HomeSNAISWGNAKnowledge BaseData Publications
You are here:   ISWGNA >> Updating the SNA >> Towards the 2008 SNA >> 1993 SNA Update Information >> List of Clarifications

1993 SNA Update Information - Financial corporations classification

Clarification description
Proposal for sub-sectoring the financial cororations sector.
Country comments
Number of country comments for selected clarification:23
  Date postedSourceComment
 10/11/2006ArmeniaThe National Statistical Service of the Republic of Armenia agrees with the most recent AEG recommendations.
 9/29/2006Bank of KoreaWe agree with most of the recommendations of the AEG. We, however, prefer to treat MMF not as Investment Funds but as Monetary Financial Intermediaries. Because most of MMFs in Korea are used as means of money substitutes rather than investment schemes.
 8/25/2006Central Bank of Ecuador m4cbEcuadorC30;
 8/21/2006Central Bank of El SalvadorSe está de acuerdo.

The SCN agrees with the AEG.
 8/18/2006NetherlandsWe generally support the recommendations made at the Frankfurt Meeting of the AEG.
 8/18/2006Bank of England“Money Market Funds – we support the views expressed by the ECB and the Banca d’Italia that MMFs should be classified within the MFI sector, to preserve coherence with the definition of broad money:”
 8/18/2006USAWe agree with the recommendations of the AEG.
 8/2/2006European Central Bank m4ECBC30;
 8/1/2006National Bank/National Bureau of MoldovaNational Bank and National Bureau for Statistics of Moldova agree with the recommendations made at the latest meeting of the AEG.
 8/1/2006Reserve Bank of South AfricaWe agree with the recommendation to show money market funds explicitely, while "pension fund corporations" could be replaced with "pension fund institutions".
 7/31/2006Macao SARStatistics and Census Service of Macao SAR agrees to the AEG recommendations and has no further comments.
 7/31/2006Bank of IndonesiaBI agrees with the recommendation to clasify Money-market funds as "investment funds" and shown separately from monetary financial institutions. Currently BI excludes money market funds from the classification of monetary financial institutions (consists of central banks and other depository corporations).
 7/31/2006Bosnia and HerzegovinaWe agree with AEG recommendations on the update of the 1993 SNA and do not have any further comments.
 7/28/2006VietnamWe agree with the outcomes of the AEG in this issue.
 7/28/2006National Bank of SlovakiaConcerning the results of the most recent AEG meeting, we fully support the conclusions and recommendations made by the AEG. However, as a member of the ESCB, the National Bank of Slovakia fully supports the comments of the ECB.
 7/28/2006Bank of PolandWe would like to express our concern about the AEG proposal to shift money market funds (MMFs) into the “Investment funds” category. In line with the current meaning of international standards, MMFs activity is of a monetary character therefore their liabilities are component of broad money. Thus, sectoral classification of financial institutions should be flexible enough to allow for an adequate assignment to particular monetary aggregates. In our opinion, MMFs should remain to be classified to S.122 subsector or, at least, presented separately if the decision is taken to include them into a different sector.
 7/28/2006Bank of PortugalWe disagree with the AEG proposal regarding the inclusion of money market funds (MMF) to investment funds. We consider that MMF issue monetary liabilities and so, they should be classified within the S.122 -Other Monetary Financial Institutions. This view is supported by the current SNA, the ESA 95 and the IMF Monetary and Financial Statistics Manual. The 1993 SNA refers in paragraph 4.94 that an institution that issues close substitutes for deposits included in broad money should be included in S.122. The 1995 ESA refers in paragraph 2.51 that investment funds that satisfy the definition of MFI, in particular in what concerns the provision of instruments that are close substitutes for deposits, should be classified in S.122. Finally, the IMF Monetary and Financial Statistics Manual states, in paragraph 100, that if the liabilities of investment funds "are included in broad money, they should be classified as other depository corporations". Notwithstanding, we consider that, whatever the sectoral classificat
 7/27/2006PolandThe proposed sub-sectoring of financial corporations sector seems very clear and useful. It is especially important to distinguish “financial auxiliaries” as a separate sub-sector due to specific activities of corporations providing financial auxiliary services.
 7/27/2006Bank of Sierra LeoneWe agree with the recommendations made by the AEG.
 7/25/2006Bank of ItalyWe understand that a further difficulty concerns the treatment of Money market funds (MMF). The difficulty stems from the fact that MMFs have certain features in common with other investment funds, but at the same time they are like banks in that their liabilities are mainly of a monetary nature. Such liabilities are often included in the definition of monetary aggregates. We believe that it is essential that the sectoral classification of financial institution should be consistent with the definition of money; therefore we believe that it is necessary to group MMFs with central banks and commercial banks in the subgroup of Monetary financial institutions. Within that, they could be grouped with banks under a sub-sub-group of Commercial MFIs; or alternatively (and perhaps preferably) they could be shown separately in a sub-sub-group of their own. Again, a degree of flexibility could be useful to accommodate different institutional frameworks.
 7/24/2006Sweden m4SwedenC30;
 7/24/2006SwitzerlandConsidering their increasing significance, we welcome the fact that investment funds are a category on its own, and the fact that its broad definition includes closed-end investment companies issuing equity. We also support the opinion that money-market funds should be classified as investment funds and not as monetary financial intermediaries. We have a reservation regarding the wording “Miscellaneous financial intermediaries”, as opposed to “financial auxiliaries”. This wording might be misleading, especially for units lending their own funds. There is now wide agreement that these units should be considered financial corporation even though they do not provide financial intermediation as defined in the present version of the SNA. These units provide financial services, and it seems important to distinguish them from mere “financial auxiliaries” as their activity involves purchasing assets on their own account and bearing a financial risk. This last fact should help to separate them from other “financial auxiliaries”.
 7/24/2006National 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.
Navigation Options
*Back to Clarifications
*See all AEG recommendations for selected clarification

About  |  Sitemap  |  Contact Us
Copyright © United Nations, 2023