| 10/10/2006 | Sweden | Agreement with proposal |
| 9/15/2006 | United Kingdom | We agree with all the recommendations made by the AEG. |
| 9/15/2006 | United Kingdom | We agree with all the recommendations made by the AEG. |
| 9/15/2006 | Latvia | After deep discussions and expert consultations we basically support the
1993 SNA Update IssAfter deep discussions and expert consultations we basically support the
1993 SNA Update Issues.ues. |
| 7/28/2006 | Lithuania | In general we support the recommendations. |
| 2/23/2006 | South African Reserve Bank | We agree with the AEG accepted recommendations. |
| 1/27/2006 | Central Bank of El Salvador | La recomendación de reclasificarlo en la cuenta de otros cambios de volumen es acertada ya que definirlo como transacción supone un intercambio entre unidades institucionales, pero en este caso solo se sucede un cambio en el estatus de residencia de los "migrantes" y no hay un intercambio entre residentes con no residentes. |
| 1/17/2006 | Central Bank of West African States |  cb_WesternAfricanStates38b; |
| 1/17/2006 | Central Bank of Chile | cbChile38b; |
| 12/22/2005 | Serbia and Montenegro | We agree with the suggested changes. |
| 12/14/2005 | France | L'INSEE soutient la recommandation consistant à ignorer les flux de biens lies aux changements de résidence et à traiter les mouvements affectant les actifs/passifs en autres changements de volume des actifs. |
| 12/13/2005 | Canada | Canada agrees that migrants’ financial claims and liabilities should be treated as reclassification of assets on the other volume changes in assets account. |
| 12/12/2005 | Bank of Korea | We are in agreement with all the recommendations of AEG. |
| 12/9/2005 | Russia | Rosstat largely supports the recommendations on the updating 1993 SNA, made at the July 2005 meeting of the Advisory Expert Group on National Accounts. |
| 12/6/2005 | Central Bank of Norway | The Central Bank of Norway supports the recommendations for migrants’ transfers thus implying a change in the BPM from capital transfers to other changes in volume for the migrants’ assets and liabilities and that this is made consistent with the SNA. |
| 12/5/2005 | Denmark | Agreement |
| 12/2/2005 | Netherlands | We generally support the recommendations of the AEG.
|
| 12/2/2005 | Australia | Australia agrees with the recommendations concerning households, as a migrant 'disappears' from one economic territory and 'appears' in another with all of his/her assets. Hence, it would seem that the change in residence of migrants' assets are best reflected as other changes in volume of assets. |
| 12/2/2005 | Turkey | We agree with the recommendations made at the July 2005 meeting of the Advisory Expert Group on National Accounts. |
| 12/1/2005 | Norway | We agree with the AEG's recommendations. |
| 12/1/2005 | Brazil | We endorse the AEG decisions in the Bangkok meeting. |
| 12/1/2005 | Israel | We disagree with the recommendations for registration of assets, liabilities and personal effects of individuals changing residence. These items are substantial in our country, and we think the suggested treatment would lead to distortions. In our view, for national accounts purposes, it only makes sense to treat an individual before and after the change of residence as two distinct units, as would be done for an enterprise moving from one country to another.
In our view, the treatment of movement of personal effects should be similar to the treatment of used government equipment sent to abroad – that is: deducted from private expenditure in the country of origin and added to the country’s exports. In the accounts of the new country there should be imports of such personal effects, and private consumption expenditure by the new residents. Otherwise the country of origin may have too large a consumption expenditure and the new country too small an expenditure. Likewise the registration of transfers of money outside the balance of payments will lead to strange results. If for example an immigrant leaves large assets abroad, and nothing will be registered in the balance of payments (only in the IIP), when residence is changed, then when money transferred from the account at a later period, the flow may seem unexplained and lead to distortion of the balance of payments.
Of course, it might be useful for analytical purposes to register the various items linked to migration separately. It should also be recommended to add clarifications to the SNA, since migration has become more common. |
| 12/1/2005 | National Bank of Moldova | Given the fact that there are no ownership changes for the personal effects accompanying migrants while they change residence, it is acceptable not to register these flows of goods as exports and imports in balance of payments statistics. No contra-entry in “capital transfers” will be put.
Regarding the movement of financial assets we consider that the flows should be recorded based on the migrant’s residence at the time the transaction occurs.
We suppose that this treatment could be applied also to the economic units changing their residence. |
| 12/1/2005 | United Kingdom | We agree with the AEG accepted recommendations. From the summary conclusions it wasn't clear what the decision was on the second question in recommendation (b). We think that they should be recorded in the other changes in volume of assets. |
| 11/30/2005 | Slovak Republic | SO SR agree with AEG recommendations. |
| 11/30/2005 | Croatian National Bank | Croatian National Bank agree with the AEG recommendations. |
| 11/30/2005 | Italy | Istat fully agrees with the recommendations made at the July 2005 meeting of the Advisory Expert Group on National Accounts.
|
| 11/30/2005 | National Bank of the Republic of Macedonia | We agree with the recommendations of the AEG. Regarding the goods component, since there is no change in ownership, we think that these should be excluded from the exports and imports. Regarding the financial flows, the counterparty of the financial account can be in current transfers, as proposed. |
| 11/30/2005 | State Bank of Pakistan | We have gone through recommendations made by Advisory Expert Group (AEG) and fully agree with them.
|
| 11/29/2005 | National Bank of Kazakhstan | Since moving migrants from one country to another does not cause actual change of ownership we deem it is acceptable to not refer migrants’ transfers to the capital account as well as to eliminate migrants’ personal effects from trade data and record migrants financial operations based on the migrants residence at the moment of conducting transaction. However, on our opinion it is necessary to specify which data sources and methods could be applied to separate assets and liabilities of migrants.
Accordingly we suppose it is acceptable to use this approach in cases related to the economic units changing their residence.
To reconsile SNA and BPM nessesary amendments should be added to relevant paragraphs.
We suppose that alternative approach to record keeping of migrants personal effects and financial operations is not acceptable as in this case ownership rule is not kept. |
| 11/29/2005 | People's Bank of China | I agree with your improvements and have no other suggestions. |
| 11/21/2005 | USA | We agree with the recommendations of the AEG. |
