sup>[1]<\/sup> That is a current supervisory statement based on a broad sample of major EU\/EEA banks. ECB\/SSM supervisory banking statistics provide a separate European supervisory reference, but they are not the source of the median calculation used here.<sup>[5]<\/sup><\/p> <p>The official U.S. message is slightly different. The FDIC&apos;s Quarterly Banking Profile for Q4 2025, published on <strong>February 24, 2026<\/strong>, described a profitable and resilient U.S. banking sector.<sup>[2]<\/sup> But it does not hand you a directly comparable all-system CET1 figure in the same format that the EBA does. To answer the question properly, you have to go one layer deeper into official FFIEC Call Report bank-level capital fields.<sup>[3]<\/sup><\/p> <p>That extra step is a scope choice: the U.S. figures here are built from filed bank-level regulatory data, then summarized with the same median and asset-weighted methods used for the European bank-level extract.<\/p> <h2>The Most Defensible Bank-Level Comparison<\/h2> <p>In the local Banking Intelligence database, the latest U.S. bank-level CET1 snapshot comes from <strong>December 31, 2025<\/strong> Call Reports. The latest European bank-level snapshot used here comes from <strong>June 30, 2025<\/strong> EBA bank-by-bank transparency data as stored in the local database.<sup>[4]<\/sup> Those dates are not identical, so the comparison is not perfectly synchronized, but they are the latest high-quality bank-level supervisory observations available inside the platform for each region.<\/p> <p>To reduce noise from small banks and specialty institutions, the comparison uses a large-bank universe: U.S. legal-entity banks with at least <strong>USD 100 billion<\/strong> in reported assets and European consolidated groups with at least <strong>EUR 100 billion<\/strong> in reported assets. After excluding rows without usable CET1 or total-asset fields, the extract used <strong>34 U.S. banks<\/strong> and <strong>76 European banks<\/strong>. Asset-weighted CET1 is calculated as a total-asset-weighted average of bank-level CET1 ratios, not as an official systemwide regulatory ratio.<\/p> <p>In that sample, the numbers are clear:<\/p> <ul><li>Large U.S. banks: median CET1 about <strong>13.44%<\/strong>; asset-weighted CET1 about <strong>14.55%<\/strong>.<\/li><li>Large European banks: median CET1 about <strong>16.65%<\/strong>; asset-weighted CET1 about <strong>15.50%<\/strong>.<\/li><\/ul> <p>The first takeaway is that Europe wins on the median by more than three percentage points. The second is that the spread gets smaller when the biggest balance sheets carry more weight. That means Europe&apos;s advantage is stronger across the typical institution than it is at the very top end of the size spectrum.<\/p> <p>In practical terms, Europe looks more consistently well capitalized across the large-bank set, while the U.S. has a mix of strong large institutions and a wider distribution of bank-level CET1 outcomes.<\/p> <h2>Why Median Matters More Than Average<\/h2> <p>Raw averages are dangerous in bank capital comparisons. Both the U.S. and European datasets contain specialty institutions whose business models can generate unusually high reported CET1 ratios. Trust banks, custody-style structures, public-sector funding vehicles, and narrow specialist lenders can all distort a simple mean.<\/p> <p>That is why median, quartiles, and size-weighted results tell you more than a plain average. Medians show where the middle of the system sits. Quartiles show the spread. Asset-weighting shows whether the biggest institutions pull the system higher or lower.<\/p> <p>On those more useful measures, Europe still comes out ahead. The result is not just a function of one or two outliers. It is visible through much of the distribution.<\/p> <h2>Why the Gap Exists<\/h2> <p>There is no single explanation, but three factors are likely doing most of the work. They should be treated as framework context, not as a precise basis-point decomposition.<\/p> <p>First, capital frameworks and risk-weighting model mix differ. EU banks operate under the CRR\/CRD framework, and many large European groups use internal models; the CRR3 output floor is now phasing in toward the final Basel III framework. U.S. rules remain on a different path after the federal banking agencies issued revised capital proposals on March 19, 2026.<sup>[1]<\/sup><sup>[6]<\/sup> The raw CET1 spread therefore blends capital strength with differences in RWA measurement. It should not be read as a pure risk comparison.<\/p> <p>Second, Europe has spent more than a decade with an explicit supervisory focus on bank balance-sheet repair. The 2014 ECB comprehensive assessment did not support some of the oversized shorthand figures that sometimes get repeated. The direct ECB release cited a EUR 25 billion capital shortfall, EUR 48 billion of asset-value adjustments, EUR 136 billion of additional non-performing exposures, and more than EUR 200 billion of balance-sheet strengthening by the largest participating banks since July 2013, including EUR 60 billion of capital raising.<sup>[7]<\/sup><\/p> <p>Third, business-model mix differs. The U.S. banking system includes more institutions with higher-risk-weight consumer exposures, specialized card lending, and bank subsidiaries that can look capital-light relative to consolidated global peers. Europe has its own structural quirks, but the group-level reporting in the EBA sample tends to smooth some of that noise.<\/p> <p>Together, those points explain why the CET1 gap is real in the data but should not be overread. It is evidence of stronger reported CET1 buffers in the European large-bank sample, not proof that every European bank is safer than every U.S. peer.<\/p> <h2>Three Framework Differences That Affect Comparability<\/h2> <p>Before treating the roughly 321bp gap between European and U.S. median CET1 as directly comparable, three regulatory-framework differences need to sit in the reader&apos;s head. Unlike a mechanical adjustment, these do not produce one universal haircut. They matter bank by bank.<\/p> <ul><li><strong>CRR3 vs. U.S. Basel III timing.<\/strong> The EU&apos;s CRR3 framework is already phasing in the output floor from 2025 toward 72.5% by 2030.<sup>[1]<\/sup> In the U.S., the agencies issued revised capital proposals on March 19, 2026, with comments due June 18, 2026.<sup>[6]<\/sup> That means year-end 2025 U.S. bank-level ratios do not reflect a finalized U.S. Basel III Endgame regime.<\/li><li><strong>Transitional versus fully loaded capital.<\/strong> The EBA&apos;s Q4 2025 sector CET1 figure is described as transitional under CRR3, while the same EBA release indicates that a fully loaded CRR3 view would be lower but still robust.<sup>[1]<\/sup> Analysts comparing specific banks should check whether each figure is transitional, reported, or fully loaded before relying on the spread.<\/li><li><strong>AOCI opt-out asymmetry.<\/strong> Several U.S. banking organizations have been able to exclude certain accumulated other comprehensive income effects from regulatory capital, while European capital ratios generally reflect fair-value changes more directly under the CRR framework. The March 2026 U.S. proposal would require more large banks to reflect current available-for-sale securities values in capital.<sup>[6]<\/sup> This is bank-specific and should not be handled with a blanket regional adjustment.<\/li><\/ul> <p>Reconciled at a conceptual level, the median gap is directionally useful but should not be treated as a precise 321bp economic advantage. Europe still appears ahead on the available CET1 evidence, but bank-by-bank comparisons need model, accounting, and AOCI checks before relying on the raw delta.<\/p> <h2>Why This Is Still Not Perfectly Apples to Apples<\/h2> <p>Even a careful comparison has limits. European figures are largely measured at high consolidation levels under the EBA framework, while the U.S. data comes from legal-entity bank Call Reports. Those are related, but not identical, reporting scopes.<\/p> <p>The dates also differ. Europe&apos;s official sector statement is for Q4 2025, but the bank-level European observations in the local database are at June 30, 2025. The U.S. bank-level data goes through December 31, 2025. That means the comparison is directionally solid, but not a perfectly synchronized quarter-end race.<\/p> <p>Finally, CET1 is not the whole story. A bank can have strong CET1 and still face earnings pressure, liquidity risk, deposit instability, or unrealized securities problems. Capital is the first question, not the last one.<\/p> <h2>So Who&apos;s Actually Better Capitalized?<\/h2> <p>On the evidence available in 2026, <strong>European large banks appear better capitalized than U.S. large banks on CET1<\/strong>. The sentence needs all of those qualifiers: large banks, CET1, different bank-level reporting dates, and author-calculated medians from supervisory data.<\/p> <p>The stronger version of the claim would be wrong. Europe is not categorically safer, and U.S. banks are not poorly capitalized. But if you narrow the question to high-quality common-equity capital buffers, Europe holds the edge.<\/p> <p>For analysts, investors, and bank strategy teams, the right next step is not to stop at the region-level answer. It is to use that answer as a screen, then test whether the difference holds for specific peers, business models, funding structures, and accounting adjustments. That is where <a href='https:\/\/banking.deepdigitalventures.com\/'>Compare<\/a>, <a href='https:\/\/banking.deepdigitalventures.com\/'>Banks<\/a>, and <a href='https:\/\/banking.deepdigitalventures.com\/'>the international-banking view<\/a> become more useful than a regional average.<\/p> <h2>Methodology<\/h2> <ul><li>Article date anchored to <strong>April 11, 2026<\/strong>.<\/li><li><strong>Official European sector benchmark:<\/strong> EBA Q4 2025 Risk Dashboard release published <strong>March 23, 2026<\/strong>, reporting a <strong>16.3% CET1 ratio<\/strong> for the EU\/EEA banking sector.<sup>[1]<\/sup><\/li><li><strong>European bank-level calculation:<\/strong> EBA bank-by-bank transparency data as stored in the local Banking Intelligence database at <strong>June 30, 2025<\/strong>. The EBA 2025 transparency exercise covers 119 banks at the highest level of consolidation; the local large-bank subset used here contains 76 consolidated groups with at least <strong>EUR 100 billion<\/strong> in reported assets and usable CET1 and asset fields.<sup>[4]<\/sup><\/li><li><strong>Official U.S. timing source:<\/strong> FDIC Quarterly Banking Profile for Q4 2025 published <strong>February 24, 2026<\/strong>.<sup>[2]<\/sup><\/li><li><strong>U.S. bank-level calculation:<\/strong> official FFIEC Call Report field <strong>RBCT1CER<\/strong> at <strong>December 31, 2025<\/strong>, as stored in the local Banking Intelligence database. The local large-bank subset contains 34 U.S. legal-entity banks with at least <strong>USD 100 billion<\/strong> in reported assets and usable CET1 and asset fields.<sup>[3]<\/sup><\/li><li><strong>Asset-weighted CET1:<\/strong> computed as the total-asset-weighted average of each bank&apos;s reported CET1 ratio: sum(CET1 ratio x total assets) \/ sum(total assets). It is author-calculated and should not be read as an official aggregate regulatory ratio.<\/li><li>Rows with missing or non-positive CET1 or total assets were excluded. Currency thresholds were applied in native reporting currency; no FX conversion was used to decide the large-bank filters.<\/li><li>ECB\/SSM supervisory statistics and the ECB comprehensive assessment sources are used for context only. They are not inputs to the bank-level medians.<sup>[5]<\/sup><sup>[7]<\/sup><\/li><\/ul> <h2>FAQ<\/h2> <h3>Why are the dates different?<\/h3> <p>Because the U.S. Call Report data used here is available at December 31, 2025, while the European bank-by-bank extract available in the local database is June 30, 2025. The EBA&apos;s Q4 2025 sector release confirms the EU\/EEA aggregate CET1 position at year-end 2025, but it is not the same thing as a bank-by-bank median.<\/p> <h3>Should I compare CET1 or leverage ratio?<\/h3> <p>Use both. CET1 is risk-weighted, so it is the better starting point for regulatory capital quality. The leverage ratio ignores risk weights, so it is a useful guardrail when model differences make CET1 harder to compare. If CET1 and leverage point in different directions, investigate RWA density and balance-sheet composition before drawing a conclusion.<\/p> <h3>How much does AOCI change the U.S. result?<\/h3> <p>There is no single region-wide adjustment in this post. AOCI can matter materially for U.S. banks with large unrealized securities losses, especially regional banks, but the effect is bank-specific. This comparison uses reported CET1, so AOCI-sensitive peer work should adjust individual banks rather than apply a blanket haircut.<\/p> <h3>What would change the conclusion?<\/h3> <p>A synchronized European bank-level Q4 2025 dataset, major Call Report restatements, fully loaded CRR3 figures, finalized U.S. capital rules, or a leverage-ratio comparison could narrow the result. The conclusion would change only if those updates removed Europe&apos;s median and asset-weighted CET1 lead.<\/p> <h3>Does higher CET1 mean safer?<\/h3> <p>Not by itself. Higher CET1 means more high-quality regulatory capital against risk-weighted assets. It does not settle funding stability, earnings quality, asset marks, liquidity, or deposit-franchise risk.<\/p> <!-- ddv-source-append:start --><h2 class='wp-block-heading'>Sources<\/h2><ul class='wp-block-list'><li><strong>[1] Official.<\/strong> European Banking Authority, Q4 2025 Risk Dashboard release, used for the EU\/EEA sector CET1 ratio, CRR3 transitional label, sample notes, and output-floor context. URL: <a href='https:\/\/www.eba.europa.eu\/publications-and-media\/press-releases\/european-banking-sector-enters-period-geopolitical-uncertainty-position-strength'>https:\/\/www.eba.europa.eu\/publications-and-media\/press-releases\/european-banking-sector-enters-period-geopolitical-uncertainty-position-strength<\/a><\/li><li><strong>[2] Official.<\/strong> FDIC, Quarterly Banking Profile &#8211; Q4 2025, used for U.S. sector timing and official U.S. banking-system context. URL: <a href='https:\/\/www.fdic.gov\/quarterly-banking-profile\/quarterly-banking-profile-q4-2025'>https:\/\/www.fdic.gov\/quarterly-banking-profile\/quarterly-banking-profile-q4-2025<\/a><\/li><li><strong>[3] Official input, author-calculated output.<\/strong> FFIEC Central Data Repository bulk Call Report data, used for U.S. bank-level RBCT1CER observations and author-calculated median and asset-weighted CET1. URL: <a href='https:\/\/cdr.ffiec.gov\/public\/PWS\/DownloadBulkData.aspx'>https:\/\/cdr.ffiec.gov\/public\/PWS\/DownloadBulkData.aspx<\/a><\/li><li><strong>[4] Official input, author-calculated output.<\/strong> EBA Risk Assessment Report &#8211; December 2025 and 2025 EU-wide transparency exercise, used for June 2025 bank-by-bank European data context and author-calculated large-bank medians. URL: <a href='https:\/\/www.eba.europa.eu\/publications-and-media\/publications\/risk-assessment-report-december-2025'>https:\/\/www.eba.europa.eu\/publications-and-media\/publications\/risk-assessment-report-december-2025<\/a><\/li><li><strong>[5] Official context.<\/strong> ECB Banking Supervision, Q4 2025 Supervisory Banking Statistics for significant institutions, used as European supervisory context and not as the source of author-calculated medians. URL: <a href='https:\/\/www.bankingsupervision.europa.eu\/press\/pr\/date\/2026\/html\/ssm.pr260318~abe7a7cc0a.en.html'>https:\/\/www.bankingsupervision.europa.eu\/press\/pr\/date\/2026\/html\/ssm.pr260318~abe7a7cc0a.en.html<\/a><\/li><li><strong>[6] Official context.<\/strong> Federal Reserve, FDIC, and OCC joint March 19, 2026 capital-rule proposals, used for U.S. Basel III Endgame timing and AOCI-framework context. URL: <a href='https:\/\/www.federalreserve.gov\/newsevents\/pressreleases\/bcreg20260319a.htm'>https:\/\/www.federalreserve.gov\/newsevents\/pressreleases\/bcreg20260319a.htm<\/a><\/li><li><strong>[7] Official context.<\/strong> ECB 2014 comprehensive assessment press release, used for post-crisis European balance-sheet repair figures. URL: <a href='https:\/\/www.bankingsupervision.europa.eu\/press\/pr\/date\/2014\/html\/sr141026.en.html'>https:\/\/www.bankingsupervision.europa.eu\/press\/pr\/date\/2014\/html\/sr141026.en.html<\/a><\/li><\/ul><!-- ddv-source-append:end -->","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>As of April 11, 2026, European banks appear better capitalized than U.S. banks on a CET1 basis, but only when the comparison is done carefully. Official 2026 publications from the EBA and FDIC, combined with bank-level supervisory data in Banking Intelligence, show Europe ahead on median CET1 ratios, while the gap narrows once size and reporting differences are taken into account.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":1033,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_seopress_robots_primary_cat":"none","_seopress_titles_title":"European vs. U.S. Large Banks: 2026 CET1 Capital","_seopress_titles_desc":"A CET1-only comparison of large European and U.S. banks using EBA, FDIC, FFIEC, and author-calculated bank-level data, with dates and caveats.","_seopress_robots_index":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[14],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-447","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-global-comparisons"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/banking.deepdigitalventures.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/447","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/banking.deepdigitalventures.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/banking.deepdigitalventures.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/banking.deepdigitalventures.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/banking.deepdigitalventures.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=447"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/banking.deepdigitalventures.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/447\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2143,"href":"https:\/\/banking.deepdigitalventures.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/447\/revisions\/2143"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/banking.deepdigitalventures.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1033"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/banking.deepdigitalventures.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=447"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/banking.deepdigitalventures.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=447"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/banking.deepdigitalventures.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=447"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}