| 11/27/2006||Australia||We agree with all the recommendations made by AEG at its Jan-Feb 2006 meeting|
| 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 are generally in agreement with the recommendation of the AEG. |
| 9/28/2006||New Zealand||Agree. As with our previous comment measuring output of central banks at cost is our current practise.|
| 9/19/2006||Central Bank of Tunisia||Concernant le point "output of Central Banks" nous vous signalons que nous adhérons aux recommandations de l'AEG sur l'évaluation et l'imputation des services des banques centrales ventilés en services marchands et services non marchands. Il est à signaler que l'adoption de ces recommandations nécessite la refonte du système d'information de la Banque par l'intégration du système de la comptabilité financière aussi bien avec les applications de gestion déjà en exploitation qu'avec les domaines gérés manuellement et ce après leur automatisation. La BCT de par la Loi fournit gratuitement ses services au Gouvernement, aux institutions publiques et aux établissements financiers.|
| 9/15/2006||United Kingdom||We accept the AEG's recommendations on the measurement of central bank output, although we do not consider that the pure cost based measure is a second best solution. We support the AEG's call for flexibility in applying different approaches for market and non market services and consider that a measure based on costs is an acceptable solution, particularly when judged on measurement cost/benefit considerations.|
| 9/15/2006||Latvia||After deep discussions and expert consultations we basically support the
1993 SNA Update Issues.|
| 9/12/2006||Central Bank of Western African States|| m4bceao6b; |
| 8/25/2006||Central Bank of Ecuador||1. Se está reconociendo la importancia de diferenciar entre producción mercante y no mercante, y se está proponiendo que únicamente habrá flexibilidad para el grado de distinción de estos servicios.|
Por otro lado, que los resultados (ganancias o pérdidas) de las transacciones del banco central que obedecen a un propósito de política monetaria, se los deberá tratar .en la cuenta de distribución del ingreso.
2. ¿Es correcto entender que la propuesta sería, que para el cálculo de la producción del banco central se deberá diferenciar entre producción mercante y no mercante; a la producción mercante estimarla por ingresos y a la producción no mercante estimarla por costos; y finalmente, que la producción del banco central seria la suma de las dos? es decir la suma de la producción mercante y la producción no mercante?
Esta propuesta de cálculo de la producción, requeriría que los bancos centrales lleven su contabilidad, identificando los ingresos y gastos para los diferentes servicios que prestan, lo cual podría dificultar su aplicabilídad.
3. Sería conveniente conocer si la Comisión consideró la posibilidad de que los bancos centrales que generan ingresos superiores a egresos (sin considerar aquellos derivados de las transacciones que tienen un propósito de política monetaria), puedan continuar calculando la producción vía comisiones más intereses ganados — intereses pagados; y los bancos centrales que no tienen ingresos suficientes para cubrir sus gastos, calculen la producción vía costos.
4. En el caso ecuatoriano se debe señalar que viene aplicando el método tradicional, a diferencia de otros países, con este método no se obtuvo a lo largo de la serie, valores negativos en la producción.
Se realizó un ejercicio sencillo aplicando los costos (remuneraciones, consumos intermedios, no se incluyó consumo de capital fijo) y de los primeros resultados obtenidos se observó una reducción importante en la producción, en los años analizados.
Se seguirá revisando con mayor profundidad este tema, para evaluar los impactos que esta situación provocaría en los agregados macroeconómicos del Banco Central del Ecuador y de los otros sectores de la economía.
| 8/21/2006||Central Bank of El Salvador|| m4cbElSalvador6b; m4cbElSalvador6b-english; |
| 8/18/2006||Netherlands||We generally support the recommendations made at the Frankfurt Meeting of the AEG. |
| 8/18/2006||Bank of England||We support the AEG’s call for flexibility in applying different approaches for market and non market services and consider that in many cases a measure based wholly on costs may be an acceptable solution, when judged on cost/benefit considerations.|
| 8/18/2006||Italy||From a conceptual point of view, we support the proposed treatment of the output of Central Bank, which allows to represent the various roles performed by that kind of unit. Nevertheless we raise some practical concerns as to the availability of accounting data of the CB analytical enough to allow a detailed estimate of its market vs non-market activities.|
In any case it is important, with regard to CB’s classification, to stress the unit’s close association to financial markets and to separate its responsibilities clearly from those of general government. In this respect the idea of recording collective services produced by central banks as final consumption expenditure in their own accounts looks interesting. As a matter of fact, for the sake of clearness, it could be desirable to avoid introducing imputed transactions in the accounts, like the proposed transfers from/to General Government.
As to the activity of managing reserve deposits, could not it be considered as a service provided to the economy, it is kind of non-market collective service, instead of calculating FISIM and imputing virtual taxes and subsidies?
| 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||National Bank/ National Bureau for Statistics Moldova||We consider that a more detailed description of proposed treatment of the Central Banks’ Output supplemented with study of cases is necessary. We also consider that allowing the countries to be flexible in treating this issue could lead to an inconsistency of accounting practice among countries.|
| 8/1/2006||Bank of Botswana||The outcome of the AEG discussions appears to be broadly on the right lines, but it seems that there various practical difficulties in implementing the proposed concepts. While some scope for flexibility may be necessary, this should be underpinned by some clearer practical guidelines in order to avoid problems of comparability. It may be useful to presume that central bank output is non-market unless it is clearly otherwise. The allocation of the output to government seems most appropriate because the benefits of non-market output by central banks are not confined to the financial sector.|
| 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.|
| 8/1/2006||Central Bank of Chile||La propuesta sobre la medición de la producción de los Bancos Centrales por los costos nos parece adecuada, en consideración a la naturaleza de las principales funciones de estas instituciones. Sin embargo, la separación entre servicios de mercado y no mercado, no es de fácil implementación en la práctica, aun cuando pueda estar más ajustada a concepto.|
En todo caso la recomendación acerca del destino o uso de la producción medida por los costos, como consumo final de gobierno, la cual sería financiada por una transferencia imputada, nos parece una solución adecuada. En la actualidad, en Chile la producción del Banco Central se mide por la suma de sus costos y dado que no era recomendado destinarla a consumo de gobierno, se asigna a la industria ficticia, debido a que los SIFMI no se distribuyen por sector insumidor o consumidor.
| 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 tends to agree to use cost approach for measuring the output of the central banks, instead of using the method of Financial Intermediary Services Indirectly Measured (FISIM), since Indonesia is facing difficulties in calculating FISIM for central bank.|
| 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.|
| 7/31/2006||China||Theoretically, it is reasonable to distinguish the activities of the central bank as market and non-market output, which are measured differently. In practice, it is very difficult to implement the recommendation since market activities and non-market activities are usually integrated closely. Second, it is difficult to judge how much of the distortion of the interest of central bank is caused by policy reason, so it is also difficult to judge how much be removed from the output.|
| 7/31/2006||Central Bank of Nicaragua||Estamos de acuerdo con las recomendaciones hechas por el grupo de expertos consultivo, dado que permite una estimación más precisa de la producción del banco central. Sin embargo, existen limitantes metodológicas y prácticas para implementar dichas recomendaciones, tales como: estimación de la tasa de referencia de mercado, separación del costo de producción de los servicios que son de carácter colectivo del resto de servicios.|
Consideramos que los servicios de supervisión financiera son de mercado, debido a que los aportes de las entidades supervisadas comprenden el 75 por ciento de sus ingresos. Además, el ente regulador contribuye al mejor desempeño de estas instituciones financieras. Es importante mencionar que en Nicaragua existe una institución reguladora de entidades financieras independiente al banco central.
Consideramos que los intereses de no mercado deberían ser registrados como transferencias corrientes al gobierno. Por convención, el gobierno es el único ente que puede brindar servicios colectivos.
| 7/28/2006||Vietnam||The output of the central banks covers state management services, financial intermediary services directly measured and FISIM. That means we need to distinguish market and non market output. The output of state management services, the non market output, should be valued by cost method. The rest should be measured from receipts. The output of central banks , both market and non market, should be allocated to the appropriated institutional sectors respectively.|
| 7/28/2006||France||L’INSEE accueille favorablement les conclusions de la réunion de Francfort.|
| 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||We agree with the measurement method of the Central Bank output and the proposal to distinguish between market and non-market output. However, instead of the inscription of the non-market production in the general government final consumption, an allocation to the intermediate consumption of financial intermediaries is suggested.|
| 7/28/2006||Bank of Norway||We support calculating the production of non-market output of central bank services at cost and allocating the output to government as government final consumption since most of the services (monetary policy, financial stability etc) are for general use of the society.|
| 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||Bank of Sierra Leone||We agree with the recommendations made by the AEG.|
| 7/27/2006||Egypt||We agree with the recommendation for estimating the output of the Central Bank by costs as the same in the government sector.|
| 7/25/2006||National Bank of Bahrain||The National Account should not ignore the importance of the central banks output and the use of its services. A clear distinction should be made between market and non-market output. This essential distinction is of great importance in deciding where to classify these outputs.|
| 7/25/2006||Central Bank of Costa Rica||We agree with the recommendation to measure the output of central banks at costs. Currently this approach is being used to measure the output of the central bank in Costa Rica; this output is registered as purchased by the Central Government. We also believe that there must be some flexibility regarding the distinction between market and non-market production of central banks, thus, depending on the relative importance of market production it could be measured at costs.|
| 7/25/2006||Bank of Italy||We broadly support the conclusions.|
| 7/24/2006||Switzerland||In our opinion, it is clear that both current treatments are unsatisfactory, as central banks cannot be considered either as standard financial intermediaries or as pure non-market producers. The outcomes nevertheless raise a number of issues. For example, breaking up an institutional unit between market and non market departments is questionable. We believe that an institutional unit should have a dominant activity, which can be market or non market depending on the resource-cost structure. Thus, the proposal can, at best, be seen as a compromise, and we strongly support the proposal that countries should have flexibility in the degree to which they apply the distinction. |
We also believe that several issues still need further consideration and, like the Editor, favor the inclusion of this subject on the research agenda. One issue to be discussed would be the treatment of monetary instruments. In Switzerland, reverse repurchase agreements are now the main instruments of the National Bank to manage money supply. A decision on whether the service delivered has to be considered as a market or a non-market service is not straightforward. In the latter case, FISIM would have to be estimated and a negative output could not be “a priori” excluded.
To sum up, we support the outcomes of the AEG discussions, with a strong plea for flexibility and further research in specific areas.
| 7/24/2006||Germany||We agree with the conceptual recommendation of the AEG concerning the output. Given the usually low share of market output, from a practical point of view we would prefer a simple general method for compiling the output of central banks by the sum of the costs (“by convention”). This would seem to improve the international comparability of the data.|
However, with regard to the use of central banks’ non-market-output we are in favour of the European concept, which is allocating it to intermediate consumption of banks. The proposed use as acquisition of general government increases general government con-sumption expenditure and hence GDP and GNI.
| 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. |
Denmark strongly support that countries should have flexibility in the degree to which they applied the distinction between market and non-market output. If the issue is not of any significant importance, output can be valued at cost for both market and non-market.
| 1/6/2006||State Bank of Pakistan||In our view, the output of central bank may be estimated by a combination of approaches, i.e. (a) the part of the output used in services rendered for the general government by the central bank to be estimated under production cost approach (as an alternate to the net interest approach of the SNA), and (b) for calculation of the rest output of the central bank, the method of Financial Intermediary Services Indirectly Measured (FISIM) may be applied. In case this approach is not feasible, the most preferred method of estimation should clearly be outlined along with an alternate method of estimation. The Advisory Export Group (AEG) has recommended three different options with their limitations which needs further discussions to come up with a practicable solution.|
| 11/29/2005||Central Bank of Turkey||We agree with the amendment in Paragraph 6.132 of the SNA93 as proposed by the AEG. Central Banks are non-market producers, however this does not require that the Central Bank should be classified as part of the general government sector. We also agree with the ECB that no change is needed in paragraphs 4.87 and 4.121 of the SNA93; monetary authority-type functions performed by central government should be classified as part of general government sector. |
| 5/23/2005||Israel||We are in favor of the measurement of output of Central Banks through costs. We propose to recommend this method in all cases to avoid any problems of comparability. |
Allocation of the output of the Central Bank: we prefer to adopt a proposal by Pablo Mandler to allocate the output as intermediate consumption of General Government, since the role of the Central Bank in the monetary policy area is similar to the role of the Finance Ministry in the fiscal policy area, even if it is an autonomous institutional unit, included in the Financial Corporations Sector and not in the General Government Sector.
It is true that the role of the Central Bank “is quite mixed depending from country to country and policies in place” , but the same is true for the role of the General Government, which relative importance in terms of output, value added and employment is certainly much higher than the Central Bank’s.
A less attractive alternative would be to allocate the services of the Central Bank to intermediate consumption of the banking sector. The Central Bank would be like a NPI serving business enterprises. However, the banking sector’s acquisition of the “market output” generated by the Central Bank would generally not be financed through contributions made and classified in IC as paying for the service received, as it is in the case of the NPI serving business enterprises.
| 5/19/2005||Bank of Indonesia||BI tends to agree to use cost approach for measuring the output of the central banks, instead of using the method of Financial Intermediary Services Indirectly Measured (FISIM). Indonesia currently faces difficulties in implementing FISIM.|
| 5/12/2005||Central Bank of Turkmenistan||We agree with the comment of the Group that when central banks' output is measured as interest receivable minus interest payable it distorts financial data in some countries, particularly in the developing ones. Therefore, we support the proposal to measure central banks' output by the costs method in situations when the distortion of data occurs.|
| 5/10/2005||Bank of Botswana||The recommendation to allow countries to choose one of two methods can lead to problems of comparability, especially since the basis for making the choice is not clearly set out. While the stated preferred option is to continue with the net interest approach it is clear that many countries prefer (and in some cases already use) the cost measure of production, and it may be better to take this route. To assume that all central bank output is intermediate consumption of the financial sector is too narrow.|
| 5/10/2005||Central Bank of Paraguay||Paraguay está de acuerdo con la recomendación del grupo de Expertos en elaborar la cuenta de producción de los bancos centrales al igual que la de los productores de servicios de no mercado. |
En las cuentas nacionales del Paraguay, el tratamiento que se le ha dado a la Banca Central, con la implementación del SCN 93 y el cambio de año base, ha sido la de contabilizar el valor bruto de producción como la suma de los costos en que incurre en su funcionamiento, como ser los pagos en remuneración a los asalariados, consumo intermedio, consumo de capital fijo, etc., es decir , al igual que la metodología utilizada en la medición de la producción bruta del sector gobierno.
Esta metodología es adoptada debido a que si se consideraba la aplicación de la diferencia entre los intereses cobrados y los intereses pagados como parte de la producción, nos encontrábamos con la situación de que durante algunos años este diferencial era negativo, obteniéndose un valor agregado también negativo.
A partir de esta situación, fue recomendable mantener este tratamiento de medición de la producción a través de los años, independientemente de si se daba una situación de un diferencial positivo en la relación de intereses cobrados y pagados. La adopción de un tratamiento variable de un año a otro podría conducir a considerables dificultades de comparación interanual, especialmente con respecto a los precios constantes, no solo para el propio Banco Central sino para las cifras agregadas a nivel de la actividad de servicios financieros.
| 5/9/2005||Central Bank of Iran||We agree with the AEG recommendation to measure central banks’ output at cost in the cases the FISIM approach leads to exceptionally low/high or negative output|
| 5/6/2005||Vietnam||We support the AEG recommendation and believe that the estimation of central bank output should reflect all its aspects of the activities but it is necessary to have more guidances of the alternative option of value central bank output at cost.|
| 4/25/2005||Central Bank of West African States|| cb_WesternAfricanStates6b; |
| 11/30/2004||Brazil||Brazil is measuring the Central output by its costs. Then we agree with the recomendations. |
The crucial question is how to allocate this output. In our actual system it is considered as financial sector intermediate consumption but in our new base (2000) we have the intention to change. The alternatives are in discussion.
| 11/16/2004||Central Bank of Chile||Se acepta la recomendación de elaborar la cuenta de producción de los bancos centrales coma la de productores de no mercado, cuando la situación lo justifique.
En la practica en Chile el tratamiento del Banco Central desde el ano 1986, ha sido contabilizar la producción bruta como suma de costos, sin excedente de explotación. La aplicación de dicha metodologia se debe a que el diferencial de intereses ha sido sistematicamente negativo.
A partir de la propia experiencia de Chile, es recomendable mantener el tratamiento a traves de los anos, independiente de si eventualmente existe una situación de un saldo positivo en la relación de intereses recibidos y pagados. La adopción de un tratamiento variable de ano en ano conduce a serias dificultades de comparación interanual, especialmente a precios constantes, no solo para el propio banco central sino para las cifras agregadas a nivel del sector instituciones financieras como un todo.
| 11/3/2004||Bank of Tanzania/National Bureau of Statistics||Measurement of central banks` output at cost, as an alternative to the SNA 1993 net interest approach is agreed. Currently, the National Accounts are being revised by our National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) and will measure the central bank`s output at cost. However, we are also concerned with the specific sectors that consume central banks output and this should clearly be clarified. |
| 10/25/2004||Bank of Japan||The Central Bank of Japan disagrees with the AEG recommendations and recommends that the Central bank service output be measured at cost as for non-market producers. It also introduces three ideas and their problems that would hopefully aid future discussions.|
1. Record all central bank service outputs as intermediate consumption by financial intermediaries, under the hypothesis that financial intermediaries consume all central bank service outputs.
2. Record all central bank service outputs as intermediate consumption by the general government sector, under the assumption that the general government consumes all central bank service outputs.
3. As a principle, record central bank service output in relating sectors if the economic body that made the consumption is apparent.
See details in attached paper.
| 10/20/2004||Central Bank of Syria||We agree with the recommendations of the AEG.|
| 10/19/2004||Central Bank of Russia||The CBR agrees with the recommendation to have the opportunity to choose the method to estimate the output of the central bank. It`s obvious that the functions of central banks are wider than functions of financial intermediaries. Some of them are dissimilar from market producer such as issuing currency, managing the international reserves etc. We believe that the estimation of the central bank output should reflect all the aspects of its activity. That`s why we support the cost method instead of indirectly measured approach. We consider that the cost method of measuring central bank output shouldn`t require reclassifying the central bank from the financial corporation sector to any other.
We also consider that the use of the output of a central bank should be attributed to the intermediate consumption of the financial sector.
The same approaches of measurement and allocation of the output of the central bank were recommended by the Interstate statistical committee of the CIS and are being applied by the countries-members of the CIS at present.
| 10/18/2004||National Bank of Tajikistan ||The National Bank of Tajikistan agrees with the recommendations of the AEG.|
| 10/14/2004||National Bank of Poland||Since according to present SNA the output of Central Banks maybe over time exceptionally large or exceptionally small or ever negative, it does not show properly the input of the Bank into GDP. Thus we would prefer to measure the output at cost. This does not mean that Central Bank is to be treated as part of general government sector.|
| 10/12/2004||Nicaragua||We agree with the recommendations suggested by AEG. Nicaragua currently
estimates central bank`s output using a sum of cost approach, where the
commissions paid by commercial banks, are classified as intermediate
consumption of financial corporations. The difference between output value
of the central bank and commissions are assigned to FISIM, which is
considered part of the nominal sector. |
| 10/12/2004||Bank of Colombia||Estamos de acuerdo con las recomendaciones sugeridas por el grupo AEG en el sentido de estudiar mejor el método alternativo propuesto para medir el producto de los bancos centrales y determinara los casos especiales para su implementación.|
| 10/12/2004||Reserve Bank of Australia||We support the AEG recommendations, and agree that more guidance is necessary as to when to utilise the alternative option of valuing central bank output at cost.|
| 10/7/2004||European Central Bank||The "recommendation" of the AEG was mainly that "further work is needed". In this respect, the ECB does not fully agree with the proposal shown in the note discussed by the AEG in February 2004. ECB views may be summarized as follow: a) The ECB recommends treating the output of central banks `at cost`. This treatment is in line with the proposal as outlined in the ESA95 (Council Regulation (EC) No 448/98 of 16 February 1998). It also fosters the international comparability of data and reflects more adequately the specific role of central banks. b) The ECB also recommends keeping the financial corporations sector classification of central banks because of their distinct activities from central government. The ECB also does not see a need to change the paragraphs 4.87 and 4.121 of the SNA93 due to the different treatment of compiling the output of central banks `at cost`. c) Finally, the ECB recommends that the central banks` output should be allocated to intermediate consumption by the financial intermediaries as classified in the financial corporations` sub-sectors S.122 and S.123, which is in line with the ESA 95 (Council Regulation (EC) No 448/98).|
| 10/6/2004||National Bank of Serbia||Regarding the central banks production recommendations, we believe there is no cause for concern in our case, since the functions of the central bank are clearly separated from the government and there are no overlaps with the government sector. Furthermore, from December 2003, the accounting departments of the central bank and commercial banks, as well as other financial institutions are obliged to abide by the International Accounting Standards, so that we have no reasons to believe that from the SNA standpoint there would be any problems. Data on numerous transactions are recorded down to the deep level structure on specialized accounts, so that new statistical requests may be satisfied through further SNA supplements.|
| 10/6/2004||National Bank of Moldova||We support the AEG recommendations that the output of central banks may be measured at cost and it would be useful to have clear criteria for when the alternative method should be used.
We consider that no amendments are needed in the paragraphs 4.87 and 4.121.|
| 10/5/2004||Bank of Korea||We agree with the suggestion that the output of central banks be measured at cost if the method recommended by 1993 SNA produces unreasonable results. However, it is possible that this alternative method will weaken comparability. To prevent this, it would be useful to set up standards for distinguishing situations when the alternative method should be used. |
| 10/5/2004||National Bank of Belgium||La Belgique est favorable au changement apporté au paragraphe 6.132. c`est-à-dire à l`introduction de la méthode alternative de calcul de la production de la banque centrale sur base des coûts.
La méthode de calcul de la production de la Banque Centrale sur base des coûts est prévue dans la Règlementation Européenne relative à l`introduction de l`allocation du SIFIM (EC N° 448/98 et EC N° 1889/2002).
| 10/4/2004||South African Reserve Bank||We calculate the output of the central bank at cost.|
| 10/1/2004||National Bank of Hungary||We think that the output of central banks should be measured at cost. The current SNA treatment may lead to unacceptable results in economic sense. The allocation of the output of the central bank between sectors is an issue, which needs clarification. |
| 9/30/2004||Central Bank of Madagascar||Effectivement, Madagascar a connu cette expérience d`un output négatif à partir d`une méthode par l`intérêt net. Mais étant entendu que la recherche à tout prix des résultats positifs n`est pas la vocation primaire de la Banque Centrale de Madagascar, l`approche actuelle lui convient parfaitement pour l`atteinte de son objectif primordial qu`est la stabilité interne et externe de la monnaie nationale. Nous approuvons aussi que la méthode de mesure par le coût soit une alternative recommandée au cas où l`approche par l`intérêt net faillit.|
| 9/30/2004||Macao, SAR China||We are pleased to express our agreement with the proposal.|
| 9/30/2004||USA||The United States strongly supports the initiatives to improve the accounting for financial services. There have been important changes in the economic environment in this area, and improving the national accounting treatment is important to the national accounts and its users.|
| 9/30/2004||Germany|| m1(c)de6; |
| 9/30/2004||Bank of Latvia||Latvia is in agreement with the recommendations of the AEG and we do not have any particular comment at this stage.|
| 9/30/2004||National Bank of Switzerland|| m1(c)nb_sw6; |
| 9/30/2004||Central Bank of The Netherlands||With respect to the allocation of the output of central banks (and the issue of sector classification of the central bank), we concur with the opinion paper prepared by the ECB. For the sake of clarity, we refer to this paper. |
| 9/30/2004||Bank of Guyana||This should be measured at fair value to be consistence with the monetary manual.
| 9/30/2004||Lesotho - Central Bank||The measurement of the outputs of central banks at cost as an alternative to the current measurement will be reviewed. Allocation of the output of central banks will also be discussed.
Comment: Services rendered accounted for at unit cost basis. |
| 9/27/2004||Austria||Statistics Austria is in favour of the AEG recommendations valuing the output of CBs on the basis of the production costs. For international comparability the recommendation should clarify that this is the preferred method. The allocation of the output to the intermediate use of the banking sector should be clearly stated to be in line with existing European legislation (FISIM Regulation).|
| 9/20/2004||India||In the Indian system of national accounts, output of the Issue Department Central Bank is measured at cost, while output of the Banking Department is measured as recommended in the 1993 SNA by treating the activity of the Banking Department as financial intermediary (Output being the difference between property income receivable less interest payable). However, varying practices adopted by different countries would naturally pose the problems of comparability across countries. The current recommendation in SNA/M1.04/16 still suggests the interest approach as the preferred approach and suggests the alternative approach of measurement at costs only when the FISIM approach leads to exceptionally low/high or negative output.|
Regarding amendments in the Paragraph 6.132, these changes should be in accordance with the changes in the definition of financial corporation as proposed in the recommendation SNA/M1.04/15. We do not feel that any amendments are needed in the paragraphs 4.87 and 4.121.
| 8/24/2004||United Kingdom||We agree to the suggestion that a solution is needed on the problem of the allocation of the output of central banks. However, we are concerned that the decision is left to countries to choose which option suits them best. This will undoubtedly lead to incomparability of the estimates of the sector, and the national accounts between countries due to differences in methods used to measure the output of the sector.|
| 8/13/2004||Malaysia||We support the AEG recommendation. However, an order of preference should be indicated.|
| 8/12/2004||Australia||Australia supports the proposition that at least some part of the output of central banks might best be measured at cost. However, as noted by the AEG, if this is the case then clarification is required on which sectors are consuming the output, and what the implications of this are.|
| 8/11/2004||Canada||Canada agrees with the recommendation to offer choice of using the cost approach to measure output of the central bank in cases were the FISIM approach leads to exceptionally small or large estimates due to reserve requirements as is the Canadian case.|
| 8/11/2004||Slovak Republic||Slovakia welcomes the revision of the measurement of the central banks production within the process o SNA 93 revision. However, we recommend unifying the measurement of the output of central banks with respect to the Council Regulation (EC) No 448/98 of February 1998. That means the output of central bank (as a part of the financial corporations sector S.12 according ESA 95) should be measured as the sum of costs and the central bank and must be excluded from the calculation of FISIM. The central bank output should be entirely allocated to the intermediaries (subsectors S.122-S.123 of ESA 95). Further, we recommend changing of paragraphs 4.85 and 4.121 according to ESA 95.|
| 8/11/2004||Botswana||The question of preferred approach raises a lot of questions because a preferred approach in one country may produce adverse results in the other. Indeed many countries have problems in using the interest approach because of unusual values realised. It happens that there are ambiguities in quantifying the contribution of the Central Bank. The cost approach is convenient but one can say that it also can generate unusual values if applied consistently for very long time. It can underestimate or over estimate the contribution of the bank in terms of output, i.e. if costs diminish over time because of technology, output will also take that trend. Un like non-market producers whose role is specifically known the role of the central bank is quite mixed depending from country to country and policies in place. Cases of economies in transition can be an interesting one especially when a number of policy framework are being adapted simultaneously.
Our view is that this is not something straight but it requires a combination of methods that should be underpinned to the central banks and their functions as financial institutions. Our view is that this is a grey area, which still requires further research.|
| 8/11/2004||South Africa||Our view is that the lack of data required to include more than just banks in the calculation of FISIM in South Africa would put the reliability of FISIM into question. South Africa calculates the output of the central bank at cost. The sectors that consume the output of the central bank in South Africa are the financial corporations, general government and on a limited scale the rest of the world. |
| 8/11/2004||Norway||We agree that the output of central banks may be measured at cost if the normal method shows unreasonable results. To ensure comparability in the estimates over time and across countries, it would be useful to have clear criteria for when the alternative method should be used. It should also be made clear what is the preferred method and what is the second best method.|
| 8/11/2004||Denmark||Statistics Denmark supports the changes in paragraph 6.132, but guidelines are needed on how to counterbalance output, when interest flows are recorded gross (without FISIM deduction) as a revenue in the allocation of the primary income account. However, the central bank usually carries out functions dissimilar to market producers e.g. issuing coins and notes and the maintenance of the international reserves. In such cases a sum of cost approach will be preferable. In cases (presumably few) where the central bank acts more or less as a market producer, an approach corresponding to other financial intermediaries would seem justified.
In connection with paragraph 6.132, only a review on paragraph 4.87 would be desirable.|
| 8/11/2004||Japan|| m1(c)jp6b; |
| 8/11/2004||Jordan||The recommendation of the AEG is acceptable.|
| 8/11/2004||The Netherlands||Regarding the treatment of the central banks, we agree with the recommendations of the AEG.|
| 8/11/2004||New Zealand||Measure the output of central banks at cost, as an alternative to the SNA93 net interest approach. Agreed. This is current NZ practice, with the output purchased by Central Government Administration. |