- Question ID
-
2024_7061
- Legal act
- Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
- Topic
- Credit risk
- Article
-
4
- Paragraph
-
1
- Subparagraph
-
8
- COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs/Recommendations
- Not applicable
- Article/Paragraph
-
N/A
- Name of institution / submitter
-
Kurt Lund Accountancy
- Country of incorporation / residence
-
Sweden
- Type of submitter
-
Accounting firm
- Subject matter
-
Definition of 'explicit guarantee arrangements' for the purpose of classification of non-commercial undertakings as public sector entities
- Question
-
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? How much should the guarantee cover?
- 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' i.e in most cases in the EU 0%. 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. We also assume that the ‘explicit guarantee arrangements’ does not mean a full state or municipal guarantee as that would leave no room for the 20% risk weight for PSEs as all PSEs would then become 0% riskweight exposures.
- Submission date
- Rejected publishing date
-
- Rationale for rejection
-
This question has been rejected because it is considered that EBA guidance or clarification is not needed with regard to the issue that it raises. For example, this can be the case where it is considered that the existing regulatory framework is sufficiently clear and unambiguous, or where different practices may be possible but it is not currently necessary to harmonise these further through the Q&A process.
The Single Rule Book Q&A tool has been established to provide explanations and non-binding interpretations on questions relating to the practical application or implementation of the provisions of legislative acts referred to in Article 1(2) of the EBA’s founding Regulation, as well as associated delegated and implementing acts, and guidelines and recommendations, adopted under these legislative acts.
For further information on the purpose of this tool and on how to submit questions, please see “Additional background and guidance for asking questions”.
- Status
-
Rejected question