March 2007 AEG meeting
Chapter 6
Main substantive comments
Comments
Chapter arrived late.
Deadline not yet over: you can still input.
Comments from: UNSD, OECD, Russia, Australia, ECB,
Eurostat, IMF, USA
3 major substantive questions to the AEG
23 comments will be considered by the ISWGNA
35 comments will be considered by the editor
Question 1: services
• The AEG (Bangkok, 2005) first decision:
– goods for processing that are imported and
re-exported after processing will be valued at
the amount of the processing (imports = zero;
exports = value of processing)
– consistent with BPM (which was divided on
this)
– Important decision: implies that the value of
imports and exports of China in Chinese
national accounts are divided by two
compared to Chinese customs data
Question 1: services
The first AEG decision implied that the output of
a firm which processes goods for export would
be valued at the value of the processing
By consistency: AEG second decision:
– the output of a firm which processes goods for
export or not for export should be valued at
the value of the processing
– Thus the output of any firm which processes
goods but does not own the goods is valued
at the value of the processing.
Question 1: services
• Paragraph 6.12: when goods are
dispatched to another unit for processing
do not include change in ownership the
work done on them constitutes a service.
• The decision of the AEG on the value of
output has been transformed in a definition
of services.
• Do we need a new definition of services in
the SNA?
Question 1: services
• There was no mandate for a new definition of
services.
• The SNA is not interested in differentiating
goods from services: they are to be treated alike,
as « products ».
• The definition proposed is internally
contradictory: retailers own the goods that they
sell, but they are classified in services (see
paragraph 6.139)
• The SNA is a user of the ISIC classification and
should not impose its own classifications (Nokia)
Question 1.a
• Do we need this new definition of services
based on the ownership of the good?
******************
Question 1.b
• The editor has introduced three new
classes of services:
– Margin services
– Transformation services
– Knowledge-capturing products
Question 1.b
• Terminology:
– Margin services: The definition proposed includes securities’
brokerage and real estate brokerage. But these sectors are not
viewed as « margins » in the supply and use framework, when
they are based on fees. Better terms could be used.
– Knowledge capturing products: better terminology could be
« information products ».
• Should these categories be included in the SNA?
• Is the terminology acceptable?
****************************
Question 1.c
• Paragraphs 6.28 to 6.31 (old SNA) explain that
the household production of most services are
excluded from the production boundary.
• With the introduction of the concept of
knowledge-capturing products, should it be
made clear that these are excluded from the
production boundary?
*************************
Question 2.a
Intra-establishment flows
– 6.115: it may be desirable to record an output
for a good or service used as intermediate
consumption within the same establishment.
– This is a change in the SNA: the old
paragraph said: when goods and services
produced within the same establishment are
fed back as inputs into the production within
the same establishment, they are not
recorded as part of intermediate consumption
or the output of the same establishment.
Question 2.a
Intra-establishment flows
• Three reasons seem to be given to record
such an « own account intermediate
consumption »:
– 6.116: delivery services?
– 6.117: deliveries between separate
establishments?
– 6.118: output placed in inventories for use as
intermediate consumption in the future?
Question 2.a
Intra-establishment flows
• The AEG decision: if an establishment undertaking
purely ancillary activity is statistically observable, in that separate
accounts for the production it undertakes are readily available, or if it
is in a geographically different location from the establishment it
serves, it may be desirable and useful to consider it as a separate
unit.
• Does the AEG agree to the new model
proposed for intra-establishment flows?
Question 2.c
Intra-enterprise flows
• New paragraphs 6.95 (d) and 6.100 regarding
intra-enterprise flows propose the following new
criterion:
– Intra-enterprise deliveries should only be recorded
when there is a change of ownership.
• By definition, there is hardly never a change of
ownership between two establishments of the
same enterprise,
• Legal ownership is at the level of the enterprise,
not the establishment.
Question 2.c
Intra-enterprise flows
• Does the AEG agree that paragraphs 6.95
(d) and 6.100 should be amended to avoid
introducing any change of the old SNA
based on this criterion?
Question 3: FISIM
• Paragraph 6.158 says: the reference rate should
represent a risk free rate of interest such as
prevailing for inter-bank borrowing and lending.
• The task force recommendation, confirmed by
the AEG, was: the reference rate is a risk-free
rate that has no service element in it and that
reflects the maturity structure of the loans and
deposits to which FISIM applies.
Question 3: FISIM
• The AEG reference rate did not specifically
mention inter bank rates.
• The AEG reference rate mentioned the
maturity structure.
• Does the AEG prefers the wording of
paragraph 6.158?