Question ID:
Legal Act:
Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
Credit risk
COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs/Recommendations:
Not applicable
Disclose name of institution / entity:
Type of submitter:
Subject Matter:
Definition of 'explicit guarantee arrangements' for the purpose of classification of non-commercial undertakings as public sector entities

What conditions should be met by a given agreement in order to qualify as an 'explicit guarantee arrangement'?

Shall the ‘explicit guarantee arrangements’ for the purpose of definition of public sector entities also be ‘guarantees’ eligible as unfunded credit protection or not?

Background on the question:

Pursuant to Article 4(1)(8) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR), a public sector entity (PSE) means - i.a. - 'a non-commercial undertaking that is owned by or set up and sponsored by central governments, regional governments or local authorities, and that has explicit guarantee arrangements [...]'.

However, neither any examples of such arrangements, nor conditions required for classification of a particular agreement as an 'explicit guarantee arrangement' are provided.

The catalogue of agreements that remain ambiguous in the aforementioned context is especially numerous in case of non-commercial undertakings owned or set up and sponsored by regional governments or local authorities, with support agreements, endorsement agreements, execution contracts and other similar arrangements abound.

Since a typical guarantee issued by a third-party can be treated as eligible unfunded credit protection, were a local authority to fully and explicitly guarantee an exposure towards a non-commercial undertaking, the effective risk weight assigned to said exposure would be the one typical for 'Exposures to regional governments or local authorities'. We therefore assume, that ‘guarantees’ eligible as unfunded credit protection  and the ‘explicit guarantee arrangements’ for the purpose of definition of public sector entities are not the same.

Date of submission:
Published as Rejected Q&A
Rationale for rejection:

Please note that as part of adjustments to the Single Rulebook Q&A process, agreed by the EBA and the European Commission, it has been decided to reject outstanding questions submitted before 1 January 2020, when the Q&A process was updated as part of the last ESAs Review. In particular, the question that you have submitted has now regrettably been rejected and will not be addressed.

If you believe your question would still benefit from clarification, you are invited to resubmit your question, adapting it to reflect any legislative, regulatory or other relevant developments that may have occurred since the initial date of submission. The EBA will aim to address resubmitted questions as a matter of priority. When considering to resubmit, you are kindly requested to observe the updated admissibility criteria agreed in the context of the adjustment of the Q&A process, available in the Additional background and guidance for asking questions. We hope for your understanding.

For further information please refer to the press release and the updated Q&A page.

Rejected question