| 11/27/2006 | Australia | SDRs:
We agree with the AEG’s recommendations. |
| 11/27/2006 | Australia | Non-monetary gold:
We agree with the AEG’s recommendations. |
| 10/11/2006 | Armenia | The National Statistical Service of the Republic of Armenia agrees with the most recent AEG recommendations. |
| 10/10/2006 | Sweden | Further clarification/analysis required |
| 9/29/2006 | Bank of Korea | Non-monetary gold:
We broadly support the AEG recommendations. |
| 9/29/2006 | Bank of Korea | Liability aspects of SDRs and international reserves:
We fully support the recommendations.
|
| 9/29/2006 | Bank of Korea | Classification and terminology of financial assets and liabilities in the updated SNA:
We broadly support the recommendations made by the AEG. |
| 9/15/2006 | United Kingdom | The UK generally supports the proposals for the financial instrument classification as recommended by the AEG. We nevertheless have the following specific comments:
In the associated discussion of gold at the 4th AEG meeting, we agree with the AEG's recommendations on the five questions posed under this heading but consider that the account of this topic in the meeting report indicates the need for particular care when relevant SNA text is being drafted. Specifically, the short report of the meeting says: "Again it is raised whether non-monetary gold should be classified as a financial asset rather than under valuables in the asset classification. Non-monetary gold being a financial asset would allow for the gold transactions to be netted, in line with financial transactions." We consider this account to be misleading. The proposals in the agenda paper and the recommendations of the AEG do not affect either the classification of non monetary gold or its accounting treatment. The issue is rather to clarify that holdings of unallocated gold are financial assets (deposits) within the system rather than monetary or non monetary gold. This clarification will ensure that the bulk of bullion market dealing - which occurs using unallocated metal accounts - is recorded in the financial account while still leaving holdings of non monetary gold in the system to be recorded as valuables and reported gross in the relevant flow accounts. Holdings of allocated gold constitute title to physical metal and may be classified as monetary or non monetary gold depending on the classification of the institution holding title. Unallocated gold by contrast is an unsecured claim against a third party to deliver physical gold. In form it is directly comparable to an unsecured claim against a third party to deliver currency - a deposit in the language of the SNA.
We support the separate identification of monetary gold and SDRs.
We support the retention of the distinction between Loans and Deposits and favour the identification of a new subcategory - inter bank positions - to remove the current ambiguity in the classification of such positions.
We support the separate identification of credit default products within financial derivatives (as proposed under topic 37) but note that this leads to a mix of instrument and risk based sub classifications under this heading. One possible resolution could be to make the main sub classifications: Market risk products; Credit risk products; and Employee stock options; and then to further divide Market risk products into forward type instruments and options. |
| 9/15/2006 | Latvia | After deep discussions and expert consultations we basically support the
1993 SNA Update Issues. |
| 9/15/2006 | Norway | Financial derivatives:
Regarding financial derivatives, we are not in favour of a distinction between different types of financial derivatives. |
| 9/14/2006 | Bank of Lithuania | Distinction between loans and deposits:
We agree that distinction between loans and deposits should be maintained. |
| 8/21/2006 | Central Bank of El Salvador | Nonmonetary gold:
Se está de acuerdo con los puntos a, b y d. Para el resto se considera necesario mayor revisión y una definición más clara del tipo de mercancía que se clasificará como activo.
The SCN agrees with points (a), (b), and (d). For the other points, further review is needed as well as a clearer definition of the types of goods to be classified as assets. |
| 8/21/2006 | Central Bank of El Salvador | SDRs:
 m4cbElSalvador44b; m4cbElSalvador44b-english; |
| 8/21/2006 | Central Bank of El Salvador | Classification and terminology of financial assets and liabilities:
m4cbElSalvador44e; m4cbElSalvador44e-english; |
| 8/18/2006 | Netherlands | We generally support the recommendations made at the Frankfurt Meeting of the AEG. |
| 8/18/2006 | Bank of England | Nonmonetary gold:
We agree with the AEG’s recommendations on the five questions posed under this heading but consider that the account of this topic in the meeting report indicates the need for particular care when relevant SNA text is being drafted. Specifically, the short report of the meeting says: “Again it is raised whether non-monetary gold should be classified as a financial asset rather than under valuables in the asset classification. Non-monetary gold being a financial asset would allow for the gold transactions to be netted, in line with financial transactions.”
We consider this account to be misleading. The proposals in the agenda paper and the recommendations of the AEG do not affect either the classification of non monetary gold or its accounting treatment. The issue is rather to clarify that holdings of unallocated gold are financial assets (deposits) within the system rather than monetary or non monetary gold. This clarification will ensure that the bulk of bullion market dealing is recorded in the financial account while still leaving holdings of non monetary gold in the system to be recorded as valuables and reported gross in the relevant flow accounts. Holdings of allocated gold constitute title to physical metal and may be classified as monetary or non monetary gold depending on the classification of the institution holding title. Unallocated gold by contrast is an unsecured claim against a third party to deliver physical gold. In form it is directly comparable to an unsecured claim against a third party to deliver currency – a deposit in the language of the SNA.
The meeting report goes on: “Moreover, as a consequence, fee payments to owners of gold loans would be classified as property income rather than a service.” This is again misleading. Gold lending normally (perhaps always) involves the transfer of physical metal – allocated gold – so that the nature of such transactions are more complex than implied here. While there may be a case for assigning associated payments as property income as indicated, the treatment of these specialised transactions warrants separate attention along with repurchase agreements and securities lending. |
| 8/18/2006 | Bank of England | Classification and terminology of financial assets and liabilities:
• We consider that the items Monetary Gold and SDRs should be separately identified as standard items at the same level in the classification.
• The same confusions exist in this section of the meeting report on the classification and treatment of non monetary gold – see comment.
• The classification of financial derivatives here envisages three subclassifications: forwards; options; and employee stock options. However, later decisions on the treatment of guarantees introduce a fourth subclass for guarantees in the form of derivatives. We have taken this last class to comprise credit derivatives i.e. a risk rather than instrument class. We support the separate inclusion of credit derivatives within the classification and are generally more supportive of a risk rather than instrument based subclassification. But if the primary subclassification is to be forwards and options then we would not wish to add further detail by splitting this out by risk class. Bank of England Statistics currently do this but user demand for such detail has been insufficient to justify collection costs and we are currently reviewing the future of this collection.
• We consider the use of the term “currency” to be ambiguous at present. As set out in F2, “Currency and Deposits” it carries the meaning notes and coin in circulation. We regard this as correct usage. However, the term “foreign currency” is variously taken to mean notes and coin denominated in the units of another economic territory, or bank deposits so denominated. Deposits are a claim against a third party to receive currency, but they are not currency in their own right. The SNA text needs to make this clear. |
| 8/18/2006 | USA | Debt reorganization:
We agree with the recommendations of the AEG. |
| 8/18/2006 | USA | Nonmonetary gold:
We agree with the recommendations of the AEG. |
| 8/18/2006 | USA | SDRs:
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 | Hong Kong, China | Nonmonetary gold:
Given the specific nature of unallocated gold account, we agree to the AEG’s recommendation that unallocated gold and metal accounts should be classified as financial assets/liabilities, whereas allocated gold and metal accounts, held outside the central bank, should continue to be regarded as ownership of non-financial assets. This could avoid the distortion to external trade statistics when transactions related to unallocated accounts are significant. However, further study on whether transactions of allocated and unallocated gold can be easily identified in practice should be made before the decision made.
It would also be useful to provide more examples to illustrate how the recommendation would affect GDP and various national accounts. |
| 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 | National Bank/ National Bureau for Statistics Moldova | Nonmonetary gold:
We welcome the AEG decision to classify unallocated gold and other metal accounts as financial assets/liabilities with identification of a specific deposit class. |
| 8/1/2006 | National Bank/ National Bureau for Statistics Moldova | Classification and terminology of financial assets and liabilities:
We welcome the efforts and decisions of the AEG to harmonize the SNA with BPM5 and External Debt Statistics Guide in such issues as treatment of SDRs issued by the IMF, classification and terminology of financial assets and liabilities.
|
| 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 | Nonmonetary gold:
BI 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. |
| 7/31/2006 | Bank of Indonesia | SDRs:
BI has no objection to the recommedations. |
| 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 | SDRs:
- We recognize SDR allocations as gross liabilities in the system and the allocation and cancellations of SDR should be classified as transaction.
- So that, SDR should be treated as an instrument in the SNA, with assets and liabilities separately identified. |
| 7/28/2006 | Vietnam | Classification and terminology of financial assets and liabilities:
We agree with the outcomes of the AEG in this aspects. |
| 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 | Australia | Classification and terminology of financial assets and liabilities:
We do not support the proposal to separate investment fund shares from shares and other equity and to form a new category "investment fund shares and units". This proposal confuses sector classification with instrument classification. There is also a proposal to form an "Investment Funds" subsector of the Financial Corporations sector (see page 11 of SNA/M1.06/24). If the sectoring proposal is accepted, then the instrument proposal is redundant, and will in fact result in loss of information. Under the sectoring proposal, quoted and unquoted equity in investment funds would be tabulated; under the instrument proposal the quoted/unquoted dissection is lost (a significant loss in Australia); if a further dissection under the instrument proposal into quoted and unquoted is introduced, further redundancy is built in. ABS supports the sector proposal, and rejects the asset/liability proposal. |
| 7/28/2006 | Bank of Portugal | Classification and terminology of financial assets and liabilities:
We consider that liabilities should be shown for SDR as recommend by the AEG, it also considers that both instruments should be split into two standard categories under the same single item "Monetary gold and SDR".
In our opinion, loans and deposits should not be merged into one single category and the SNA should adopt the approach (rules and conventions) described in paragraphs 5.74 and 5.75 of the ESA 95.
We are in accordance with the decision to replace the term "Securities other than shares" with the term "Debt securities" and also to include a breakdown of shares into "Quoted shares", "Unquoted shares" and "Other equity", as established by ESA 95. Furthermore, we also agree with the recommendations made by the AEG for the estimation methods to value the unquoted shares (again in accordance with ESA 95).
We greet the broadening of the category "Insurance technical provisions" by introducing a sub-category `Reserves for calls on standardised guarantees", in accordance with the recommendations for the item on granting and activation of guarantees.
Finally, the inclusion of "Financial derivatives" as a standard autonomous category is welcomed. |
| 7/28/2006 | Bank of Norway | Classification and terminology of financial assets and liabilities:
The AEG recommended to introduce the term “Provisions for insurance claims and calls under standardised guarantees” to replace “Insurance technical reserves”. The proposed term raises two questions. First, the recommended treatment of employer pension schemes (issue no 2) puts more emphasis on the pension liabilities. However, the term “Insurance claims” does not cover pension claims well. Including pension as “….insurance claims and pension entitlements…” would give pension a better representation. On the other hand the term is already too long. Second, the term “provisions” sounds good as a liability concept, but not as an asset concept. |
| 7/28/2006 | Bank of Poland | Classification and terminology of financial assets and liabilities:
Preservation of the split into deposits and loans in revised SNA93 means
that fully operational guidelines to make this distinction should be
provided. In our opinion criteria included in paragraphs 5.74 and 5.75 of the ESA95 seem to be insufficient. |
| 7/27/2006 | Bank of Sierra Leone | We agree with the recommendations made by the AEG. |
| 7/27/2006 | Poland | Classification and terminology of financial assets and liabilities:
General support for the proposed classification of financial instruments, with two exceptions: one concerning further split of financial derivatives and the other one relating to the distinction of the item “provisions for calls on standardised guarantees”.
The availability of such information must be analysed. Furthermore, the application of the proposed classification would imply the huge revision of the whole financial accounts time series and would require the change in reporting and data sources. |
| 7/25/2006 | Bank of Italy | We broadly support the conclusions. |
| 7/25/2006 | National Bank of Bahrain | Nonmonetary gold:
Although classifying unallocated gold accounts as financial assets/liabilities is justifiable, we should be careful with classifying other metals or commodities as financial assets/liabilities, as these metals or commodities most likely do not have the characteristic of gold with the exception of some other precious metals. The treatment of non-monetary gold in the SNA must be consistent with its treatment in the BOP manual. As far as I know a paper discussing non-monetary gold has been issued by the BOPCOM. |
| 7/24/2006 | Sweden | m4Sweden44; |
| 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. |
| 7/10/2006 | Denmark | Nonmonetary gold:
Agreement
|
| 7/10/2006 | Denmark | Classification and terminology of financial assets and liabilities:
Disagreement
e) The split should be nonmandatory.
f) The breakdown of derivatives into different risk categories seems to be too detailed. The information seems useless unless all financial instruments have a more detailed split into risk categories than those currently proposed.
It is recognised that there can be substantial differences between the various kinds of derivatives regarding their risk nature, but this is also the case for other financial instruments – for instance debt securities, where there are substantial differences between the risk nature of government issued bonds and high yield corporate bonds. Splitting of derivatives into risk categories alone does not seem to make a risk analysis of an institutional sector very useful.
The split of derivatives into options and forwards is again only useful if you have more information. There seems to be substantial differences between various kinds of options (European vs. American, put vs. call, options on interest rates vs. options on equity etc.). There can be differences between the risk of an option and a forward, but then again the two instruments (or combination of options vs. a forward) may bee much alike both in payment structure and risk nature.
The conclusion is that the outcome of the work does not seem to be adequate compared to the amount of work needed to make these splits.
It is though agreed that employee stock options should be shown as a subcategory of financial derivatives. |
| 2/23/2006 | South African Reserve Bank | Distinction between loans and deposits:
We agree with the AEG recommendation. |
| 2/23/2006 | South African Reserve Bank | Traded loans:
We generally support the recommendations of the AEG. |
| 1/27/2006 | Central Bank of El Salvador | Distinction between loans and deposits:
Probablemente existan dudas sobre la utilidad analítica desde un enfoque financiero, pero en un sentido económico, el propósito es clarificar qué unidades institucionales se constituyen en acreedores y cuales en deudores de activos/pasivos financieros. Prescindir de esa distinción generaría inconsistencias estadísticas. |
| 1/27/2006 | Central Bank of El Salvador | Traded loans:
De acuerdo con la posición del AEG de mantener el tratamiento actual. En nuestro caso hay evidencia de mercado de deuda y se han establecido regulaciones para la reclasificación de los préstamos titularizados. Es importante para efectos de registro y coherencia con el resto de manuales, que exista normativa explícita del cambio de préstamos a títulos. |
| 1/17/2006 | Central Bank of Chile | Distinction between loans and deposits:
En Chile la contabilidad de las instituciones monetarias, que son las únicas receptoras de depósitos, está normalizada y permite distinguir claramente dentro de sus pasivos los depósitos de los préstamos. Por lo que para la elaboración de las Cuentas Financieras no se presentan problemas de clasificación.
Sin embargo, los préstamos de corto plazo entre instituciones monetarias se clasifican como prestamos siguiendo el criterio del SCN, que no hace esa diferenciación. En todo caso estamos de acuerdo en la necesidad de incorporar un criterio diferenciador, propuesto en el SEC95, porque permite clarificar y comprender las operaciones por clasificar. |
| 12/22/2005 | Serbia and Montenegro | Distinction between loans and deposits:
We agree with the suggested changes. |
| 12/22/2005 | Serbia and Montenegro | Traded loans:
We agree with the suggested changes. |
| 12/14/2005 | France | Distinction between loans and deposits:
L'INSEE soutient les recommandations consistant à:
- maintenir la distinction entre prêts et dépôts ;
- reclasser en titres les prêts lorsqu'ils font l'objet d'opérations de vente sur un marche secondaire (mais pas les prêts cèdes à un véhicule dans le cas d'une titrisation). |
| 12/14/2005 | France | Traded loans:
L'INSEE soutient les recommandations consistant à:
- maintenir la distinction entre prêts et dépôts ;
- reclasser en titres les prêts lorsqu'ils font l'objet d'opérations de vente sur un marche secondaire (mais pas les prêts cèdes à un véhicule dans le cas d'une titrisation). |
| 12/13/2005 | Canada | Distinction between loans and deposits:
Canada agrees that the SNA93 standard could benefit from improved guidelines on this issue. |
| 12/13/2005 | Canada | Traded loans:
Canada agrees that traded loans should only be re-classified to securities if there is evidence of a market. |
| 12/13/2005 | Canada | Canada looks forward to reviewing the ECB paper exploring options for classifications of financial assets. |
| 12/12/2005 | Bank of Korea | Distinction between loans and deposits:
We are in agreement with the recommendations of the AEG in respect that first of all, the research regarding systematic classification of financial assets is needed owing to the complexity of financial transactions. |
| 12/12/2005 | Bank of Korea | Traded Loans:
We fully agree with the AEG's recommendations because all tradable financial assets are not securitized. |
| 12/9/2005 | European Central Bank | Loans and deposits:
On item 44c, loans and deposits, the question has to be further discussed whether a distinction between the two financial asset categories is analytically useful or not. |
| 12/9/2005 | Russia | Distinction between loans and deposits:
Rosstat largely supports the recommendations on the updating 1993 SNA, made at the July 2005 meeting of the Advisory Expert Group on National Accounts.
|
| 12/9/2005 | Russia | Traded loans:
Rosstat largely supports the recommendations on the updating 1993 SNA, made at the July 2005 meeting of the Advisory Expert Group on National Accounts.
|
| 12/6/2005 | Central Bank of Norway | Distinctions between loans and deposits:
The distinction between loans and deposits is well established in the financial statistics. Even though there are no clear criteria to make the distinction, and in some cases two counterparties within the financial sector may classify the instrument differently, the distinction is analytical useful. We look forward to clearer criteria to make the distinction between loans and deposits. A good candidate would be to restrict the use of the deposit concept to the liability side of depository corporations. |
| 12/6/2005 | Central Bank of Norway | Traded loans:
The Central Bank of Norway supports the recommendations concerning the requirements (restrictions) for reclassification from loans to securities. Strict requirements are needed to reduce inconsistency problems in the financial statistics because the debtor and creditor may assess the reclassification condition differently.
We are somewhat doubtful whether a change in category should be reflected through transactions or through other changes in volume. Conversion from one type of instrument (e.g. bond) to another type (e.g. share) should according to SNA93 (11.75) be entered as transactions. On the other hand, the reclassification matter dealt with in issue 44 d is not really a question of conversion. Thus we have no strong objection to the AEG recommendation of other changes in volume. |
| 12/5/2005 | Denmark | Distinction between loans and deposits
Agreement
We agree that the updated SNA should maintain a distinction between loans and deposits. But it is important that the distinction is made in a way that is feasible to adapt/implement in the compilation of data. |
| 12/5/2005 | Denmark | Traded loans
Agreement
We agree that the current SNA position should be maintained, mainly because we otherwise would loose the micro-macro link and therefore a lot of information by reclassifying loans. |
| 12/5/2005 | Central Bank of Colombia | Distinction between loans and deposits:
El criterio que se toma en cuenta en la elaboración de las cuentas financieras del Banco Central de Colombia para clasificar los depósitos es, en primer término, su transferibilidad sin restricciones por cheque u orden de giro y, en segundo lugar, depósitos que generan un instrumento financiero negociable en el mercado (security). En tanto que el criterio de clasificación de los préstamos se fundamenta en préstamo directo de fondos entre el deudor y el acreedor donde se genera un instrumento no negociable de deuda (letras de cambio, pagarés, facturas, etc).
La clasificación de los depósitos y préstamos se complementa con un segundo criterio según el plazo (corto plazo menos de un año y largo plazo más de un año). |
| 12/5/2005 | Central Bank of Colombia | Traded loans:
Estamos de acuerdo que la definición de un instrumento financiero ya sea como préstamos no transables en el mercado (loans) o instrumentos de deuda transables (debt securities) es bastante compleja si se desarrolla un mercado secundario muy activo de instrumentos de préstamos. En Colombia existe un mercado bastante organizado de deudas hipotecarias y un mercado secundario más bien informal y poco desarrollado de otros instrumentos de deudas no hipotecarias. |
| 12/2/2005 | Netherlands | Distinction between loans and deposits:
We generally support the recommendations of the AEG.
|
| 12/2/2005 | Netherlands | Traded loans:
We generally support the recommendations of the AEG.
|
| 12/2/2005 | Australia | Distinction between loans and deposits:
Australia agrees with the AEG recommendations.
|
| 12/2/2005 | Australia | Traded loans:
Australia believes that traded loans should not be reclassified to debt securities as the characteristics of analytical interest to loan contracts do not change simply because the loan is traded. However, we agree to the reclassification of loans in the narrowly defined circumstances outlined in the AEG decision. |
| 12/2/2005 | Turkey | Distinction between loans and deposits:
We agree with the recommendations made at the July 2005 meeting of the Advisory Expert Group on National Accounts. |
| 12/2/2005 | Turkey | Traded loans:
We agree with the recommendations made at the July 2005 meeting of the Advisory Expert Group on National Accounts. |
| 12/1/2005 | Norway | Distinction between loans and deposits:
We agree that the updated SNA should maintain å distinction between loans and deposits. To provide such distinction we prefer the critera which take into a account the nature of borrower (banks=deposits and non-banks=loans). |
| 12/1/2005 | Norway | Traded loans:
We agree with the AEG's recommendations. |
| 12/1/2005 | Central Bank of Nicaragua | Distinction between loans and deposits:
La distinción entre préstamos y depósitos debe mantenerse, en vista que esto facilita la identificación inmediata del tipo de transacción que se realizó, por ejemplo, una empresa puede tener depósitos en un banco y puede conceder préstamos a sus empleados, registrándolo como un activo (derecho sobre terceros); si no existe la nomenclatura préstamos y depósitos, puede crearse una confusión al interpretar y separar la transacción entre la empresa y sus empleados, y la empresa y el banco comercial. |
| 12/1/2005 | Israel | Traded loans:
We agree with the recommendations of the AEG on classification of traded loans |
| 12/1/2005 | United Kingdom | Distinction between loans and deposits:
We agree with the main decision that the updated SNA should maintain a distinction between loans and deposits. We will need to comment again later when the outstanding work is complete. |
| 12/1/2005 | United Kingdom | Traded loans:
We agree with the decisions made by AEG |
| 11/30/2005 | Slovak Republic | Distinction between loans and deposits:
SO SR agree with AEG recommendations. |
| 11/30/2005 | Slovak Republic | Traded loans:
SO SR agree with AEG recommendations. |
| 11/30/2005 | Italy | Distinction between loans and deposits:
Istat fully agrees with the recommendations made at the July 2005 meeting of the Advisory Expert Group on National Accounts.
|
| 11/30/2005 | Italy | Traded loans:
Istat fully agrees with the recommendations made at the July 2005 meeting of the Advisory Expert Group on National Accounts.
|
| 11/30/2005 | National Bank of the Republic of Macedonia | Distinction between loans and deposits:
We agree with the recommendations of the AEG.
|
| 11/30/2005 | State Bank of Pakistan | Distinction between loans and deposits:
We have gone through recommendations made by Advisory Expert Group (AEG) and fully agree with them. |
| 11/30/2005 | State Bank of Pakistan | Traded loans:
We have gone through recommendations made by Advisory Expert Group (AEG) and fully agree with them.
|
| 11/29/2005 | National Bank of Kazakhstan | Distinction between loans and deposits
The question of analytical usefulness of distinction between loans and deposits remains unclosed.
We suppose that the subline on REPO and sectors of transaction participants is of great interest. We support the opinion that existing standards do not provide clear criterions for such distinctions.
We deem, the criterion of ESA based on “who is taking the initiative for the transaction” is most acceptable. We offer do not divide deposits on short-term and long-term deposits. |
| 11/29/2005 | National Bank of Kazakhstan | Traded loans (borderline between securities and other financial instruments
We support the opinion that traded loans should be reclassified into tradable securities. Nontraded securities should be reclassified into other financial instruments (such as loans).
The reclassification should be reflected in other changes on assets/liabilities in IIP, because initial loan agreements would not be changed.
On our opinion the debtor should has equal rights on repurchasing of own debt.
We support using of tradability criterion stated in External Debt Guide. |
| 11/29/2005 | Central Bank of Turkey | Distinction between loans and deposits:
We agree with the recommendation of the AEG that SNA should maintain a distinction between deposits and loans. Although current international standards provide guidance for the split, there is still no clear-cut criterion. The criterion should be “who takes the initiative” as explained in the ESA 95. Also, the convention in the ESA95 for short-term loans to MFIs and short term deposits is acceptable. |
| 11/29/2005 | People's Bank of China | Distinction between loans and deposits:
I agree with your improvements and have no other suggestions. |
| 11/29/2005 | People's Bank of China | Traded loans:
I agree with your improvements and have no other suggestions. |
| 11/21/2005 | USA | We agree that the SNA should maintain a distinction between loans and deposits. |
| 11/21/2005 | USA | We agree with the recommendations of the AEG on traded loans. |
| 5/13/2005 | National Bank of Kazakhstan | 1. Replacement of the term «securities, other than shares» by the term «debt securities», and also splitting derivatives in forwards and options - we have no objections.
2. Classification of non-monetary gold as a financial asset. This question needs further clarification, because it is not clear, how it would allow for the gold transactions to be netted. |
| 5/6/2005 | Vietnam | We agree with the recommendations that nonmonetary gold should be classified as a financial assets rather than under valuables in the asset classification. Non monetary gold transaction to be netted in financial transactions and free payments to owners under gold loans would be classified as property icome rather than a service. |
