| 10/11/2006||Armenia||The National Statistical Service of the Republic of Armenia agrees with the most recent AEG recommendations.|
| 9/29/2006||Bank of Korea||We agree with most of the recommendations of the AEG. We, however, prefer to treat MMF not as Investment Funds but as Monetary Financial Intermediaries. Because most of MMFs in Korea are used as means of money substitutes rather than investment schemes. |
| 8/25/2006||Central Bank of Ecuador|| m4cbEcuadorC30; |
| 8/21/2006||Central Bank of El Salvador||Se está de acuerdo.|
The SCN agrees with the AEG.
| 8/18/2006||Netherlands||We generally support the recommendations made at the Frankfurt Meeting of the AEG. |
| 8/18/2006||Bank of England||“Money Market Funds – we support the views expressed by the ECB and the Banca d’Italia that MMFs should be classified within the MFI sector, to preserve coherence with the definition of broad money:”|
| 8/18/2006||USA||We agree with the recommendations of the AEG.|
| 8/2/2006||European Central Bank|| m4ECBC30; |
| 8/1/2006||National Bank/National Bureau of Moldova||National Bank and National Bureau for Statistics of Moldova agree with the recommendations made at the latest meeting of the AEG.
| 8/1/2006||Reserve Bank of South Africa||We agree with the recommendation to show money market funds explicitely, while "pension fund corporations" could be replaced with "pension fund institutions".|
| 7/31/2006||Macao SAR||Statistics and Census Service of Macao SAR agrees to the AEG recommendations and has no further comments.|
| 7/31/2006||Bank of Indonesia||BI agrees with the recommendation to clasify Money-market funds as "investment funds" and shown separately from monetary financial institutions. Currently BI excludes money market funds from the classification of monetary financial institutions (consists of central banks and other depository corporations).|
| 7/31/2006||Bosnia and Herzegovina||We agree with AEG recommendations on the update of the 1993 SNA and do not have any further comments.|
| 7/28/2006||Vietnam||We agree with the outcomes of the AEG in this issue.|
| 7/28/2006||National Bank of Slovakia||Concerning the results of the most recent AEG meeting, we fully support the conclusions and recommendations made by the AEG. However, as a member of the ESCB, the National Bank of Slovakia fully supports the comments of the ECB.|
| 7/28/2006||Bank of Poland||We would like to express our concern about the AEG proposal to shift money market funds (MMFs) into the “Investment funds” category. In line with the current meaning of international standards, MMFs activity is of a monetary character therefore their liabilities are component of broad money. Thus, sectoral classification of financial institutions should be flexible enough to allow for an adequate assignment to particular monetary aggregates. In our opinion, MMFs should remain to be classified to S.122 subsector or, at least, presented separately if the decision is taken to include them into a different sector.
| 7/28/2006||Bank of Portugal||We disagree with the AEG proposal regarding the inclusion of money market funds (MMF) to investment funds. We consider that MMF issue monetary liabilities and so, they should be classified within the S.122 -Other Monetary Financial Institutions. This view is supported by the current SNA, the ESA 95 and the IMF Monetary and Financial Statistics Manual. The 1993 SNA refers in paragraph 4.94 that an institution that issues close substitutes for deposits included in broad money should be included in S.122. The 1995 ESA refers in paragraph 2.51 that investment funds that satisfy the definition of MFI, in particular in what concerns the provision of instruments that are close substitutes for deposits, should be classified in S.122. Finally, the IMF Monetary and Financial Statistics Manual states, in paragraph 100, that if the liabilities of investment funds "are included in broad money, they should be classified as other depository corporations". Notwithstanding, we consider that, whatever the sectoral classificat|
| 7/27/2006||Poland||The proposed sub-sectoring of financial corporations sector seems very clear and useful. It is especially important to distinguish “financial auxiliaries” as a separate sub-sector due to specific activities of corporations providing financial auxiliary services.|
| 7/27/2006||Bank of Sierra Leone||We agree with the recommendations made by the AEG.|
| 7/25/2006||Bank of Italy||We understand that a further difficulty concerns the treatment of Money market funds (MMF). The difficulty stems from the fact that MMFs have certain features in common with other investment funds, but at the same time they are like banks in that their liabilities are mainly of a monetary nature. Such liabilities are often included in the definition of monetary aggregates. We believe that it is essential that the sectoral classification of financial institution should be consistent with the definition of money; therefore we believe that it is necessary to group MMFs with central banks and commercial banks in the subgroup of Monetary financial institutions. Within that, they could be grouped with banks under a sub-sub-group of Commercial MFIs; or alternatively (and perhaps preferably) they could be shown separately in a sub-sub-group of their own. Again, a degree of flexibility could be useful to accommodate different institutional frameworks.|
| 7/24/2006||Sweden|| m4SwedenC30; |
| 7/24/2006||Switzerland||Considering their increasing significance, we welcome the fact that investment funds are a category on its own, and the fact that its broad definition includes closed-end investment companies issuing equity. We also support the opinion that money-market funds should be classified as investment funds and not as monetary financial intermediaries.
We have a reservation regarding the wording “Miscellaneous financial intermediaries”, as opposed to “financial auxiliaries”. This wording might be misleading, especially for units lending their own funds. There is now wide agreement that these units should be considered financial corporation even though they do not provide financial intermediation as defined in the present version of the SNA. These units provide financial services, and it seems important to distinguish them from mere “financial auxiliaries” as their activity involves purchasing assets on their own account and bearing a financial risk. This last fact should help to separate them from other “financial auxiliaries”.|
| 7/24/2006||National Bank of the Republic of Azerbaijan||We have analyzed the “Comment on the recommendations of the most recent Advisory Expert Group on National Accounts (AEG) meeting (January 30 – February 8, 2006) in Frankfurt” within the scope of our responsibilities and I am pleased to inform you that we are in agreement with the AEG recommendations. |