Another change related to the recording of non-life insurance transactions and catastrophes concerns the recording of claims. According to the 1993 SNA, these claims are to be recorded as current transfers. On the other hand, according to the 2008 SNA, exceptionally large claims, such as those following a catastrophe, may be recorded as capital transfers, as the recording as an income transfer could distort measures such as disposable income and saving The question arises which claims are to be considered as resulting from a major catastrophe and, consequently, are to be recorded as a capital transfer.

At a micro-level, one could probably argue that every claim constitutes a capital transfer, as the claim will relate to the reimbursement of damaged/stolen durable goods and/or assets. Also, again looking from the micro point of view, most claims will distort the disposable income and saving of an individual household or enterprise. However, this certainly is not what the 2008 SNA is suggesting. The 2008 SNA seems to imply that (major) catastrophes are to be defined at a much higher level, e.g. at the national level. However, what constitutes a major catastrophe in a small country may be more or less irrelevant in a major economy. As a consequence, one country may record part of the claims as capital transfers, whereas another country considers them as income transfers. In the case of international trans-border transactions, this may lead to inconsistencies. An alternative approach is to ask the insurance industry to provide data on claims related to major catastrophes, as suggested by the US BEA. Although this may also contain a rather subjective element, it may indeed be the most viable solution.

The AEG discussed the issue at its 7th meeting and below are its conclusions. The AEG:

• Agreed that a catastrophe is an exceptional event and that the classification of claims arising from a catastrophe should be determined at the national level.


• Recognized that this approach could lead to inconsistencies in the recording of international transfers, and that these should be resolved on a case by case basis where possible.


• Noted that further clarification is needed on whether capital transfers should only be recognised for claims related to the loss of capital assets in the event of a catastrophe, and requested the ISWGNA to investigate the issue.

The publication entitled Handbook of National Accounting: Financial Production, Flows and Stocks in the System of National Accounts (United Nations) reflects the guidance on this issue.

For more information see paragraphs 29 to 31 of the conclusions of the 7th AEG meeting.