| 11/27/2006||Australia||We agree with the recommendations made by AEG at its Jan-Feb 2006 meeting. However, we note that since the meeting the ISWGNA has ruled that “by convention head offices of financial corporations are to be treated as financial auxiliaries in the SNA”. We disagree with this. Our view is that the head offices of financial corporations should be allocated to the sub-sector to which most of the subsidiaries are allocated. For example, if a head office has mostly deposit-taking institution subsidiaries, then the head office should also be allocated to the deposit-taking institution sub-sector, and not to the financial auxiliaries sub-sector.|
| 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 generally support the recommendations. |
| 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 Issues.|
| 8/25/2006||Central Bank of Ecuador||auxiliares, se presenta la dificultad de no disponer de estadísticas para trabajar por separado; por lo general, en el caso ecuatoriano, la información contable se presenta consolidada; las grandes empresas manejan internamente la información pormenorizada, sin embargo, en la práctica no la proporciona a los organismos de control o a las instituciones estadísticas.|
| 8/21/2006||Central Bank of El Salvador|| m4cbElSalvador25; m4cbElSalvador25-english; |
| 8/18/2006||Netherlands||In our opinion, some of the questions related to the treatment of units have been clarified significantly by the recommendations proposed. We only have some doubts regarding the treatment of holding companies. We think that, from an economic and analytical point of view, classification of holding companies to the sector of the related subsidiaries may be preferable.|
| 8/18/2006||Italy||We are in favour of the recommendations to treat ancillary units as separate establishments (when they meet conditions) and holding companies as financial corporations. Nevertheless, we have some concerns about some specific aspects: criteria for defining establishments or holding corporations, consistency with ISIC treatment and residency issue for BOP compilation. |
| 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||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.|
| 8/1/2006||Central Bank of Chile||En relación a las actividades auxiliares estamos de acuerdo que deben registrarse en establecimientos separados, cuando cumplan los requisitos para su clasificación como establecimientos. De esta forma se registra en adecuadamente la composición del valor agregado por rama de actividad y se logra una mejor medición de las regiones geográficas donde esté localizada la actividad auxiliar. De igual manera estamos de acuerdo con la valoración de las actividades auxiliares como suma de costos más una asignación proporcional del excedente de explotación a los establecimientos que sirve. Esta producción debe registrarse como consumo intermedio de los establecimientos que demandan los productos de estas actividades auxiliares.|
Iguales criterios son válidos para las corporaciones auxiliares y las casas matrices de compañías holding, estamos de acuerdo con el tratamiento propuesto, es decir registrarlos como unidades institucionales.
En el caso de las SPEs (Special Purpose Entities), estamos de acuerdo en que se traten como unidades institucionales cuando satisfagan el criterio para calificarlas como tales, y su producción debe ser valorado a costo si no está disponible un método para valorarlas a precio de mercado.
| 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 fully agrees with the principal concept, and has already implemented the concept in classifying restructuring agencies in Indonesia as part of general government.|
| 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||i. Ancillary activities:|
We agree that:
- Units undertaking ancillary activities should be recognize as separate establishment (ancillary units) when they satisfy the conditions to be an establishment and should be classified according to their own economic activity.
- Output of ancillary units should be value by sum of cost plus a proportional allocation of the operating surplus of the establishment it serves
- Operating surplus of establishments is serves may be allocated to the ancillary unit by share of their output, value added research organizations employment or turnover.
However, measuring operating surplus of establishment it serves may be difficulty.
- We also agree that: output of ancillary units should be allocated as intermediate consumption to establishments they serves.
ii. Ancillary corporations:
- We agree that ancillary corporations should be recognized as institutional units and should be classified in their own right when they satisfy the criteria for qualifying as institutional unit and also agree with treatment way of the AEG in these points.
iii. Holding companies:
- We do not agree parent companies without significant production recognized as holding companies should be classified as “other financial intermediaries”. Because without significant production that do not mean they can not produce production; other hand, for sampling of collection of data and calculation …etc. We think that parent companies with significant production should be a separate institutional unit.
iv. Special purpose entities
- We agree with recommendation and outcomes with the AEG in this issue
v. Trust funds and investment funds
- We agree with recommendation and outcomes of the AEG
vi. Restructuring agencies
- We agree with outcomes of the AEG
vii. Output of ancillary units
We recognize that output of ancillary units should be recorded as market output when it is classified as part of the financial or non- financial corporations sector and non- market output when it is classified in the general.
| 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||Bank of Portugal||We generally agree with the recommendations. However it is important to have a comprehensive recording of all entities, with the establishment of borderlines between institutional units and ancillaries based on statistical criteria, namely the existence of a complete and, separate set of accounts, the planning to operate the business indefinitely/for a long period and the subjection to income tax.|
Regarding the Special Purpose Entities (SPE), Banco de Portugal is improving FDI statistics in the medium-term towards a separate identification of SPE.
| 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||The treatment of the ancillary unit should remain as it is in present SNA. That it should not be treated as separate unit and its cost should be consolidated with the unit it serves.|
| 7/25/2006||Bank of Italy||We broadly support the conclusions.|
| 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. |
| 7/24/2006||Germany|| m4Germany25; |
It is our understanding, that the AEG considers the recommendations on the treatment of ancillary units to be a clarification, but that no changes in the concept compared to SNA 1993 is intended. (cf. Anne Harrison, “Full set of recommendations”, p. 33-34, paper presented to the Conference of European Statisticians, Geneva 25-28 April 2006. ECE/CES/GE.20/2006/SP6).
Generally it is important, that the proposed changes in and clarifications of concepts are co-ordinated with proposals of other international manuals concerning the same concepts (i.e. ISIC)