## Eliminating the imputations for an entity owned or controlled by general government that is used

## Source details

**Canonical URL:** [Eliminating the imputations for an entity owned or controlled by general government that is used](https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/data/statistics/bpm6/approved-guidance-notes/d5-eliminating-the-imputations-for-an-entity-owned-or-controlled-by-general-government-that-is-used.pdf)

## Other formats

- [Markdown version](/-/media/files/data/statistics/bpm6/approved-guidance-notes/d5-eliminating-the-imputations-for-an-entity-owned-or-controlled-by-general-government-that-is-used.pdf.md)
- [Structured JSON version](/-/media/files/data/statistics/bpm6/approved-guidance-notes/d5-eliminating-the-imputations-for-an-entity-owned-or-controlled-by-general-government-that-is-used.pdf.json)

---

### Section I — The issue and background
- A government can create and use a direct investment enterprise (DIE), typically a special purpose entity (SPE), resident in another economic territory, to carry out fiscal activities on its behalf.
- Under current methodological standards (2008 SNA; GFSM 2014; BPM6):
  - Any entity created by a parent under the laws of another jurisdiction is treated, by convention, as a separate institutional unit resident in the host jurisdiction, including when the parent is a government unit.
  - GFSM 2014 (paragraph A3.56) and BPM6 (paragraphs 8.24–8.26) require special imputations of transactions and stock positions between the government and nonresident SPEs owned or controlled by general government to ensure fiscal operations undertaken through nonresident entities are reflected in the home government’s transactions and positions.
  - Imputations are symmetric for the government and the nonresident DIE/SPE borrowing or spending on behalf of the government, but do not affect transactions or positions between the SPE and its external creditors or third parties.
  - Typical imputations described in BPM6 paragraph 8.25 include:
    - Imputation of a claim of the SPE on government (an increase in government debt) matched by a corresponding increase in government equity stake in the SPE when the SPE borrows.
    - Recording withdrawals (reductions in government equity) when the SPE passes cash to government.
    - Imputing current or capital transfers between the government and the SPE when the SPE spends directly for third parties, with a matching decrease in government equity.
  - Government-owned entities used solely for fiscal purposes do not give rise to reinvested earnings (BPM6, paragraph 11.40).

### Shortcomings of current imputations
- Identified practical and analytical shortcomings:
  - BPM6 does not specify the exact instrument to be imputed as government debt (presumed to be a loan), creating valuation mismatches: loans are valued at nominal value while SPE-issued debt securities are valued at market value, so government’s liability position may not fully reflect SPE liabilities.
  - BPM6 prescribes recording current or capital transfers to the SPE rather than recording expenditure according to its nature and counterpart; this may omit recording interest expenditure on the imputed government debt.
  - BPM6 neglects that SPEs may collect revenue (e.g., securitization); it is unclear whether such revenue should be recorded as current transfer revenue of government, which could bias fiscal/tax burden measures.
  - BPM6 does not sufficiently address cases where government-owned SPEs engage in lending or equity acquisition that should preferably be reported as such in government accounts.
- Resulting distortions include mismatches between interest expenditure and underlying liabilities and distortions in government revenue/expenditure breakdowns and asset/liability positions.

### Options considered for policy treatment
- Three options examined for the treatment of nonresident government entities created for fiscal operations:
  - Option 1: Eliminate all imputations and consider these entities as part of the controlling government (consolidate SPEs with government).
  - Option 2: No changes in the current BPM6 treatment (retain imputations as currently specified).
  - Option 3: Retain the 2008 SNA/BPM6 residency-based treatment but record defined imputations with a more analytically meaningful instrument breakdown to reflect proper nature, value, and counterpart of flows and positions in government accounts.

### Option 1 — Eliminate imputations and consolidate SPEs with government
- Implication: Treat these entities similarly to other government enclaves whose accounts are consolidated into general government, effectively expanding the concept of economic territory to include these nonresident entities.
- Rationale: SPEs are often incorporated abroad primarily for strategic fiscal considerations, have no economic autonomy, do not behave as market producers, and are de facto brass-plate businesses with limited physical footprint.
- Impact: General government would comprise both resident and some legally nonresident units, automatically eliminating many distortions in government revenue/expenditure and liability/asset positions.
- Counterpoints and risks:
  - SPEs operate under the legal jurisdiction of the host economy and are established to derive specific advantages of host jurisdictions (e.g., confidentiality), resulting in lack of transparency.
  - Consolidation would constitute an exception to the residency principle and an “exception within an exception” relative to the 2008 SNA’s residency-based treatment of SPEs (paragraph 4.61).
  - The IMF’s Balance of Payments Committee endorsed the SPE definition but retained the exception that SPEs incorporated in a different economic territory are separate institutional units; adopting Option 1 would depart from the GZTT’s nationality/residency consistency approach and create a government-specific exception.

### Option 2 — Retain current BPM6 treatment unchanged
- Rationale: Current imputations broadly ensure better recording for government accounts (deficit, debt) than no imputations and have helped prevent serious misrepresentation of fiscal operations of general government.
- Limitations: Option 2 does not fully prevent distortions regarding valuation (nominal vs market), debt composition, interest expenditure recording, or revenue recognition for SPEs.

### Option 3 — Enhanced imputations with analytical instrument breakdown (main proposal)
- Core idea: Keep nonresident government SPEs as separate institutional units (residency-based) but modify imputations to better reflect the economic nature, valuation, and counterpart of relevant flows and positions in government accounts.
- Four illustrative proposals to modify current guidance:
  - (i) Record interest expenditure on the imputed debt of government (instead of current transfer), against withdrawal of equity in the SPE (implying recording interest revenue of the SPE as mirror to SPE interest expenditure on its debt).
  - (ii) Directly record SPE expenditure as government expenditure according to its nature and counterpart (e.g., capital transfers to public corporations), against withdrawal of equity in the SPE.
  - (iii) Record acquisition of assets (like loans or equity) in government accounts, against withdrawal of equity in the SPE.
  - (iv) Record any/main SPE revenue (e.g., some cases of securitization) directly as government revenue, against an increase in equity in the SPE (and ultimately reduction in debt).
- Consequences and mechanics:
  - Proposal (i) is necessary to ensure interest expenditure is recorded where there is a debt.
  - Proposals (ii)–(iv) relate to rerouting as recognized by the 2008 SNA/BPM6, avoiding recording debatable cross-border nonfinancial transactions when the beneficiary of the expenditure has the same residency as the sponsoring government.
  - De facto, Option 3 implies SPE cash outflows are seen as government drawing down on SPE equity with a balance of payments impact in the financial accounts (F.2 Currency and deposits / F.5 Equity and investment fund shares) each time an SPE outflow takes place.
- Additional variant:
  - The government liability to the SPE may be classified, by convention, identically to the SPE debts (including recognizing debt securities links, valuation, and property income); this variant is not part of the core Option 3 but is identified as a possible extension.

### Residency, compilation practicality, and statistical coherence
- The residency exception for SPEs in the 2008 SNA is pragmatic because SPEs are established in host jurisdictions to draw on specific advantages and consolidating them raises substantial compilation difficulties given the large number and complex cross-border links.
- Motivations of government-owned SPEs are similar to private-owned/controlled SPEs, unlike embassies/enclaves which are generally treated as home territory under international law.
- Government-owned SPEs are often fewer and better identified, which may make nationality-based statistics or a government-specific treatment more feasible; such a specific treatment would amount to an “exception within the exception.”
- Committee precedent and GZTT practices favor maintaining residency-based institutional-unit treatment for SPEs to preserve consistency across statistical domains, with complementary nationality-based statistics where data permit.

### Section II — Outcomes and main proposal
- The Guidance Note (GN) proposes:
  - Keep the main 2008 SNA/BPM6 guidance unchanged.
  - Enhance the special imputations by adopting Option 3: record imputations with a more analytically meaningful instrument breakdown.
  - Maintain the treatment of SPEs incorporated in a different jurisdiction than the parents as an institutional unit, aligned with GZTT discussions.
  - Enhanced imputations shall adequately represent government flows and stocks by nature and counterpart to support better fiscal analysis.

### Explicit recommendations
- Maintain the treatment of nonresident government controlled SPEs used for fiscal purposes as nonresident institutional units.
- Introduce the enhanced imputations, considered appropriate and sufficient, to better reflect the fiscal operations of government controlled SPEs (Option 3).
- Extend the enhanced imputations to reflect the imputed debt in the government accounts under the same financial instrument as the debt incurred by the SPE.

### Rejected alternatives and rationale
- Option 1—eliminating all imputations:
  - Would treat those entities similarly to other enclaves of government (consolidated into general government).
  - The DITT did not see strong reasons for Option 1 because the Committee endorsed treating SPEs with foreign ownership/control as institutional units in their economy of incorporation/registration, aligned to GZTT GN G.4 “Treatment of SPEs and Residency”.
- Option 2—keeping current BPM6 unchanged:
  - Broadly ensures better recording for government accounts (main indicators: deficit, debt).
  - Does not fully prevent distortions of government accounts regarding revenue/expenditure breakdowns and/or asset/liability positions (including positions at nominal and market value).
  - Notably distorts the relation between interest expenditure and the underlying liability.
  - Option 3 was recognized as a better alternative.

### Annex I — Illustrative example scenario and how Options differ
Scenario assumptions:
- SPE in Country A borrows $1000 on behalf of Government of Country B by issuing debt securities.
- During Year 1 after borrowing:
  - $600 of the funds are transferred to the Government of Country B.
  - $400 transferred directly to a public corporation as a capital transfer.
  - $50 is paid by the SPE in interest, which is reimbursed by the government.
- For the example, the Government does not use the funds it receives during Year 1.

I. Option 2: No changes in current BPM6 treatment
- Recognizes Government debt of Country B towards the SPE of Country A of $1000 as a loan.
- Recognizes the $50 paid interest by the SPE under current transfer.
- The capital transfer of $400 to the public corporation is recognized in both the SPE and Government accounts.

II. Option 3: Retain 2008 SNA/BPM6 treatment with better imputations
- Recognizes Government debt of Country B towards the SPE of Country A of $1000 as a loan.
- Recognizes the $50 paid interest by the SPE under interest.
- The capital transfer of $400 to the public corporation is recognized only in the Government accounts.

III. Extension to Option 3 (type of debt instrument mirrored in government accounts)
- Classify the government debt to the SPE identically to the SPE debts (including recognizing debt securities links, valuation, and property income).
- Recognizes Government debt of Country B towards the SPE of Country A of $1000 as debt securities.
- Recognizes the $50 paid interest by the SPE under interest.
- The capital transfer of $400 to the public corporation is recognized only in the Government accounts.

### Key illustrative numeric positions and transactions (as presented)
- SPE borrows: $1000
- Transfers during Year 1:
  - To Government: $600
  - Capital transfer to public corporation: $400
- Interest paid by SPE: $50 (reimbursed by government)
- Example accounting and transaction lines shown include:
  - Currency & Deposits (Other Investment) +1000
  - Debt Securities (Portfolio Investment) +1000
  - Loans (Direct Investment, debt) [imputed] +1000
  - Equity (Direct Investment, DIE) +1000
  - Interest (Primary Income, Investment Income, DI, Interest) +50
  - Current transfer (Secondary Income, Current transfers) [imputed] +50
  - Capital transfer to public corporation (Secondary Income, Capital transfers) +400
  - Net borrowing / net lending in one presentation: 0 -450
- Financial transactions (Year 1) summary lines include:
  - Currency & Deposits (Other Investment/Reserve assets) -1000  +550
  - Debt Securities  +1000
  - Loans  +1000
  - Equity (Direct Investment, DIE) -1000 -1000
- Closing balance sheet example entries:
  - Currency & Deposits (Other investment/Reserve assets) 0  +550
  - Debt Securities (Portfolio Investment) +1000 +1000
  - Loans (Direct Investment, debt) [imputed] +1000 +1000
  - Net financial worth 0 -450

Note on alternative interest scenario (footnote):
- If the interest expense $50 paid by the SPE is not reimbursed by the government, then financial transactions would be reflected as:
  - Currency of deposits: SPE -1050 (assets); Government +600 (assets).
  - Equity for SPEs: -1050 (liabilities); Government +1050 (assets).
  - Closing balance sheet: currency and deposits for SPEs -50 (assets) and +600 (assets) for Government; equity direct investment -50 (liabilities) for SPEs and -50 (assets) for Government.

*The Guidance Note (GN). Prepared by Mmes. Padma Hurree-Gobin, Fadhila Alfaraj, Mr. Bruno Rocha (all, IMF), and Mr. Philippe de Rougemont (Eurostat).*

### SECTION I: THE ISSUE

### SECTION I: THE ISSUE

### Background: current treatment and rationale
- A government can create and use a direct investment enterprise (DIE), typically a special purpose entity (SPE), resident in another economic territory, to carry out fiscal activities on its behalf.
- Under current methodological standards (2008 SNA; GFSM 2014; BPM6), any entity created by a parent under the laws of another jurisdiction is treated as a separate institutional unit, by convention, resident in the host jurisdiction. This applies when the parent is a government unit.
- GFSM 2014 (paragraph A3.56) and BPM6 (paragraphs 8.24–8.26) require special imputations of transactions and stock positions between the government and nonresident SPEs owned or controlled by general government to ensure fiscal operations undertaken through nonresident entities are reflected in the home government’s transactions and positions.
- The imputations are symmetric for both the government and the nonresident DIE/SPE borrowing or spending on behalf of the government, but do not affect transactions or positions between the SPE and its external creditors or third parties.
- Typical imputations described in BPM6 paragraph 8.25 include:
  - Imputation of a claim of the SPE on government (an increase in government debt) matched by a corresponding increase in government equity stake in the SPE when the SPE borrows.
  - Recording withdrawals (reductions in government equity) when the SPE passes cash to government.
  - Imputing current or capital transfers between the government and the SPE when the SPE spends directly for third parties, with a matching decrease in government equity.
- The special approach exists because government-owned or controlled entities used for fiscal purposes act on behalf of the controlling government (nonmarket, fiscal motives) rather than for commercial reasons; without imputations a misleading picture of government expenditure and debt could arise.
- Unlike other DIEs, these government-owned entities, when used solely for fiscal purposes, do not give rise to reinvested earnings (BPM6, paragraph 11.40).

### Shortcomings of current imputations
- Commonly government SPEs act as financial conduits established to raise funds and remit them to parents; several issues with current imputations are identified:
  - BPM6 does not specify the exact instrument to be imputed as government debt (presumed to be a loan), creating valuation mismatches: loans are valued at nominal value while SPE-issued debt securities are valued at market value, so government’s liability position may not fully reflect SPE liabilities.
  - BPM6 prescribes recording current or capital transfers to the SPE rather than recording expenditure according to its nature and counterpart; this may omit recording interest expenditure on the imputed government debt.
  - BPM6 neglects that SPEs may collect revenue (e.g., securitization); it is unclear whether such revenue should be recorded as current transfer revenue of government, which could bias fiscal/tax burden measures.
  - BPM6 does not sufficiently address cases where government-owned SPEs engage in lending or equity acquisition that should preferably be reported as such in government accounts.
- As a result, current imputations can distort government revenue/expenditure breakdowns and asset/liability positions, including mismatches between interest expenditure and underlying liabilities.

### Issues for discussion and policy options
- The guidance note discusses the proposal to consider eliminating imputations by treating nonresident fiscal entities as part of the controlling government, akin to embassies and territorial enclaves (BPM6, paragraph 4.138), and explores a more comprehensive rerouting approach.
- The options for the treatment of nonresident government entities created for fiscal operations in macroeconomic statistics are three-fold:
  - Option 1: Eliminate all imputations and consider these entities as part of the controlling government.
  - Option 2: No changes in the current BPM6 treatment.
  - Option 3: Retain the 2008 SNA/BPM6 treatment but record defined imputations with a more analytically meaningful instrument breakdown to reflect proper nature, value, and counterpart of flows and positions in government accounts.

### Option 1 — eliminate imputations and consolidate SPEs with government
- Implication: Treat these entities similarly to other government enclaves whose accounts are consolidated into general government, effectively expanding the concept of economic territory to include these nonresident entities.
- Rationale: These SPEs are often incorporated abroad primarily for strategic fiscal considerations, have no economic autonomy, do not behave as market producers, and are de facto brass-plate businesses with limited physical footprint, making an embassy-like consolidation plausible.
- Impact: General government would comprise both resident and some legally nonresident units, automatically eliminating many distortions in government revenue/expenditure and liability/asset positions described earlier.
- Counterpoints and risks:
  - Unlike embassies and enclaves, SPEs operate under the legal jurisdiction of the host economy and are established to derive specific advantages of host jurisdictions (e.g., confidentiality), resulting in lack of transparency.
  - Consolidating nonresident SPEs with controlling governments would constitute an exception to the residency principle and an “exception within an exception” relative to the 2008 SNA’s residency-based treatment of SPEs (paragraph 4.61).
  - The IMF’s Balance of Payments Committee endorsed the SPE definition but retained the exception that SPEs incorporated in a different economic territory are separate institutional units; adopting Option 1 would depart from the GZTT’s nationality/residency consistency approach and create a government-specific exception.

### Option 2 — retain current BPM6 treatment unchanged
- Rationale: Current imputations broadly ensure better recording for government accounts (deficit, debt) than no imputations and have helped prevent serious misrepresentation of fiscal operations of general government.
- Limitations: Option 2 does not fully prevent distortions regarding valuation (nominal vs market), debt composition, interest expenditure recording, or revenue recognition for SPEs.

### Option 3 — enhanced imputations with analytical instrument breakdown
- Core idea: Keep nonresident government SPEs as separate institutional units (residency-based) but modify imputations to better reflect the economic nature, valuation, and counterpart of relevant flows and positions in government accounts.
- Proposed modifications to current guidance (four illustrative proposals):
  - (i) Record interest expenditure on the imputed debt of government (instead of current transfer), against withdrawal of equity in the SPE (implying recording interest revenue of the SPE as mirror to SPE interest expenditure on its debt).
  - (ii) Directly record SPE expenditure as government expenditure according to its nature and counterpart (e.g., capital transfers to public corporations), against withdrawal of equity in the SPE.
  - (iii) Record acquisition of assets (like loans or equity) in government accounts, against withdrawal of equity in the SPE.
  - (iv) Record any/main SPE revenue (e.g., some cases of securitization) directly as government revenue, against an increase in equity in the SPE (and ultimately reduction in debt).
- Consequences and mechanics:
  - Proposal (i) is necessary to ensure interest expenditure is recorded where there is a debt.
  - Proposals (ii)–(iv) relate to rerouting as recognized by the 2008 SNA/BPM6, avoiding recording debatable cross-border nonfinancial transactions when the beneficiary of the expenditure has the same residency as the sponsoring government.
  - De facto, Option 3 implies SPE cash outflows are seen as government drawing down on SPE equity with a balance of payments impact in the financial accounts (F.2 Currency and deposits / F.5 Equity and investment fund shares) each time an SPE outflow takes place.
- Additional consideration: The government liability to the SPE may be classified, by convention, identically to the SPE debts (including recognizing debt securities links, valuation, and property income); this is not part of the core Option 3 but could be a variant/extension.

### Residency, compilation practicality, and statistical coherence
- The residency exception for SPEs in the 2008 SNA is pragmatic: SPEs are usually established in host jurisdictions to draw on specific advantages and consolidating them raises substantial compilation difficulties given the large number and complex cross-border links.
- The motivations of government-owned SPEs are similar to private-owned/controlled SPEs, unlike embassies/enclaves which are generally treated as home territory under international law.
- However, government-owned SPEs are often fewer and better identified, which may make nationality-based statistics or a government-specific treatment more feasible; such a specific treatment would amount to an “exception within the exception.”
- The Committee’s prior decisions and GZTT practices favor maintaining residency-based institutional-unit treatment for SPEs to preserve consistency across statistical domains, with complementary nationality-based statistics where data permit.

*Prepared by Mmes. Padma Hurree-Gobin, Fadhila Alfaraj, Mr. Bruno Rocha (all, IMF), and Mr. Philippe de Rougemont (Eurostat).*

### 19.      The main issue is therefore whether it is more effective either to prescribe a simplified

### d5-eliminating-the-imputations-for-an-entity-owned-or-controlled-by-general-government-that-is-used - 19.      The main issue is therefore whether it is more effective either to prescribe a simplified

### Issue and options considered
- The main issue is whether to:
  - Option 1: prescribe a simplified solution of directly consolidated government SPEs abroad (align SPEs abroad on domestic SPEs; avoid a series of imputations; avoid distorting government accounts—embassy treatment).
  - Option 2: stick to the current BPM6 treatment (treat all SPEs abroad as institutional units; involves a series of imputations; results in significant remaining distortions of government accounts).
  - Option 3: stick to the current BPM6 treatment with adaptations (treat all SPEs abroad as institutional units but without significant distortions of government accounts; involves a longer series of imputations).

### Section II — Outcomes and main proposal
- The Guidance Note (GN) proposes:
  - Keep the main 2008 SNA/BPM6 guidance unchanged.
  - Enhance the special imputations by adopting Option 3: record imputations with a more analytically meaningful instrument breakdown.
  - Maintain the treatment of SPEs incorporated in a different jurisdiction than the parents as an institutional unit, aligned with GZTT discussions.
  - Enhanced imputations shall adequately represent government flows and stocks by nature and counterpart to support better fiscal analysis.

### Recommendations (explicit)
- Maintain the treatment of nonresident government controlled SPEs used for fiscal purposes as nonresident institutional units.
- Introduce the enhanced imputations, considered appropriate and sufficient, to better reflect the fiscal operations of government controlled SPEs (Option 3).
- Extend the enhanced imputations to reflect the imputed debt in the government accounts under the same financial instrument as the debt incurred by the SPE.

### Rejected alternatives and rationale
- Option 1—eliminating all imputations:
  - Implies treating those entities similarly to other enclaves of government (consolidated into general government).
  - The DITT did not see strong reasons for Option 1 because the Committee endorsed treating SPEs with foreign ownership/control as institutional units in their economy of incorporation/registration, aligned to GZTT GN G.4 “Treatment of SPEs and Residency”.
- Option 2—keeping current BPM6 unchanged:
  - Current imputation practices broadly ensure better recording for government accounts (main indicators: deficit, debt).
  - However, Option 2 does not fully prevent distortions of government accounts regarding revenue/expenditure breakdowns and/or asset/liability positions (including positions at nominal and market value).
  - Notably distorts the relation between interest expenditure and the underlying liability.
  - Option 3 was recognized as a better alternative.

### Annex I — Illustrative example scenario and how Options differ
Scenario:
- SPE in Country A borrows $1000 on behalf of Government of Country B by issuing debt securities.
- During Year 1 after borrowing:
  - $600 of the funds are transferred to the Government of Country B.
  - $400 transferred directly to a public corporation as a capital transfer.
  - $50 is paid by the SPE in interest, which is reimbursed by the government.
- For the example, the Government does not use the funds it receives during Year 1.

I. Option 2: No changes in current BPM6 treatment
- Recognizes Government debt of Country B towards the SPE of Country A of $1000 as a loan.
- Recognizes the $50 paid interest by the SPE under current transfer.
- The capital transfer of $400 to the public corporation is recognized in both the SPE and Government accounts.

II. Option 3: Retain 2008 SNA/BPM6 treatment with better imputations
- Recognizes Government debt of Country B towards the SPE of Country A of $1000 as a loan.
- Recognizes the $50 paid interest by the SPE under interest.
- The capital transfer of $400 to the public corporation is recognized only in the Government accounts.

III. Extension to Option 3 (type of debt instrument mirrored in government accounts)
- As reflected in Paragraph 17 of the GN: one possibility is to classify the government debt to the SPE identically to the SPE debts (including recognizing debt securities links, and their valuation and property income).
- This option recognizes Government debt of Country B towards the SPE of Country A of $1000 as debt securities.
- Recognizes the $50 paid interest by the SPE under interest.
- The capital transfer of $400 to the public corporation is recognized only in the Government accounts.

### Key illustrative numeric positions and transactions (as presented)
- SPE borrows: $1000
- Transfers during Year 1:
  - To Government: $600
  - Capital transfer to public corporation: $400
- Interest paid by SPE: $50 (reimbursed by government)
- Opening/closing and transactional entries shown in the example tables include:
  - Currency & Deposits (Other Investment) +1000
  - Debt Securities (Portfolio Investment) +1000
  - Loans (Direct Investment, debt) [imputed] +1000
  - Equity (Direct Investment, DIE) +1000
  - Interest (Primary Income, Investment Income, DI, Interest) +50
  - Current transfer (Secondary Income, Current transfers) [imputed] +50
  - Capital transfer to public corporation (Secondary Income, Capital transfers) +400
  - Net borrowing / net lending in one presentation: 0 -450
- Financial transactions (Year 1) summary lines include:
  - Currency & Deposits (Other Investment/Reserve assets) -1000  +550
  - Debt Securities  +1000
  - Loans  +1000
  - Equity (Direct Investment, DIE) -1000 -1000
- Closing balance sheet example entries:
  - Currency & Deposits (Other investment/Reserve assets) 0  +550
  - Debt Securities (Portfolio Investment) +1000 +1000
  - Loans (Direct Investment, debt) [imputed] +1000 +1000
  - Net financial worth 0 -450

Note on an alternative interest scenario (footnote):
- If the interest expense $50 paid by the SPE is not reimbursed by the government, then financial transactions would be reflected as:
  - Currency of deposits: SPE -1050 (assets); Government +600 (assets).
  - Equity for SPEs: -1050 (liabilities); Government +1050 (assets).
  - Closing balance sheet: currency and deposits for SPEs -50 (assets) and +600 (assets) for Government; equity direct investment -50 (liabilities) for SPEs and -50 (assets) for Government.

---


_Source: https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/data/statistics/bpm6/approved-guidance-notes/d5-eliminating-the-imputations-for-an-entity-owned-or-controlled-by-general-government-that-is-used.pdf_