HomeSNAISWGNAKnowledge BaseDataTechnical CooperationPublications
You are here:   ISWGNA >> Updating the SNA >> Towards the 2008 SNA >> 1993 SNA Update Information >> List of Issues

1993 SNA Update Information - Country comments for issue:
Definition of economic assets

Issue description
Issue description in [English] | [French] | [Russian] | [Spanish]
The SNA should provide a clear definition of what constitutes an asset that is consistent with where the asset boundary falls in respect of currently known entities, as well as providing guidance for determining whether entities that appear in the future fall within the asset boundary. It should be accompanied by guidance on how assets should be valued. Does the definition in the 1993 SNA need further elaboration?
Country comments
Number of country comments for selected issue:25
  Date postedSourceComment
 27/11/2006AustraliaWe agree with the recommendations made by AEG
 11/10/2006ArmeniaThe National Statistical Service of the Republic of Armenia agrees with the most recent AEG recommendations.
 29/09/2006Bank of KoreaWe agree with the recommendations of the AEG.
 15/09/2006United KingdomWe believe the current existing definitions are largely satisfactory, and do not expect radical changes to existing definitions.
 15/09/2006LatviaAfter deep discussions and expert consultations we basically support the 1993 SNA Update Issues.
 18/08/2006NetherlandsWe generally support the recommendations made at the Frankfurt Meeting of the AEG.
 18/08/2006USAWe agree with the recommendations of the AEG.
 02/08/2006European Central BankThe ECB generally supports the recommendations made by the AEG.
 01/08/2006National Bank/ National Bureau for Statistics MoldovaNational Bank and National Bureau for Statistics of Moldova agree with the recommendations made at the latest meeting of the AEG.
 01/08/2006Reserve Bank of South AfricaWe carefully worked through all the issues and would like to give our general support to the recommendations made by the AEG.
 01/08/2006Central Bank of ChileEstamos de acuerdo con las precisiones del AEG respecto a diferenciar propiedad y beneficios de los activos. En propiedad es fundamental distinguir propiedad legal de propiedad económica y definir esta última como la base de la definición de activos. Respecto a los beneficios es indispensable asociar el concepto del riesgo implícito. El tipo de beneficio y riesgo diferenciados permiten distinguir la propiedad legal y económica cuando no son idénticas. Compartimos la necesidad de definir ya en el capítulo III estos conceptos.
Estamos de acuerdo con la orientación y redefinición de los activos a partir de los conceptos previos. Tal vez la especificación de que con los activos se obtienen beneficios o series de beneficios, ya sea de períodos anteriores, presentes o futuros, puede sintetizarse en una frase sin necesidad de separar sentencias “series of benefit in futures…” or “benefit in past periods” “and still..in present periods”. Esa distinción sería necesaria solo si los tres momentos de tiempo ayuden a distinguir el registro contable de los activos.
Totalmente de acuerdo con las exclusiones de las hojas de balance. Tal vez sería necesario plantear que los activos ambientales y el capital humano que se excluyen, enfrentan más allá de la dificultad de definir derechos de propiedad, la dificultad de la valoración de mercado. La falta del “consenso del mercado” permite que haya muchas opciones de valoración y dificulta la partida cuádruple, base del sistema. Finalmente, estamos de acuerdo con considerar los “constructive liabilities” como parte de los activos, sobretodo si hay reconocimiento contable del agente y contra-agente.
 31/07/2006Macao SARStatistics and Census Service of Macao SAR agrees to the AEG recommendations and has no further comments.
 31/07/2006Bosnia and HerzegovinaWe agree with AEG recommendations on the update of the 1993 SNA and do not have any further comments.
 28/07/2006FranceLa définition des actifs économiques donnée par le SCN93 est faite en extension plutôt qu’en compréhension. Abandonner cette approche pour s’orienter vers une définition plus théorique des actifs économiques semble un projet délicat.
L’INSEE suivra avec attention l’évolution de la rédaction du SCN mis à jour sur ce point.
 28/07/2006National Bank of SlovakiaConcerning the results of the most recent AEG meeting, we fully support the conclusions and recommendations made by the AEG.
 28/07/2006AustraliaThis issue was not fully resolved at the Frankfurt AEG. The ABS is in the process of providing specific comments to the SNA update editor.
 28/07/2006Bank of PortugalBanco de Portugal would like to express general support for the recommendations made in the Frankfurt meeting of the Advisory Expert Group on National Accounts (AEG).
 28/07/2006Bank of PolandPlease find our general support for the AEG recommendations made during its recent meeting in Frankfurt.
 27/07/2006Bank of Sierra LeoneWe agree with the recommendations made by the AEG.
 27/07/2006EgyptThe definition of the economic assets as presented in SNA fit all needs and doesn’t require further elaboration.
 25/07/2006Bank of ItalyWe broadly support the conclusions.
 24/07/2006GermanyThe existing definition of the SNA 1993 does fit the needs of the system. Insofar There is no necessity in our view to extend the definition of economic assets given in the 1993 SNA. The mentioned terms “risk and constructive liabilities/obligations” are definitely no new phenomena. We cannot see neither that their importance has increased nor that there is methodological progress in this field. We cannot accept an extension of the definition of economic assets in a nebulous way, without the possibility to quantify the differences to the current system.
 24/07/2006National Bank of the Republic of AzerbaijanWe 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.
 10/07/2006DenmarkAgreement
We support the idea of gathering more information on constructive liabilities before the AEG decide on including these in the asset boundary.
 03/01/2006CubaConsideramos que tanto la clasificación, frontera, valoración y definición de los activos convienen ser revisados. Debe ser analizado también el criterio de propiedad por parte de una unidad institucional, dado que en la metodología actual aparecen los flujos en el sistema una vez que comienzan a usarse como activos económicos; quedan excluidos recursos naturales de la actual clasificación, etc.
La formación de capital humano, forma parte en la actualidad del consumo final ante la imposibilidad hasta la fecha de considerar su apropiación por el individuo como activo. Deberá buscarse una solución para registrarse como activo
Los gastos de I+D, no se consideran activos con excepción de los destinados a la exploración minera, ya descritos. Proponemos que la I+D forme parte de los activos, y que los trabajos de exploración minera se registren independientes del stocks de reservas económicamente explotable.
Navigation Options
*Back to Issues
*See all issues/subissues with country comments
*See all AEG recommendations for this issue
*See all expert comments for this issue

About  |  Sitemap  |  Contact Us
Copyright © United Nations, 2014