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

1993 SNA Update Information - Country comments for issue:
Classification and terminology of assets

Issue description
Issue description in [English] | [French] | [Russian] | [Spanish]
Should the classification of non-financial assets be revised in light of the review of a wide range of non-financial assets? Is the tangible/intangible dichotomy still of primary importance in the classification?
Country comments
Number of country comments for selected issue:32
  Date postedSourceComment
 11/27/2006AustraliaWe generally agree with the recommendations made by AEG, but we would have preferred adopting ‘depreciation’ instead of ‘consumption as fixed capital’, as very few outside of the national accounts community know what the altter term means.
 10/11/2006ArmeniaThe National Statistical Service of the Republic of Armenia agrees with the most recent AEG recommendations.
 9/29/2006Bank of KoreaWe mostly agree with the classification, but more discussion is needed to include military assets to fixed assets. In Korea's case, it is difficult to get information on detailed military assets. Thus, concerning the item we reserve our opinion.
 9/15/2006United KingdomWe do not agree with the proposed classification, in as far as it includes contracts, leases and licences as non-produced non-financial assets. We believe that all contracts of a generic nature should be classified under financial assets, as a form of financial derivative.
We have concerns that radio spectra are classified as a natural resource. This is part of a wider debate which has not yet taken place on how we should regard sovereign rights on land, air space, electromagnetic spectra, sea-beds etc. These rights may be independent of private or public ownership of the associated mineral rights etc.
 9/15/2006LatviaAfter deep discussions and expert consultations we basically support the 1993 SNA Update Issues.
 9/15/2006PolandThere is however one more point within issue 27 we would like to express our opinion about. It concerns proposed division of inventories. We are of the opinion that military inventories should not be separate position. If such treatment will be sustained it will raise many questions concerning confidentiality and we will not be able to follow it.
 8/21/2006Central Bank of El Salvador m4cbElSalvador27; m4cbElSalvador27english;
 8/18/2006NetherlandsWe generally support the recommendations made at the Frankfurt Meeting of the AEG.
 8/18/2006USAWe generally agree with the recommendations of the AEG. However, we note that we would have preferred to change the term “consumption of fixed capital” to the more commonly understood term “depreciation.”
 8/18/2006State Bank of PakistanThe following sub-categories are suggested under “Inventories” in the proposed revised classification of non-financial assets.
      Stores and Spares (suggested category)
      Material & supplies
      Raw material(suggested category)
      Work in progress
         WIP on cultivated assets
         Other work in progress
      Finished Goods
      Military inventories
      Goods held for resale (for trading concern)
 8/2/2006European Central BankThe ECB generally supports the recommendations made by the AEG.
 8/1/2006National Bank/ National Bureau for Statistics 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 strongly support the recommendation that the terminology "consumption of fixed capital" should not be changed.
 7/31/2006IsraelWe agree with the recommendations of the AEG on this issue. The item of ICT equipment, which is new, might need further clarification.
 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 questioning whether non monetary gold, gold coins and commemorative coins should be classified as financial assets ? Currently BI still classify those assets as part of valuable in non-financial assets category. BI also agree with the proposed classification of more detail non-financial assets.
 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 AEG in treatment on classification and terminology
- However, the breakdown of fixed assets as question (c) more details and very complicated. This issue should be difficulty to implement.
 7/28/2006FranceL’INSEE regrette que le changement introduit dans la nomenclature des actifs non financiers et dans la nomenclature des catégories d’autres changements de volume des actifs soit allé au-delà de ce qui est rendu nécessaire par les modifications de traitement de certaines catégories d’actifs (par exemple, le passage des résultats de la recherche de la position d’actifs non-produits à la position d’actifs produits).
Il est en particulier regrettable que les catégories d’actifs corporels et d’actifs incorporels disparaissent de la nomenclature, alors qu’elles appartiennent par exemple au vocabulaire de la comptabilité d’entreprise. La nomenclature résultante présente ainsi plus l’aspect d’un catalogue que d’une classification structurée.
Il est regrettable que les pays qui produisent déjà des comptes de patrimoine et de variations de patrimoine et qui ont dû pour cela diffuser les catégories du SCN93, soient quelques années plus tard obligés de changer leur présentation et se trouvent de ce fait pénalisés.
 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.
 7/28/2006LithuaniaIn general we support the recommendations.
 7/28/2006Bank of PortugalBanco 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).
 7/28/2006Bank of PolandPlease find our general support for the AEG recommendations made during its recent meeting in Frankfurt.
 7/27/2006PolandWe are against treating land improvements as a separate position. They, in our opinion, should be included into other structures.
If the ICT equipment is going to be a separate heading its clear definition has to be developed.
We sustain our earlier opinion that showing military assets as a separate position can be impossible to implement in practice.
We do not see any possibility to exclude costs of ownership transfer on non-produced assets under a separate heading.
We would like to sustain our previous opinion that it can be very difficult in practice to divide category “computer software and databases” into two sub-categories.
We feel that the proposed breakdown of valuables goes too far and are of the opinion that all valuables should be kept together in one position.
 7/27/2006Bank of Sierra LeoneWe agree with the recommendations made by the AEG.
 7/27/2006EgyptThe classification of the non-financial assets should be revised to cover wide range of classification. Also it is supposed to revise the items appearing in the other changes in assets account to be more representing the causes of changes. The suggested classification is supported.
 7/25/2006Bank of ItalyWe broadly support the conclusions.
 7/24/2006SwitzerlandWe broadly agree with the outcome of the AEG discussion. In particular, we welcome the fact that the word “expenditure” will be deleted from the “R&D expenditure” category as it constitutes the output of R&D. We would also favour the split out of ICT equipment, an item which does not appear as such in the outcome, but was discussed at the meeting. Finally, regarding the links between the SNA and SEEA, while we support the idea that it is important in principle to align the SNA and SEEA classifications as far as possible, consistency with the BPM and GFSM is also very important.
Regarding the issue of gross fixed capital formation v. economic depreciation, we agree with AEG that a compromise solution could be to revert to the second denomination (economic depreciation).
 7/24/2006Germany m4Germany27;
 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.
The new SNA should have a clear definition of ICT-equipment and the borderline between ICT-equipment and other machinery and equipment if ICT-equipment should have it own heading in the System.
 1/3/2006CubaConsideramos que tanto la clasificación, frontera, valoración y definición de los activos convienen ser revisados. Debe ser analizado también el criterio de propiedad por parte de una unidad institucional, dado que en la metodología actual aparecen los flujos en el sistema una vez que comienzan a usarse como activos económicos; quedan excluidos recursos naturales de la actual clasificación, etc.
La formación de capital humano, forma parte en la actualidad del consumo final ante la imposibilidad hasta la fecha de considerar su apropiación por el individuo como activo. Deberá buscarse una solución para registrarse como activo
Los gastos de I+D, no se consideran activos con excepción de los destinados a la exploración minera, ya descritos. Proponemos que la I+D forme parte de los activos, y que los trabajos de exploración minera se registren independientes del stocks de reservas económicamente explotable.
Navigation Options
*Back to Issues
*See all issues/subissues with country comments
*See all AEG recommendations for this issue
*See all expert comments for this issue

About  |  Sitemap  |  Contact Us
Copyright © United Nations, 2024