Islamabad: The Ministry of Finance and Revenue clarified on Thursday that the Rs10.1 trillion debt figure reported by the Central Monitoring Unit (CMU) of the State Bank of Pakistan (SBP) represents the consolidated stock of interest-bearing obligations of federal State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs) and should not be misconstrued as fresh borrowing from banks.

According to Press Information Department, the ministry addressed a media report which titled “SOEs’ debt soars to Rs10.1 trillion,” stating that the comparison of the consolidated debt stock reported by the CMU with the State Bank of Pakistan (SBP) data was not conducted on a like-for-like basis. This discrepancy could potentially mislead the public into thinking that the increase in the reported debt stock is equivalent to fresh borrowing by SOEs.

The ministry emphasized that the SBP series mentioned in the media report focuses narrowly on the borrowing and credit of public sector enterprises from the banking system. In contrast, the CMU provides a comprehensive account of interest-bearing obligations of federal SOEs for fiscal-risk monitoring. Hence, the two data sets differ in scope, coverage, and reporting purposes and should not be conflated.

The ministry detailed that the Rs10.1 trillion reported by CMU is not entirely made up of bank borrowing. Approximately Rs3.1 trillion of this amount is attributed to bank/private loans, while the remaining balance consists of government lending, foreign re-lent loans, accrued markup, rollover costs, and other liabilities. This comprehensive measure is intended to provide the government and the Cabinet Committee on State-Owned Enterprises with a clearer understanding of SOE indebtedness and related fiscal risks.

The reported increase in the consolidated SOE debt stock from Rs8.8 trillion to Rs10.1 trillion does not equate to SOEs raising Rs1.3 trillion in new debt. Fresh loans during the period amounted to approximately Rs164 billion. The movement in the overall stock also reflects changes in legacy government lending, foreign re-lent loans, and accumulated costs, making a direct comparison with the SBP’s banking-sector series methodologically incorrect.