| 11/27/2006||Australia||We agree with the AEG recommendations concerning insurance companies and pension funds. Whilst we believe that a reinvested earnings approach should be adopted for all equity positions, and not just direct foreign investment equity positions, it is not clear to us why mutual funds are singled out for this treatment. This could be seen as an inconsistency with other equity positions which do not involve direct foreign investment.|
We suggest that the definition of investment funds be principles-based rather than legalistic/ prescriptive as the nature of such funds varies significantly between countries.
| 10/11/2006||Armenia||The National Statistical Service of the Republic of Armenia agrees with the most recent AEG recommendations.|
| 10/10/2006||Sweden||Agreement with proposal|
| 9/29/2006||Bank of Korea||We broadly support the recommendations. |
| 9/15/2006||United Kingdom||We support the recommendations made by the AEG. As noted, however, it is important to resolve the issue about the inclusion of holding gains and losses mentioned in the conclusions.|
| 9/15/2006||Latvia||After deep discussions and expert consultations we basically support the
1993 SNA Update Issues.|
| 9/15/2006||Norway||We agree with AEG's recommendation provided that the definition of retained earnings in mutual funds will be operational in practice, and do not imply that the income must be calculated for each fund separately. We find it natural to consider whether it is convenient or practical to use the same definition of retained earnings as the definition of reinvested earnings for direct investment enterprises in BPM, i.e. to include holding gains and losses recorded in the profit and loss account. |
Provided that the definition of retained earnings in mutual funds will be operational, we also support the new component "property income attributed to holders of investment funds". We prefer not to have the new component optionally sub-divided into interests, dividends and other income.
| 8/21/2006||Central Bank of El Salvador||Se está de acuerdo en seguir estudiando el tema tal como lo hace el SEC95 y se solicita se hagan aclaraciones específicas en los casos de los fondos de inversión diferentes a los fondos de pensiones, seguros de vida y de inversión extranjera directa.|
The SCN agrees that the matter should remain under study as is the case with ESA 95, and asks that specific clarifications be made with regard to investment funds other than pension funds, life insurance funds, and direct foreign investment funds.
| 8/18/2006||Netherlands||We generally support the recommendations made at the Frankfurt Meeting of the AEG. |
| 8/18/2006||USA||We agree with the recommendations of the AEG.|
| 8/2/2006||European Central Bank||The ECB generally supports the recommendations made by the AEG.|
| 8/1/2006||Hong Kong, China||We agree to the AEG’s recommendation that holding gains or losses should be excluded from the property income attributed to holders of assets in investment funds. Other recommendations proposed by the AEG are also acceptable.|
| 8/1/2006||National Bank/ National Bureau for Statistics 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 carefully worked through all the issues and would like to give our general support to the recommendations made by the AEG.|
| 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||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||National Bank of Slovakia||Concerning the results of the most recent AEG meeting, we fully support the conclusions and recommendations made by the AEG.|
| 7/28/2006||Lithuania||In general we support the recommendations.|
| 7/28/2006||Bank of Portugal||Banco 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). |
| 7/28/2006||Bank of Poland||Please find our general support for the AEG recommendations made during its recent meeting in Frankfurt.|
| 7/27/2006||Poland||The split of property income attributed to holders of investment funds into “dividends distributed to investment fund shareholders” and “retained earnings attributed to investment fund shareholders” seems to be too detailed taking into account existing reporting. Getting necessary data would be possible basing on some estimates only.|
| 7/27/2006||Bank of Sierra Leone||We agree with the recommendations made by the AEG.|
| 7/25/2006||Bank of Italy||We broadly support the conclusions.|
| 7/24/2006||Germany||We are not in favor of an exclusion of. holding gains or losses from the property income attributed to holders of assets in investment funds. This would be a specific treatment of special institutions or is it intended to adjust all dividend payments of enterprises from holding gains or losses? |
| 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. |
| 2/23/2006||South African Reserve Bank ||We support the recommendations of the AEG.|
| 1/27/2006||Central Bank of El Salvador||de acuerdo con la posición del grupo consultivo, en aceptar el principio de registrar las utilidades retenidas de los fondos de inversión en forma similar al ingreso atribuido a los titulares de las pólizas.|
| 12/22/2005||Serbia and Montenegro||We agree with the suggested changes.|
| 12/14/2005||France||Le SEC95 avait introduit une divergence par rapport au SCN93 en imputant aux investisseurs, actionnaires des OPCVM (« mutual funds »), les revenus non distribues et réinvestis de ces organismes. L'AEG accepte de suivre le SEC95. L'INSEE soutient le principe proposé sur le traitement des organismes de placement collectif et attend néanmoins la version définitive du texte pour se prononcer.|
| 12/13/2005||Canada||Canada agrees with this recommendation – to accrue income from collective schemes to the investors and that more work needs to be done to establish a generally applicable definition of collective schemes. Canada currently follows this treatment for mutual funds and pension schemes. This is not viewed as being similar to the imputed transactions on FDI because the collective schemes have no legal status as having any decision or control over the distribution of the income accruing to the fund. In the case of FDIs, income can be retained by the legal entity which increases wealth for the owner without necessity of imputing flows. |
| 12/12/2005||Bank of Korea||We agree with the recommendations made by the AEG. Although, if we treat retained earnings of various collective investment schemes as the technical reserves of life insurance companies, this treatment can give us more accurate information on household savings and etc., more discussion on terminologies and characteristics of the schemes should be added. |
| 12/9/2005||European Central Bank||The proposed treatment is now almost in line with the treatment in the 1995 ESA|
| 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 principle of recording retained earnings of mutual funds and other collective investment funds in a similar way to income attributed to insurance policy holders. Furthermore, we support a separate income category for retained earnings but with no breakdown by source of income.|
| 12/2/2005||Netherlands||We generally support the recommendations of the AEG.|
| 12/2/2005||Australia||Australia's position on reinvested earnings is that the earnings of an enterprise accrue to its investors as they are earned. Based on this rationale, the reinvested earnings for all enterprises should be recorded. We therefore support any extension of the recording of reinvested earnings.|
Australia also supports further work on the broader concept of income beyond the life of the update of SNA/BPM.
| 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 AEG's recommendation a), provided that the definition of retained earnings in mutual funds will be operational in practice, and do not imply that the income must be calculated for each fund separately. We find it natural to consider whether it is convenient/practical to use the same definition of retained earnings as the definition of reinvested earnings for direct investment enterprises in BPM, i.e. to include holding gains and losses recorded in the profit and loss account. |
Provided that the definition of retained earnings in mutual funds will be operational, we also support the new component "property income attributed to holders of investment funds" b). We prefer not to have the new component optionally sub-divided into interests, dividends and other income.
We will return to question c) and d) as AEG's final recommendations are presented.
| 12/1/2005||United Kingdom||We agree with recommendation a). We will need to comment again later when the outstanding work is complete.|
| 11/30/2005||Slovak Republic||SO SR give support to AEG recommendation related to ongoing effort for clarification of issue.|
| 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||State Bank of Pakistan||We have gone through recommendations made by Advisory Expert Group (AEG) and fully agree with them.
| 11/29/2005||People's Bank of China||I agree with your improvements and have no other suggestions.|