NACDD BDB on NGROUP1
Created By:
Sanjiv Mahajan on 18/03/2011 at
17:29
Title: Note of SPV meeting 12 Feb
Categorisation
International Coordination\ESA Revision
Note for the record
Phil
Thanks. My take on this is that SNA08 and ESA10 in its current form clearly say that resident SPVs
should be consolidated with the parent bank if they lack autonomy (as they generally do). So moving into
line with BoE's reporting changes is defensible on the updated guidelines as they stand, as well as
ESA95. At the same, I'll re-jig this note Notes Link to say that ECB + BoE and other central banks will
press to get ESA10 amended so that all SPVs should go into S.127 (captive financial institutions).
Sanjiv, is it likely that this kind of amendment to ESA10 could get through?
Hugh
Philip Stokoe
02/03/2011 11:08
To:
cc:
Subject:
Hugh Skipper/IOSD/BSG/NEWPORT/ONS@ON
David Hobbs/OFD/BSG/NEWPORT/ONS@ONS
[PROTECT] - Re: Note of SPV meeting 12 FebN
Hi Hugh,
Thanks for sending this on.
Interesting set of comments. Looking again at the draft ESA 10, I can see where Martin is coming from.
There is a new FinCos sub sector included S.127 Capitve Financial Institutuions and money lenders
(defined in paragraphs 2.98-2.99) that includes:
"c) SPEs that qualify as institutional units and raise funds in open markets to be used by their parent
corporation;"
However, the key part of that statement is "that qualify as institutional units". The draft ESA 10 states, in
paragraphs 2.21 - 2.26 that bodies without autonomy should rather be treated as "artificial subsidiaries"
and should be consolidated with their parent.
So, under ESA 10 bank SPVs can either
(a) be judged to have autonomy of decision and a degree of independence, in which case they should be
classified as S.127 Captive Financial Institutions, and transactions between them and their parent banks
should show as flows between them, or
(b) be judged to lack independence, in which case they should be fully consolidated with the parent bank
- as they'd be considered an artificial subsidiary.
Under ESA 95 the same principal applies, except under ESA 95 if autonomous they are S.123 OFIs, and
if not they should be consolidated with the parent bank.
My issue is, the bank appear to want to partially consolidate, which makes no sense to me for either ESA
95 or ESA 10!
On the paper, comments / input welcome - but no desperate hurry from my perspective - happy to chat if
you like!
Phil
Phil Stokoe | National Accounts Classification | Public Sector Division | Office for National Statistics |
Government Buildings | Cardiff Road | Newport | Wales | NP10 8XG | Room 2.164 | Phone: 01633
455805 | Internal Extension: 5805
Hugh Skipper
02/03/2011 10:41
To:
cc:
Subject:
Philip Stokoe/NEWPORT/ONS@ONS
David Hobbs/OFD/BSG/NEWPORT/ONS@ONS
[PROTECT] - Note of SPV meeting 12 Feb
Hi Phil
I've just had this from Martin Udy at BoE. Looking at his comments on para 4, maybe there's more
disagreement between ONS and BoE about the interpretation of SNA08/ESA10 than I picked up from the
meeting. I originally said SNA08/ESA10 make it clearer that SPVs should be consolidated if they've no
autonomy which I still think is the correct reading of what ESA10 actually says.
By the way do you need input from me for this asap? Notes Link
Hugh
----- Forwarded by Hugh Skipper/IOSD/BSG/NEWPORT/ONS on 02/03/2011 10:12 ----Martin.Udy@bankofen
gland.gsi.gov.uk
01/03/2011 19:25
Hi Hugh,
To:
Hugh Skipper/IOSD/BSG/NEWPORT/ONS@ONS
Perry.Francis@bankofengland.gsi.gov.uk, Heeral.Chhatralia@bankofengland.gsi.gov
Anjli.Shah@bankofengland.gsi.gov.uk, Michael.Lyon@bankofengland.gsi.gov.uk
cc:
David.England@bankofengland.gsi.gov.uk, Matt.D
Subject:
RE: [PROTECT] - Note of SPV meeting 12 Feb
Sorry it has taken so long to get back on these but my suggested amendments
are attached. In some cases they are contradictory to your original meaning
as I think we are still fundamentally opposed on our views as to the correct
treatment of SPVs under ESA 10. If you don't find the changes acceptable I
think we will just need to remove references to views on interpretation of
ESA 10.
Either way I think it is worth me reiterating that I see the ECB approach of
treating them as separate institutional units under ESA 10 is correct. If you
wanted to consolidate for National Accounts then I think our position would
possibly be that ONS would need to collect data separately from SPVs to
consolidate in the compilation process. Our reporters have said they are
unable to report on a consolidated basis when this was discussed in the past
and I'm not sure we have the powers to collect data from anything other than
the MFI legal entity.
Thanks.
Martin
Martin Udy
Manager
Monetary Statistics | MFSD | HO-4 B-D
Bank of England | Threadneedle Street | London EC2R 8AH | +44 20 7601 4731
martin.udy@bankofengland.co.uk
Sanjiv - if it is possible to raise at this late stage we think there could
be an issue with contradictory guidance in the ESA on the treatment of SPVs.
It appears on the one hand there is guidance to consolidate SPVs with their
parent if they do not have autonomy of decision making whilst on the other
hand there is a requirement to be able to produce a separate dataset for SPVs
(FVCs). Our understanding is that the ECB are requiring euro area countries
to produce an SPVs dataset so are thinking to focus on that requirement but
any guidance on potential for clarification would be good.
NACDD BDB on NGROUP1
Created By:
Sanjiv Mahajan on 18/03/2011 at
17:54
Title: Note of SPV meeting 12 Feb
R
R
e
p
o
n
e
Re
esssp
po
on
nssse
e
Note for the record
Sanjiv Mahajan
14/02/2011 18:56
To:
cc:
Subject:
Hugh Skipper/IOSD/BSG/NEWPORT/ONS@ONS
Re: Link Message: Banking Special Purpose Vehicles (SPVs)
Dear Hugh,
Apologies I could not pop through last week - just catching up on emails!!
How can I help?
This week, I am in Newport on Friday.
Sanjiv
Hugh Skipper
01/02/2011 16:06
To:
cc:
Subject:
Final
Sanjiv Mahajan/NAD/MESAG/LONDON/ONS@O
Link Message: Banking Special Purpose Vehicles
Hi Sanjiv
Would it be ok to pick your brains on this sometime when you're in Npt? (Ideally in the next week or so).
thanks
Hugh
----- Forwarded by Hugh Skipper/IOSD/BSG/NEWPORT/ONS on 01/02/2011 16:05 -----
Hugh Skipper
01/02/2011 15:40
To:
Philip Stokoe/NEWPORT/ONS@ONS
cc:
Damian Whittard/NEWPORT/ONS@ONS, John
Bundey/BOPD/MESAG/LONDON/ONS@ONS, Daniel Wisniewski/NAD/MESAG/NEW
Subject:
Re: Link Message: Banking Special Purpose Veh
- FinalNotes Link
Phil
Yes you're right, NNUT and NLRH will be reflecting securitisation activities up to q1 2010 (and covered
bond entities for mortgages up to q2 09) as genuine sales from MFIs to OFIs. After those points, BoE
brought the affected loans onto to the banks' balance sheets. Where the SPV/covered bond entity is UKresident, I think we're agreed this is a step in the right direction from an ESA standpoint. But as we know,
a minority of the loans now moved into NNUT are securitised with overseas SPVs (and I think BoE should
be able to quantify).
BoE's reporting changes mean there are step changes at q2 09 and q1 10 in the relevant levels series
(incl NNUT and NLRH), but not in the corresponding flows. BoE adjust the flows to remove the effect of
reporting changes. In ONS we've also made adjustments to remove the discontinuities from the
corresponding interest paid/received in the DIM system and from the FISIM.
Having spoken to Damian it looks like what you're saying about the BoP issues is right. Damian will check
if/how overseas securitisation entiities are currently captured in FDI.
I think the main other issues we need to clarify are:
 how should we treat the interest payments/receipts (in the DIM system) associated with loans
securitised to overseas SPVs? E.g. should we be moving mortgage interest payments to rest of
world?
 how should we treat the FISIM from loans securitised with overseas SPVs? Personally, I agree with
Martin Udy from BoE that it should be attributed to UK MFIs as they're the entities that are actually
providing the intermediation service/producing the FISIM output.
 should we adjust the balance sheet levels to remove the discontinuities from changes in SPV/covered
bond reporting? I think it's ok to be consistent with BoE and only adjust the flows.
Hope this helps!
Hugh
Philip Stokoe
01/02/2011 08:13
To:
Hugh Skipper/IOSD/BSG/NEWPORT/ONS@ON
Hobbs/OFD/BSG/NEWPORT/ONS@ONS
cc:
Damian Whittard/NEWPORT/ONS@ONS, John
Bundey/BOPD/MESAG/LONDON/ONS@ONS
Subject:
Re: Link Message: Banking Special Purpose Veh
- FinalNotes Link
Hugh,
I've been thinking more about the whole issue of SPVs, and especially those created as securitisation
vehicles for mortgage lending, and wanted to try and understand what might already be in the accounts.
I was talking this through with Dave Hobbs yesterday, and we had a look at Blue Book. I think the
accounts currently record the securitisations as if they were genuine sales from the MFI sector (where
banks and building societies) to the OFI sector (where SPVs would typically be classified).
If you look at tables 4.2.9 and 4.3.9 in Blue Book (for MFIs and OFIs respectively) you'll see lines for
"AF.422 loans secured on dwellings". The two tables show an increase in the balance of loans secured
on dwellings for each sector - but whereas the MFI balance has risen from £493 bn to £795bn (a rise of
60% or so) the OFI balance has risen from £39bn to £426bn (a rise of almost 1000%) The CDIDs for
these two lines are NNUT and NLRH respectively
My guess is that this reflects the securitisation activities - and loans secured on dwellings being sold by
banks to OFI entities.
I'd like to confirm what these figures are showing and confirm exactly what is going on in the accounts at
present.
Over and above the internal UK sector issues, I'm still concerned that there may be balance of payments
issues, as theoretically, when overseas securitisation entities are used, we should record inward cash
flows, and outward transfers of assets (Damien, John - correct me if I'm wrong).
In Pink Book, I notice Table 9.13 Trade in services shows the Channel Islands 10th and Cayman Islands
21st in the list of trading partners - I'd be amazed if some of the trade flows here weren't this kind of
activity.
Comments welcome
Phil
Phil Stokoe | National Accounts Classification | Public Sector Division | Office for National Statistics |
Government Buildings | Cardiff Road | Newport | Wales | NP10 8XG | Room 2.164 | Phone: 01633
455805 | Internal Extension: 5805
Hugh Skipper
28/01/2011 15:24
To:
Philip Stokoe/NEWPORT/ONS@ONS
cc:
Damian Whittard/NEWPORT/ONS@ONS, John
Bundey/BOPD/MESAG/LONDON/ONS@ONS
Subject:
Re: Link Message: Banking Special Purpose Veh
- FinalNotes Link
Phil
It might also be worth copying Damian and John (from BoP) into any correspondence on this. I've had a
chat with both of them about it.
Hugh
From:
Philip Stokoe on 28/01/2011 15:08
To:
cc:
Hugh Skipper/IOSD/BSG/NEWPORT/ONS@ONS
David Hobbs/OFD/BSG/NEWPORT/ONS@ONS
Document Link Information:
Database:
Document:
NA Classification
Banking Special Purpose Vehicles (SPVs) - Classification Paper - Final
Notes Link
Hi Hugh, (Copied to Dave for information)
I'm going to be populating and completing a classification paper (for the record) on the SPV issue - which
I'll try and progress on Monday - I might run this by you before I shove it in front of an Executive Member
of NACC for approval of any decision.
Are you around on Monday?
I note your second email - SPVs that are non-resident throws up possibly quite a big issue in terms of
balance of payments and how they are treated in the other countries accounts - it wouldn't be good if the
same units appear in other country OFI sectors and in our MFI sector as we judge them to not be
institutional units.
Any idea which countries are involved?
Phil
NACDD BDB on NGROUP1
Created By:
Sanjiv Mahajan on 05/05/2011 at
14:27
Title: Regulation on the European system of national and
regional accounts in the EU - ECB Inputs
Categorisation
International Coordination\ESA Revision
Note for the record
Martin.Udy@bankofen
gland.gsi.gov.uk
03/05/2011 13:46
To:
cc:
Subject:
regional accounts in the EU
Hugh Skipper/IOSD/BSG/NEWPORT/ONS@ONS
FW: For comments (by noon, 2 May): Regulation on the Europe
Martin Udy
Manager
Monetary Statistics | MFSD | HO-4 B-D
Bank of England | Threadneedle Street | London EC2R 8AH | +44 20 7601 4731
martin.udy@bankofengland.co.uk
From: Lyon, Michael
Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 5:58 PM
To: Sabine, Stephen
Cc: Udy, Martin; England, David
Subject: RE: For comments (by noon, 2 May): Regulation on the European system of national and regional
accounts in the EU
Stephen –
Martin, David and I discussed this briefly in the MCG managers meeting earlier today.
Do we formally put a note to GPS saying ‘no comment’, or is it something that we can simply allow to
lapse? Should we copy Mark in?
We are being asked for any comments on the draft ECB Opinion on the proposed ESA Regulation. As
you note, the Opinion removes some uncertainty on the treatment of securitisation SPVs (or FVCs in
ECB terminology), by aligning some paragraphs towards the ECB Regulation on FVCs. In so far as it
does this, this would be compatible with increasing interest for macro prudential purposes in more
granular data on the financial sector, and in that respect the Bank should be supportive, ie not object. This
should be a practical improvement given that it arose as an issue in recent dialogue with ONS, and also in
practical terms, the opposite position (consolidation of SPVs into parent MFIs) may introduce unrealistic
reporting demands.
Will it impose new obligations on our reporting? Presumably it must do so, since we will be required to
identify an S125 financial corporations subsector for other financial intermediaries... including SPVs, and
this would be a required breakdown in the annex B listing of data items to be transmitted. But – I’m not
quite clear on this – if (?) ESA leaves the defintion of UK domestic monetary aggregates alone, then we
are free to continue including securitised loans into credit as poer opur current definitions.
Given the above, and noting that a UK response would have to come from GPS, to a deadline of 2 May,
we agree with your line that the Bank should not object to the ECB’s draft Opinion.
One further comment:
Re-reading chapter 2, and although this has been gone over many times now, I am surprised at how
poorly drafted and contradictory it still is. It is a classic draft by committee, incrementally evolved. The
ECB’s Opinion does not modify it very much. For example, the criteria for an institutional unit remain as
they have been, even though SPVs do not readily conform to them. There are failures in logical
structuring of the discussion on institutional units – some subheadings refer to sub sectoral definitions;
others do not. A number of concepts are defined in terms of what they are not, rather than what they are.
FVCs are tautologically defined. The definition of captive financial institutions (S127) includes as an
example SPVs that raise funds for parent entities – so that it is unclear why this example should not also
encompass FVCs as separately defined (under S125). Even though we would now support a greater
differentiation of financial corporations (more granularity), the contrast between 9 sub sectors of FCs and
the single PNFCs sector is a little odd. One wonders why such a degree of differentiation could not have
been more adroitly achieved – for example akin to the industry segmentation of corporates.
But, I’m not sure that there is very much that can be done about these issues. Certainly not an
intervention at our GPS level. The practical approach is that most NCBs / NSIs seem to know what to do
anyway.
-
Michael
From: Sabine, Stephen
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 3:38 PM
To: Lyon, Michael; Udy, Martin
Subject: FW: For comments (by noon, 2 May): Regulation on the European system of national and regional
accounts in the EU
Michael, Martin
You may also be interested in the attached, in particular the ECB’s redrafting proposals concerning
securitisation vehicles Annexed to the draft Opinion.
These would bring the ESA2010 fully into line with the ECB’s 2008 Regulation on FVCs. In a nutshell,
this would remove from the ESA the leeway to consolidate securitization vehicles presently carried across
from the equivalent SNA08 text.
The latter itself of course reflects earlier Bank input, consistent with our approach to ensure consistency
in aggregate bank credit in the monetary statistics (primarily for users in MA).
However, since that time (and post-crisis) practical user interest elsewhere in the Bank (FS) is emerging
for more granular information on SPVs and, given recent exchanges with Hugh Skipper, the ONS’ own
conceptual thinking is tending towards that of the ECB. ONS’ views would be germane to any
consideration of this topic when the ESA is discussed in the Council Working Group on Statistics [the
current stage of the legislative process].
Hence, in informal discussion I think we have touched on the possibility that some systematic extension
of collection if data from SPVs may be contemplated at some future date. [But unclear as yet by whom.]
Taking these developments into consideration, I do not propose that we should raise this with the
Governor but you may feel differently.
[NB – the pdf attachment is the full ESA – over 1000 pages – do not print!]
Stephen
From: Sabine, Stephen
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2011 3:56 PM
To: Perry, Liz; Francis, Perry
Subject: FW: For comments (by noon, 2 May): Regulation on the European system of national and regional
accounts in the EU
F Y I.........
A bit naughty, effectively only 3 working days to respond (unlikely in our case).
As this is a Gen Council paper, any comments would be via the Governor’s Office – so would need to be
of critical significance for the UK.
Most contentious paragraphs are likely to be 13-15 on timeliness of reporting (“T+80”, etc) – but we can
let those NCBs that are directly affected make the running on that. The ONS will argue the UK case in
the Council Working Party.
Stephen
From: Phaup Hannah
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2011 3:37 PM
To: Sabine, Stephen; Heath, John; Beaves, Antony; Kurtosiova, Miriam; Voutsinou, Kyriaki; Howard, Bonnie
Subject: For comments (by noon, 2 May): Regulation on the European system of national and regional accounts in
the EU
Dear all,
Please find attached the following documentation from the ECB for your consideration:
an Executive Board proposal entitled ‘Regulation of the European Parliament and of

the Council on the European system of national and regional accounts in the European
Union’
a draft ECB Opinion
Comments, if any, should be submitted by noon on Monday, 2 May 2011.
Thank you,
Hannah
Please note that IEAD acts only as a sorting office for ECB communications. Recipients
are responsible for acting upon items as appropriate.
***********************************************************************************
This
e-mail
is
intended
for
the
addressee(s)
named
above
and
any
other
use
is
prohibited.
It
may
contain
confidential
information.
If
you
received this e-mail in error please contact the sender by return e-mail.
The
Bank
of
England
does
not
accept
legal
responsibility
for
the
contents
of
this
message
if
it
has
reached
you
via
the
Internet,
as
Internet
communications
are
not
secure.
Any
opinions
expressed
are
those
of
the
author and are not necessarily endorsed by the Bank of England.
Recipients
are
advised
to
apply
their
own
virus
checks
to
this
message
.
***********************************************************************************
NACDD BDB on NGROUP1
Created By:
Sanjiv Mahajan on 10/06/2010 at
18:03
Title: Financial Accounts Working Group - June 2010
Categorisation
International Coordination\International
Organisation\Eurostat\FAWG
Note for the record
Martin Kellaway
10/06/2010 11:46
To:
Simon Humphries/BOPD/MESAG/LONDON/ONS@ONS
cc:
Helen Shanks/NAD/MESAG/LONDON/ONS@ONS, sam.caugh
Hobbs/OFD/BSG/NEWPORT/ONS@ONS, Anthony Szary/ONS@ONS, Alan J Smith/NAD/MESAG
Hill/NEID/MESAG/LONDON/ONS@ONS, Sanjiv Mahajan/NAD/MESAG/LONDON/ONS@ONS
Subject:
Financial Accounts Working Group
Here is a quick summary of the main developments at FAWG and my discussions in the margins.
Anthony is doing a more detail note of the meeting in due course.
1. There was agreement at the finance minsiters meeting (also in Lux) to the new Commission
investigation powers. These will now pass into regulation in due course but are now effectively already
activated through political will. Eurostat wanted these described as 'audit-like', but the 'like' was dropped
so they are officially audit powers. Dawn raids was dropped. Commissioner has committed Eurostat to
visit Bulgaria, although the read out I got from this was that it appeared to be political hot air generating
concerns rather than substance - there was dialogue already in place to determine whether there was a
problem, so appeared like the Commission deciding that an over-reaction was preferred to the damaging
perception of doing nothing. Media reports of a similar visit to Hungary are false, as they confused the
new powers with a regular dialogue visit that was postponed and rearranged: it was originally due when
the emergency missions to Greece were held. The chair commented on the number of occurrences of
new governments coming in and making accusations about previous governments: although no countries
were publicly named here the implied reference was to Greece, Hungary and UK. The Commission were
concerned about the announcements by the Chancellor that previous government was not measuring
debt properly (I stopped this at the time by explaining it was a reference to the exclusion of contingent
liabilities from official debt figures, which are compiled to international standards, and not about bypassing
EDP rules, which in the aftermath of Greece it was understandably intepreted as) and again by the PM
more recently on forecasts and the interest bill (a Eurostat official dampened that one down). The
implication is that there is a fine line between making such comments and the triggering of audit visits,
and it is not just by governments as the Bulgarian opposition appears to have triggered the Bulgarian
situation.
2. With the additional focus on EDP at this time, a second EDP unit is being created to double the
numbers working in the area. This was confirmed on Tuesday. John Verrinder will head the new unit.
The division of MSs between the two units will not be confirmed yet. However, off the record UK will be
with John's unit and Greece stays with Luca Ascoli's.
3. EFSF. This is the new SPV being created to borrow and fund rescues of government's about to
default (mainly designed as a eurozone vehicle to protect the currency, but part of the facility is also for
non-eurozone MSs) post the Greek rescue. There was a discussion of how it would be recorded, which
generally was that the SPV should not be an institutional unit and its debts attributed to governments.
The choice of an SPV is controversial (off balance sheet SPVs are a major part of the financial crisis
problems, and the political pressure put on Eurostat regarding the recording of the French SFEF vehicle).
Following comments by French Finance Minister as to how it would be recorded (!) there are suggestions
it is designed to avoid government debt impacts, although as Germany is main player and their
constitution prevents direct assistance that is probably a strong factor. More details emerged the day
after the discussion but these don't move the conclusion. It will be interesting to see if the "SFEF
pressure" on Eurostat to temporarily suspend ESA recording returns.
4. Concessional loans (for UK this refers to student loans). Some progress has been made. Eurostat
has now accepted that conceptually it is the correct approach to impute benefits and lift the interest
receivable. They are also moving towards accepting that the benefit should be spread. They tried to
suggest a one-off capital transfer at sale to reflect the future benefits but this argument was killed by the
inconsistency of reflecting future benefits when the previous benefits were ignored. They still oppose on
grounds of difficulty of implementation and low priority, although the priority increases if they lose the
capital transfer possibility above. Will now go to a final questionnaire.
5. Emissions trading. Update on the OECD/Eurostat Task Force (draft report stage, very complex
subject, reduced to two options to be presented to ISWGNA). I raised concern that the split-asset option,
as proposed by IMF, was very poor and inconsistent with SNA08 principles, but could be railroaded
through due to institutional politics and that Eurostat should use its membership of ISWGNA to prevent
this. The natural conclusion should be that, due to the disagreement, further work is needed, so there
may be a need for an EU solution in advance of an ISWGNA solution. I pointed out the temporary
recording of revenue from AAU (Kyoto obligation) sales adopted by Eurostat was incorrect and have
submitted a paper about AAUs demonstrating that.
6. Multilateral development banks - Eurostat want to record the government contributions to these as
grants, whereas ESA says equity, on grounds of economic reality. I pointed out that was our original
position, some years ago, but we investigated thoroughly with IMF re BPM and it was confirmed they
should be equity. It is one of those cases where good arguments can be made for more than one option.
Eurostat to do further work.
7. SDRs. An investigation was made into the recording of the 2009 SDR allocations, revealing many
have been recorded wrongly. We knew beforehand that it was clear that UK had done this wrongly, and
that the current recording (the conversion of former UK accounts onto ESA95 style accounts in the
1990s) in National Accounts is generally wrong. Of 26 responses (including 4 non-EU ) 22 record the
SDR holders as central bank and 2 (UK and Latvia) as government. Both approaches can be justified,
and Latvia believe the transactions resulting from their recent need to use SDRs due to their financial
situation demonstrates that their decision is correct. In the margins I got Eurostat approval for changing
the liability counterpart for government away from its current classification (in EDP rows) to equity. Jim
O'D was going to be working on this - has anyone taken it over? IMF also want to discuss UK recording
of SDRs and will email me.
8. Bad banks. I presented a paper on the borderline between bad banks and government, based on N
Rock and B&B cases in UK, as a start to the discussion on this subject. Eurostat's views will soften as a
result of the discussion of the paper. They will now take the subject forward. Quite a lot of support for the
idea that if an entity has a banking licence its an MFI (I mentioned this as a factor in the paper but did not
recommend it as a solution).
9. ESA10. Hidden away in a presentation is the first news that Eurostat has quietly conceded their
attempts to move the market:non-market boundary from 50% criterion to 100%. It will however now
reflect net interest costs (potentially capturing those PCs that government use as borrowing vehicles - UK
doesn't) and has a quantitative analysis component on economically significant prices that will require
interpretation - they could use this to overwrite any 50% analysis.
10 (not on agenda). Support for US government owned car maker in Europe. It appears likely that the
German Government are going to pull out of the loan guarantees, which will scupper the whole deal. If it
does go ahead, it would be illegal in Germany for a guarantee likely to be called to be presented as a
guarantee, so this would be confirmation that there would be no pressure for the UK part to be recorded
as a capital transfer (subject to business case demonstrating so) arising from recording decisions
elsewhere in EU.
Martin
NACDD BDB on NGROUP1
Created By:
Sanjiv Mahajan on 10/04/2011 at
20:30
Title: Construction cost in PPP projects
Categorisation
International Coordination\International
Organisation\Eurostat\FAWG
Note for the record
Elodie.BOUMOKONIA
@ec.europa.eu
08/04/2011 10:35
To:
Michael.Andreasch@oenb.co.at, Gerald.Wimmer@oenb.co.at,
steven.cappoen@nbb.be, didier.gosset@nbb.be, sarah.larosa@nbb.be, claude.modart@nbb.be, a
NediPapadatou@centralbank.gov.cy, anthisophocleous@centralbank.gov.cy, vkounadis@cystat.m
Ivan.matalik@cnb.cz, Vaclav.rybacek@czso.cz, trejbalova@gw.czso.cz, Vebrova@gw.czso.cz, ulri
albert.braakmann@destatis.de, thomas.forster@destatis.de, marion.kuschel@destatis.de, abteilun
SBR@dst.dk, MFN@dst.dk, agnes.naarits@stat.ee, lgordo@bde.es, bsanz@bde.es, estadistica.be
paula.koistinen-jokiniemi@stat.fi, Mira.Lehmuskoski@stat.fi, matti.okko@stat.fi, Mika.Sainio@stat.f
guillaume.houriez@insee.fr, patrick.augeraud@cp.finances.gouv.fr, SCorres@bankofgreece.gr, xri
smaravel@mof-glk.gr, huszarg@mnb.hu, Istvan.bedekovics@ksh.hu, Agota.repa@pm.gov.hu, Gilli
derek.stynes@cso.ie, ciaran.counihan@finance.gov.ie, alfredo.bardozzetti@bancaditalia.it, gabriele
paola.derita@tesoro.it, federico.nusperli@tesoro.it, emilia.scafuri@tesoro.it, bgrikinyte@lb.lt, rkaral
Muriel.Bouchet@bcl.lu, Beatrice.Thiry@bcl.lu, Charles-Henri.Dimaria@statec.etat.lu, Anne.Greiveld
Ilonda.Stepanova@fm.gov.lv, Joseph.a.bonello@gov.mt, mark.b.galea@gov.mt, Noel.camilleri@go
Ewa.Laskowska@mail.nbp.pl, Janusz.Jablonowski@mail.nbp.pl, u.kapczynska@stat.gov.pl, j.kryst
monika.wygoda@mofnet.gov.pl, jscbranco@bportugal.pt, slima@bportugal.pt, pamenezes@bportu
anabela.rodrigues@dgo.pt, martim.assuncao@dgo.pt, jonas.bergwall@scb.se, per.ericson@scb.se
Sasa.kovacic@bsi.si, dusan.murn@bsi.si, Sasa.Finc@gov.si, marjana.klinar@gov.si, Peter.stembe
margita.kupkova@statistics.sk, dana.czikoova@mfsr.sk, Daniela.ilavska@mfsr.sk, Chris Daffin/EEP
Patterson/NEWPORT/ONS@ONS, Philip Stokoe/NEWPORT/ONS@ONS, Anthony Szary/ONS@O
christophe.duclos@ecb.europa.eu, remigio.echeverria@ecb.europa.eu, robert.gadsby@ecb.europa
henri.maurer@ecb.europa.eu, Reimund.Mink@ecb.europa.eu, nuno.silva@ecb.europa.eu, Pierre.S
Luca.Ascoli@ec.europa.eu, Denis.BESNARD@ec.europa.eu, Jean-Pierre.DUPUIS@ec.europa.eu
Ivana.JABLONSKA@ec.europa.eu, Rasa.JURKONIENE@ec.europa.eu, Viera.KAROLOVA@ec.eu
Martynas.BACIULIS@ec.europa.eu, Elodie.BOUMOKONIA@ec.europa.eu, Gabe.DE-VRIES@ec.e
Agota.KRENUSZ@ec.europa.eu, Peeter.LEETMAA@ec.europa.eu, Stylianos.PANTAZIDIS@ec.eu
Ismael.AHAMDANECH-ZARCO@ec.europa.eu, Marie-Helene.Diedert@ec.europa.eu, Lena.Frej-O
Isabel.Gancedo@ec.europa.eu, Marielouise.Groffilier@ec.europa.eu, Irena.KOSTADINOVA@ec.e
Peter.Parlasca@ec.europa.eu, Neusa.Piraino@ec.europa.eu, Herve.RENNIE@ec.europa.eu, Tatja
Gilles.Thouvenin@ec.europa.eu, Anatole.Tokofai@ec.europa.eu, Irena.TVARIJONAVICIUTE@ec.
martin_kellaway@hotmail.com, helenshanks2002@yahoo.co.uk, Sheldon.Warton-Woods@hendyp
rlilaj@instat.gov.al, sjanjic@cbbh.ba, Bezhanova.K@bnbank.org, Ivanov.R@bnbank.org, s.kostova
APacheva@nsi.bg, davor.galinec@hnb.hr, dominicg@dzs.hr, Zeljka.papez@mfin.hr, besim.mehme
Michaela.ene@mfinante.gv.ro, aciuchea@insse.ro, Georgeta.mondiru@insse.ro, dusan.gavrilovic@
Zeliha.onal@hazine.gov.tr, ENGIN.SAN@tuik.gov.tr, tulay.korkmaz@tuik.gov.tr, tan.schelling@snb
Frode.borgaas@ssb.no, pmv@ssb.no
cc:
Subject:
Construction cost in PPP projects
Dear Members of the Financial Accounts Working Group,
In February 2011 Eurostat circulated a questionnaire asking you whether or not the cost of financing the
construction should be included in the cost of constructing the asset ("capital cost") in statistical analysis
of a Public Private Partnership (PPP)?
All 27 EU Member States and Switzerland replied to the questionnaire - thank you for your replies. A
large majority of the respondents was of the opinion that the cost of financing should be included in
capital cost.
The Manual on Government Deficit and Debt (MGDD, 2010 chapter VI.5.2.3.) states that "capital
expenditure is recorded as gross fixed capital formation in the non-financial account..". ESA95 (chapter
3.113) states that "gross fixed capital formation is valued at purchaser's prices including installation
charges and other costs of ownership transfer" without specifying if financing costs should be included.
However, the seller of a capital good normally considers any financing cost as part of its production costs.
Taking note of the replies of countries, Eurostat considers that financing costs - where they are seperately
identified - should be included in capital costs when statistically analysing PPP projects.
This clarification will be included in the MGDD at the next opportunity for its update.
Best regards,
On behalf of John Verrinder, Head of Unit Eurostat C-4 "Statistics for Excessive Deficit Procedure II"
Elodie Boumokonia
European Commission
Eurostat Unit C4 - Statistics for Excessive Deficit Procedure II
BECH Building (E4/812)
5, rue Alphonse Weicker
L-2721 Luxembourg
Phone: +352 4301 36560
elodie.boumokonia@ec.europa.eu
This email was received from the INTERNET and scanned by the Government Secure Intranet
anti-virus service supplied by Cable&Wireless Worldwide in partnership with MessageLabs.
(CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) In case of problems, please call your
organisation?x02019;s IT Helpdesk.
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal
purposes.
Sanjiv
10 April 2011
Bookmarked to: Craig McLaren, Graeme Walker, Ian Richardson, David Bailey, Anthony Szry, Peter
Patterson, Chris Daffin
Copied to: Glenn Everett, Steve Drew, Joe Grice, Aileen Simkins
NACDD BDB on NGROUP1
Created By:
Sanjiv Mahajan on 10/06/2010 at
18:05
Title: CMFB consultation on third edition of MGDD - preannouncement
R
R
e
p
o
n
e
Re
esssp
po
on
nssse
e
Note for the record
Martin Kellaway
10/06/2010 12:10
To:
cc:
Subject:
Simon Humphries/BOPD/MESAG/LONDON/ONS@ONS
Sanjiv Mahajan/NAD/MESAG/LONDON/ONS@ONS
Re: CMFB consultation on third edition of MGDD - pre-announ
This fell off the rails a bit at FAWG, as Eurostat announced they planned to change the chapter covering
swaps and it was pointed out that CMFB had already made this pre-announcement.
I assume we are going to make a token no vote in the consultation due to mobile phones (I'm told that the
box prepared for the consultation on the chapters, never circulated, survives) and other parts of MGDD
(e.g. PPPs) departing from ESA95. One of the objectives of the update was to bring the manual into line
with ESA95.
I'm familiar with all the chapters, so no need to farm any of this out as part of the CMFB consultation.
Newport people are obviously going to need to read it at some stage.
I am off the week 28 June to 3 July, so it is important that this gets to me as soon as it is sent out. If it
gets delayed being sent the deadline will move back as well due to CMFB procedure.
By the way, the Danes spolit the softly-softly tactic on mobile phones by pointing out to Eurostat at FAWG
that the problem goes away in ESA10 due to its different treatment. They did not react, but are now
aware. Be interesting to see the editors reaction if he's told to make changes.
Martin
Simon Humphries
07/06/2010 14:33
To:
cc:
Subject:
Martin Kellaway/NEID/MESAG/LONDON/ONS@O
Re: CMFB consultation on third edition of MGDD
Martin - Sanjiv's suggestion makes sense given your familiarity with the subject matter, but it seems as
though this might be a good opportunity to use the Newport people as a second pair of eyes? Is there
any sensible breakdown of chapters that we can farm out to relevant branch heads, with you as overall
QA'er?
Simon
----- Forwarded by Simon Humphries/BOPD/MESAG/LONDON/ONS on 07/06/2010 14:31 ----Sanjiv Mahajan
07/06/2010 12:35
To:
cc:
Glenn Everett/ONS@ONS
Subject:
Dear Simon,
Can I assume this will be co-ordinated by your area, possibly Martin leading?
Could you also please copy me in the response - much appreciated.
Thanks in advance.
Sanjiv
Simon Humphries/BOPD/MESAG/LONDON/ONS
Joe Grice/ONS@ONS, Martin Kellaway/NEID/ME
Re: CMFB consultation on third edition of MGDD
ESTAT-CMFBSecretariat@ec.europa.
eu
Sent by:
Carsten.Olsson@ec.eur
opa.eu
07/06/2010 08:48
To:
Walter.Stuebler@statistik.gv.at, rudi.acx@nbb.be
dimitrov.e@bnbank.org, gmihaylova@nsi.bg, guido.boller@snb.ch, philippe.kuettel@b
angeloskapatais@centralbank.gov.cy, gzeitountsian@cystat.mof.gov.cy, jan.heller@c
wolfgang.strohm@destatis.de, Gerhard.Ziebarth@bundesbank.de, tmm@nationalban
aurel.schubert@ecb.europa.eu, werner.bier@ecb.europa.eu, alda.morais@ecb.europ
agnes.naarits@stat.ee, nkamberoglou@bankofgreece.gr, akarapappas@bankofgreec
acristobal@ine.es, estadistica.be@bde.es, estadistica.2@bde.es, Mariahelena.Figue
helka.jokinen@Bof.fi, ari.tyrkko@stat.fi, alain.duchateau@banque-france.fr, fabrice.le
pierre.sicsic@banque-france.fr, Karoline.Horlebein@ec.europa.eu, peter.szabo@ksh
bill.keating@cso.ie, joe.mcneill@centralbank.ie, rosmundur.gudnason@hagstofa.is, to
enrico.donofrio@bancaditalia.it, marco.magnani@bancaditalia.it, jonas.markelevicius
roland.nockels@bcl.lu, marc.origer@statec.etat.lu, agris.caune@bank.lv, dace.tomas
joseph.a.bonello@gov.mt, pulej@centralbankmalta.com, j.m.berk@dnb.nl, CMFBCha
pven@cbs.nl, vetle.hvidsten@norges-bank.no, alr@ssb.no, Carsten.Olsson@ec.euro
elzbieta.bartkowska@mail.nbp.pl, m.jeznach@stat.gov.pl, jcmatos@bportugal.pt, carl
Luis.Robledo-Fraga@ec.europa.eu, silvia.caragea@insse.ro, marian.mustareata@bn
gunnar.blomberg@riksbank.se, monica.nelsonedberg@scb.se, Janez.Fabijan@bsi.si
karmen.hren@gov.si, matjaz.noc@bsi.si, gregor_bajtay@nbs.sk, Frantisek.Bernadic@
Grice/ONS@ONS, stephen.sabine@bankofengland.co.uk
cc:
rlilaj@instat.gov.al, gmano@instat.gov.al, staci@b
michael.andreasch@oenb.at, franz.granner@statistik.gv.at, michael.pfeiffer@oenb.at
ahadziomeragic@cbbh.ba, mlikotad@bhas.ba, secretariatCN@nbb.be, eatanasova@
Ttodorov@nsi.bg, dario.florey@bfs.admin.ch, philippe.stauffer@bfs.admin.ch, skarag
gsarris@cystat.mof.gov.cy, ivan.matalik@cnb.cz, rudolf.olsovsky@cnb.cz, vitezslav.o
albert.braakmann@destatis.de, ulrich.burgtorf@bundesbank.de, juergen.hamker@bu
robert.kirchner@bundesbank.de, marc-peter.radke@bundesbank.de, norbert.raeth@
almut.steger@bundesbank.de, OBE@dst.dk, sbr@dst.dk, pud@dst.dk, catherine.ahs
christos.androvitsaneas@ecb.europa.eu, werner.bier@ecb.int, remigio.echeverria@e
francis.gross@ecb.europa.eu, andreas.hake@ecb.europa.eu, jean-marc.israel@ecb.
tjeerd.jellema@ecb.europa.eu, kerstin.lehmann@ecb.europa.eu, laura.mcquillan@ec
reimund.mink@ecb.europa.eu, alda.morais@ecb.europa.eu, alina.muresan@ecb.eur
gabriel.quiros@ecb.europa.eu, daniela.schackis@ecb.europa.eu, angelika.von_ciemi
richard.walton@ecb.europa.eu, caroline.willeke@ecb.europa.eu, rkirt@epbe.ee, beria
maroik@statistics.gr, papandk@statistics.gr, anapat@statistics.gr, marianog@ine.es,
paula.koistinen-jokiniemi@stat.fi, sari.kuisma@stat.fi, mikko.t.makinen@stat.fi, antero
tuomas.rothovius@stat.fi, mika.sainio@stat.fi, olli.seppanen@stat.fi, Risto.Suomela@
pierre.cousseran@banque-france.fr, jacques.magniez@insee.fr, elisabeth.pauly@ban
roknicv@dzs.hr, pal.pozsonyi@ksh.hu, michael.connolly@cso.ie, mary.cussen@cent
mary.everett@centralbank.ie, pat.fanning@cso.ie, Catherine.Finneran@cso.ie, mick.l
aburgischmelz@imf.org, rheath@imf.org, akitili@imf.org, rosmundur.gudnason@hags
Stefan.Jansen@hagstofa.is, gamaliel.sveinsson@hagstofa.is, buratta@istat.it, pres@
laura.grazianipalmieri@bancaditalia.it, grazia.marchese@bancaditalia.it, giovannigius
mentorgeci@bqk-kos.org, vdauksas@lb.lt, irena.tvarijonaviciute@stat.gov.lt, azilinske
germain.stammet@bcl.lu, gunta.andersone@bank.lv, zigrida.austa@bank.lv, daiga.ga
iveta.salmina@bank.lv, ilmars.skarbnieks@bank.lv, gradojevic@monstat.org, mira.rad
andreevskam@nbrm.gov.mk, lidija.gjorgievska@stat.gov.mk, boban.ilievski@stat.gov
attardmr@centralbankmalta.com, caruanamc@centralbankmalta.org, pacec@central
ross@gov.mt, mn.koymans-verheul@cbs.nl, h.lub@dnb.nl, R.J.Noordwijk@DNB.NL,
marit.hoel@ssb.no, ayse.bertrand@oecd.org, andreas.lindner@oecd.org, paul.schrey
marie.viriat@oecd.org, Carsten.Olsson@ec.europa.eu, J.Krysta@stat.gov.pl, ewa.las
o.leszczynska@stat.gov.pl, renata.lipska@mail.nbp.pl, jozef.sobota@mail.nbp.pl, Z.W
ammalmeida@bportugal.pt, Jose-Luis.Robledo-Fraga@ec.europa.eu, constantin.chir
camelia.neagu@bnro.ro, virgil.stefanescu@bnro.ro, gunnar.blomberg@riksbank.se, p
lars.forss@riksbank.se, birgitta.magnusson@scb.se, uros.gersak@bsi.si, sasa.kovac
ivana.brziakova@nbs.sk, michal_doliak@nbs.sk, zuzana.durcenkova@nbs.sk, jan.se
ivan.vodicka@nbs.sk, mehmet.aktas@tuik.gov.tr, fikret.karabudak@tcmb.gov.tr, colle
Sanjiv Mahajan/NAD/MESAG/LONDON/ONS@ONS, Alice.Zoppe@ec.europa.eu, Jo
Giuliano.Amerini@ec.europa.eu, Luca.Ascoli@ec.europa.eu, Antonio.Baigorri@ec.eu
Roberto.Barcellan@ec.europa.eu, Eduardo.Barredo-Capelot@ec.europa.eu, Philippe
Axel.Behrens@ec.europa.eu, Luis.BIEDMA@ec.europa.eu, Marie.BOHATA@ec.euro
Eckhard.Borchert@ec.europa.eu, mbcabria@telefonica.net, Marcin.BUJNOWSKI@ec
Arunas.BUTKEVICIUS@ec.europa.eu, Ales.CAPEK@ec.europa.eu, Thana.Chrissan
Luisa.Cipriano@ec.europa.eu, Anne.Clemenceau@ec.europa.eu, Daniela.Comini@e
Ovidio.Crocicchi@ec.europa.eu, Giovanna.DABBICCO@ec.europa.eu, Johan.DEBR
Pedro.Diaz@ec.europa.eu, Andreas.DOLLT@ec.europa.eu, Filomena.DOMINGUES@
Tomas.DUCHON@ec.europa.eu, Jean-Pierre.DUPUIS@ec.europa.eu, Ligia.FRANKF
Ohlsson@ec.europa.eu, Monika.GAPINSKA@ec.europa.eu, Sylvie.GORI@ec.europa
August.Goetzfried@ec.europa.eu, Michaela.GRELL@ec.europa.eu, Oana.GRIGORE
Gallo.Gueye@ec.europa.eu, Keith.HAYES@ec.europa.eu, Ralf.HEIN@ec.europa.eu
Jukka.JALAVA@ec.europa.eu, stefan.jansen@hagstofa.is, Claudia.Junker@ec.europ
Francine.Kessler@ec.europa.eu, Paulus.Konijn@ec.europa.eu, Ingo.Kuhnert@ec.eu
Peeter.LEETMAA@ec.europa.eu, Martine.Leonard@ec.europa.eu, Denis.Leythienne
Matthias.LUDWIG@ec.europa.eu, Alexandre.Makaronidis@ec.europa.eu, Francis.MA
Ani.MASLARSKA@ec.europa.eu, Gianluigi.Mazzi@ec.europa.eu, Lene.MEJER@ec.
Louis.Mercy@ec.europa.eu, Diana.MIHAILOVA@ec.europa.eu, Marita.Mischler-Rosa
Marc.MUSEUX@ec.europa.eu, Annika.Naslund-Fogelberg@ec.europa.eu, Brian.New
Carsten.Olsson@ec.europa.eu, Luca.PAPPALARDO@ec.europa.eu, Paolo.Passerin
Gabrielle.Pavant@ec.europa.eu, Marco.Pellegrino@ec.europa.eu, Neusa.Piraino@ec
Christian.Ravets@ec.europa.eu, Joachim.Recktenwald@ec.europa.eu, Klaus.Reeh@
Herve.RENNIE@ec.europa.eu, Brigitte.Renno@ec.europa.eu, Peter.Ritzmann@ec.e
Frederique.ROUARD@ec.europa.eu, Rostislav.ROZSYPAL@ec.europa.eu, Pierrette
Gunter.Schaefer@ec.europa.eu, Sandra.SCHWARZ@ext.ec.europa.eu, Johan.Selen
Petra.Sneijers@ec.europa.eu, Francisco.Sobrino@ec.europa.eu, Inna.STEINBUKA@
Anton.Steurer@ec.europa.eu, Monique.Stieber@ec.europa.eu, Anatole.Tokofai@ec.e
ECK@ec.europa.eu, John.Verrinder@ec.europa.eu, Sylvie.VILLAUME@ec.europa.e
Anne-Marie.WINDING@ec.europa.eu, Christine.Wirtz@ec.europa.eu, Monika.WOZO
Brane.ZABUKOVEC@ec.europa.eu
Subject:
CMFB consultation on third edition of MGDD - pre
Dear Members of the CMFB,
Please be aware that a consultation on the Manual on Government Deficit and Debt
(MGDD) will take place soon.
It is expected that the formal CMFB consultation on the third edition of the MGDD will be
launched around 22 June with a deadline of 6 July 2010.
A large number of the changes to the MGDD are editorial with the intention to improve the
form or to introduce minor clarification of the recommendations. In those cases where the
clarifications involve a change in substance of the recommendations, the CMFB has been
consulted on the revised chapters. An overview is provided in the attached draft
background note.
Hence, the main issue for the formal consultation will be to check the editorial changes and
the overall consistency of the manual.
Please find attached the draft third edition of the MGDD and a draft background note
explaining about the main changes introduced. A version with track changes will be
forwarded as soon as it is ready.
Kind regards,
Carsten Olsson
***********************************************
Carsten Olsson
CMFB Secretariat
e-mail: estat-cmfb-secretariat@ec.europa.eu
tel: (+352)4301.34.208
web: www.cmfb.org
***********************************************
NACDD BDB on NGROUP1
Created By:
Sanjiv Mahajan on 11/03/2010 at
15:29
Title: CMFB consultation on two MGDD chapters
regarding EU Grants and PPPs and the amendments to
the related chapters
Categorisation
International Coordination\International
Organisation\CMFB
Note for the record
Aileen Simkins
11/03/2010 14:40
To:
Sanjiv Mahajan/NAD/MESAG/LONDON/ONS@ONS
cc:
Joe Grice/ONS@ONS, Simon Humphries/BOPD/MESAG/LON
Subject:
Re: CMFB consultation on two MGDD chapters regarding EU G
amendments to the related chaptersNotes Link
Joe did send a reply but it was late. Hope it is taken on board during discussions.
Aileen Simkins
Director of Operations, Economic, Labour and Social Analysis Directorate
Office for National Statistics
Room 2164, Government Offices, Newport
01633 456381
mobile: 07939 090036
Sanjiv Mahajan
11/03/2010 14:34
Dear Joe and Aileen,
To:
Joe Grice/ONS@ONS, Aileen Simkins/ONS@ON
cc:
Simon Humphries/BOPD/MESAG/LONDON/ONS
Subject:
CMFB consultation on two MGDD chapters regard
amendments to the related chapters
I noticed in the "summary replies" document, there was no response from the UK NSI.
I am just checking, do you (or Simon) know whether or not we provided a response?
I am coming from the angle there are various aspects raised through the ESA 95 Review Group process,
whereby we were not happy with the state of play and content of the related chapters.
It looks like it may be too late from the CMFB process which will imply Eurostat may be unwilling to make
further changes.
Thanks.
Sanjiv
----- Forwarded by Sanjiv Mahajan/NAD/MESAG/LONDON/ONS on 11/03/2010 14:29 -----
ESTAT-CMFBSecretariat@ec.europa.
eu
Sent by:
Carsten.Olsson@ec.eur
opa.eu
10/03/2010 16:04
To:
aurel.schubert@oenb.at, Walter.Stuebler@statist
roger.deboeck@nbb.be, dimitrov.e@bnbank.org, gmihaylova@nsi.bg, guido.boller@s
philippe.kuettel@bfs.admin.ch, angeloskapatais@centralbank.gov.cy, gzeitountsian@
jan.heller@czso.cz, petr.vojtisek@cnb.cz, wolfgang.strohm@destatis.de, Gerhard.Zie
tmm@nationalbanken.dk, kwi@dst.dk, werner.bier@ecb.europa.eu, yasemin.kantekin
alda.morais@ecb.europa.eu, jkroon@epbe.ee, agnes.naarits@stat.ee, nkamberoglou
akarapappas@bankofgreece.gr, nikstrobl@statistics.gr, acristobal@ine.es, estadistica
estadistica.2@bde.es, Mariahelena.Figueira@ec.europa.eu, helka.jokinen@Bof.fi, ari
alain.duchateau@banque-france.fr, fabrice.lenglart@insee.fr, pierre.sicsic@banque-f
Karoline.Horlebein@ec.europa.eu, peter.szabo@ksh.hu, tardosa@mnb.hu, bill.keatin
joe.mcneill@centralbank.ie, rosmundur.gudnason@hagstofa.is, tok@cb.is, caricchi@
enrico.donofrio@bancaditalia.it, marco.magnani@bancaditalia.it, jonas.markelevicius@
roland.nockels@bcl.lu, marc.origer@statec.etat.lu, agris.caune@bank.lv, dace.tomas
joseph.a.bonello@gov.mt, pulej@centralbankmalta.com, j.m.berk@dnb.nl, CMFBCha
pven@cbs.nl, vetle.hvidsten@norges-bank.no, alr@ssb.no, Carsten.Olsson@ec.euro
elzbieta.bartkowska@mail.nbp.pl, m.jeznach@stat.gov.pl, jcmatos@bportugal.pt, carl
Luis.Robledo-Fraga@ec.europa.eu, silvia.caragea@insse.ro, marian.mustareata@bn
gunnar.blomberg@riksbank.se, monica.nelsonedberg@scb.se, Janez.Fabijan@bsi.si
karmen.hren@gov.si, matjaz.noc@bsi.si, gregor_bajtay@nbs.sk, Frantisek.Bernadic@
Grice/ONS@ONS, stephen.sabine@bankofengland.co.uk
cc:
rlilaj@instat.gov.al, gmano@instat.gov.al, staci@b
michael.andreasch@oenb.at, franz.granner@statistik.gv.at, michael.pfeiffer@oenb.at
Walter.Stuebler@statistik.gv.at, ahadziomeragic@cbbh.ba, mlikotad@bhas.ba, secre
eatanasova@nsi.bg, ElHaddad.L@bnbank.org, Ttodorov@nsi.bg, dario.florey@bfs.ad
philippe.stauffer@bfs.admin.ch, skaragiorgis@cystat.mof.gov.cy, gsarris@cystat.mof.
rudolf.olsovsky@cnb.cz, vitezslav.ondrus@czso.cz, albert.braakmann@destatis.de, u
juergen.hamker@bundesbank.de, robert.kirchner@bundesbank.de, marc-peter.radke
norbert.raeth@destatis.de, almut.steger@bundesbank.de, OBE@dst.dk, sbr@dst.dk,
catherine.ahsbahs@ecb.europa.eu, christos.androvitsaneas@ecb.europa.eu, werner
remigio.echeverria@ecb.europa.eu, francis.gross@ecb.europa.eu, andreas.hake@ec
frank.hermann@ecb.europa.eu, jean-marc.israel@ecb.europa.eu, tjeerd.jellema@ecb
yasemin.kantekin@ecb.europa.eu, kerstin.lehmann@ecb.europa.eu, laura.mcquillan@
reimund.mink@ecb.europa.eu, alda.morais@ecb.europa.eu, alina.muresan@ecb.eur
gabriel.quiros@ecb.europa.eu, daniela.schackis@ecb.europa.eu, angelika.von_ciemi
richard.walton@ecb.europa.eu, caroline.willeke@ecb.europa.eu, rkirt@epbe.ee, beria
maroik@statistics.gr, papandk@statistics.gr, anapat@statistics.gr, marianog@ine.es,
paula.koistinen-jokiniemi@stat.fi, sari.kuisma@stat.fi, mikko.t.makinen@stat.fi, antero
tuomas.rothovius@stat.fi, mika.sainio@stat.fi, olli.seppanen@stat.fi, Risto.Suomela@
pierre.cousseran@banque-france.fr, jacques.magniez@insee.fr, elisabeth.pauly@ban
roknicv@dzs.hr, pal.pozsonyi@ksh.hu, michael.connolly@cso.ie, mary.cussen@cent
mary.everett@centralbank.ie, pat.fanning@cso.ie, Catherine.Finneran@cso.ie, mick.l
aburgischmelz@imf.org, rheath@imf.org, akitili@imf.org, rosmundur.gudnason@hags
Stefan.Jansen@hagstofa.is, gamaliel.sveinsson@hagstofa.is, buratta@istat.it, pres@
laura.grazianipalmieri@bancaditalia.it, grazia.marchese@bancaditalia.it, giovannigius
mentorgeci@bqk-kos.org, vdauksas@lb.lt, irena.tvarijonaviciute@stat.gov.lt, azilinske
germain.stammet@bcl.lu, gunta.andersone@bank.lv, zigrida.austa@bank.lv, daiga.ga
iveta.salmina@bank.lv, ilmars.skarbnieks@bank.lv, gradojevic@monstat.org, mira.rad
andreevskam@nbrm.gov.mk, lidija.gjorgievska@stat.gov.mk, boban.ilievski@stat.gov
attardmr@centralbankmalta.com, caruanam@centralbankmalta.com, pacec@centralb
ross@gov.mt, mn.koymans-verheul@cbs.nl, h.lub@dnb.nl, R.J.Noordwijk@DNB.NL,
marit.hoel@ssb.no, ayse.bertrand@oecd.org, andreas.lindner@oecd.org, paul.schrey
marie.viriat@oecd.org, Carsten.Olsson@ec.europa.eu, J.Krysta@stat.gov.pl, ewa.las
o.leszczynska@stat.gov.pl, renata.lipska@mail.nbp.pl, jozef.sobota@mail.nbp.pl, Z.W
ammalmeida@bportugal.pt, Jose-Luis.Robledo-Fraga@ec.europa.eu, constantin.chir
camelia.neagu@bnro.ro, virgil.stefanescu@bnro.ro, amilojic@statserb.sr.gov.yu, mila
gunnar.blomberg@riksbank.se, per.ericson@scb.se, lars.forss@riksbank.se, birgitta.m
uros.gersak@bsi.si, sasa.kovacic@bsi.si, dusan.murn@bsi.si, ivana.brziakova@nbs.
zuzana.durcenkova@nbs.sk, jan.seman@nbs.sk, ivan.vodicka@nbs.sk, mehmet.akta
fikret.karabudak@tcmb.gov.tr, collette.collings@bankofengland.co.uk, Sanjiv
Mahajan/NAD/MESAG/LONDON/ONS@ONS, Alice.Zoppe@ec.europa.eu, John.Alle
Giuliano.Amerini@ec.europa.eu, Luca.Ascoli@ec.europa.eu, Antonio.Baigorri@ec.eu
Roberto.Barcellan@ec.europa.eu, Eduardo.Barredo-Capelot@ec.europa.eu, Philippe
Axel.Behrens@ec.europa.eu, Peter.Bekx@ec.europa.eu, Luis.BIEDMA@ec.europa.e
Eckhard.Borchert@ec.europa.eu, mbcabria@telefonica.net, Marcin.BUJNOWSKI@ec
Arunas.BUTKEVICIUS@ec.europa.eu, Ales.CAPEK@ec.europa.eu, Thana.Chrissan
Luisa.Cipriano@ec.europa.eu, Anne.Clemenceau@ec.europa.eu, Daniela.Comini@e
Ovidio.Crocicchi@ec.europa.eu, Giovanna.DABBICCO@ec.europa.eu, Johan.DEBR
Pedro.Diaz@ec.europa.eu, Andreas.DOLLT@ec.europa.eu, Filomena.DOMINGUES@
Tomas.DUCHON@ec.europa.eu, Jean-Pierre.DUPUIS@ec.europa.eu, Ligia.FRANKF
Ohlsson@ec.europa.eu, Monika.GAPINSKA@ec.europa.eu, Sylvie.GORI@ec.europa
August.Goetzfried@ec.europa.eu, Michaela.GRELL@ec.europa.eu, Oana.GRIGORE
Gallo.Gueye@ec.europa.eu, Keith.HAYES@ec.europa.eu, Ralf.HEIN@ec.europa.eu
Jukka.JALAVA@ec.europa.eu, stefan.jansen@hagstofa.is, Claudia.Junker@ec.europ
Francine.Kessler@ec.europa.eu, Paulus.Konijn@ec.europa.eu, Ingo.Kuhnert@ec.eu
Peeter.LEETMAA@ec.europa.eu, Martine.Leonard@ec.europa.eu, Denis.Leythienne
Matthias.LUDWIG@ec.europa.eu, Alexandre.Makaronidis@ec.europa.eu, Francis.MA
Ani.MASLARSKA@ec.europa.eu, Gianluigi.Mazzi@ec.europa.eu, Lene.MEJER@ec.
Louis.Mercy@ec.europa.eu, Diana.MIHAILOVA@ec.europa.eu, Marita.Mischler-Rosa
Marc.MUSEUX@ec.europa.eu, Annika.Naslund-Fogelberg@ec.europa.eu, Brian.New
Carsten.Olsson@ec.europa.eu, Luca.PAPPALARDO@ec.europa.eu, Paolo.Passerin
Gabrielle.Pavant@ec.europa.eu, Marco.Pellegrino@ec.europa.eu, Neusa.Piraino@ec
Christian.Ravets@ec.europa.eu, Joachim.Recktenwald@ec.europa.eu, Klaus.Reeh@
Herve.RENNIE@ec.europa.eu, Brigitte.Renno@ec.europa.eu, Peter.Ritzmann@ec.e
Frederique.ROUARD@ec.europa.eu, Rostislav.ROZSYPAL@ec.europa.eu, Pierrette
Gunter.Schaefer@ec.europa.eu, Sandra.SCHWARZ@ext.ec.europa.eu, Johan.Selen
Petra.Sneijers@ec.europa.eu, Francisco.Sobrino@ec.europa.eu, Inna.STEINBUKA@
Anton.Steurer@ec.europa.eu, Monique.Stieber@ec.europa.eu, Anatole.Tokofai@ec.e
ECK@ec.europa.eu, John.Verrinder@ec.europa.eu, Sylvie.VILLAUME@ec.europa.e
Anne-Marie.WINDING@ec.europa.eu, Christine.Wirtz@ec.europa.eu, Monika.WOZO
Brane.ZABUKOVEC@ec.europa.eu, Luca.Ascoli@ec.europa.eu, Jean-Pierre.DUPUI
Agota.KRENUSZ@ec.europa.eu
Subject:
CMFB consultation on two MGDD chapters regar
amendments to the related chapters
Dear Members of the CMFB,
Please find enclosed a letter from Mr Peter van de Ven, Chairman of the CMFB, to Ms Helena Figueira,
Acting Director of National and European Accounts, Eurostat, on the formal approval of the two chapters
of the ESA95 Manual on Government Deficit and Debt on 1) "Government and the EU institutions: grants
from the EU budget" and 2) "Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs)" and the related amendments to the
chapters "Overview" and "Public infrastructure financed and exploited by corporations. An annex with a
summary of the replies is also attached.
Best regards,
Carsten Olsson
CMFB Secretariat
This email was received from the INTERNET and scanned by the Government Secure Intranet
anti-virus service supplied by Cable&Wireless in partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM
Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) In case of problems, please call your organisation?x02019;s
IT Helpdesk.
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal
purposes.
NACDD BDB on NGROUP1
Created By:
Sanjiv Mahajan on 06/05/2012 at
20:04
Title: European Scrutiny Committee statistical
requirements - Response from Siobhan Carey
R
R
e
p
o
n
e
T
o
R
e
p
o
n
e
Re
esssp
po
on
nssse
eT
To
oR
Re
esssp
po
on
nssse
e
Note for the record
siobhan.carey@bis.gsi.gov
.uk
03/05/2012 17:08
To Matthew Shearing/ONS@ONS, Damian
Whittard/NEWPORT/ONS@ONS, Joe Grice/ONS@ONS,
Sanjiv Mahajan/NAD/MESAG/LONDON/ONS@ONS
cc Paula.Maratos@bis.gsi.gov.uk, tony.wilkins@bis.gsi.gov.uk
Subjec RE: URGENT - European Scrutiny Committee statistical
t requirements _ BIS response
Matt (and reduced cc list for information)
Here is some material for you to use as you see fit for Jil's letter to Bill CashOur main input is in relation to the data sources however I expect some or indeed all of
this will be covered off by ONS colleagues more fully so this is just supplementary Point 2 of the specific data he is looking for on off/on balance sheet liabilities I don't
think we can help with but the below may help with Points 1 and 3 is his essentials list.
Point 1 Stats on balance of trade between UK and other member states
File "EU time series....": from Eurostat website
First sheet shows EU intra and extra GOODS trade over recent years - shows EU27
trade and extra EU27 trade, both increasing over time, with a dip during the economic
crisis, and the extraEU share increasing - not really surprising with the growth in BRICS
etc. Still over 60% of goods trade is intraEU. This analysis highlighted a phenomena
with intra EU trade where exports historically exceed imports - one possible theory is
that there is more of a business incentive to claim back VAT on goods produced rather
than pay VAT on goods received? The EU has a trade deficit with the Rest of the World.
Second sheet shows EU and UK GOODS imports and exports time series, to show how
trade has changed over time. There is significant increase in trade with new member
states over time showing the impact of the single market for them. The UK has seen
trade with new MS generally increasing at a faster rate than the other MS.
The next 3 sheets should meet a large part of his requirements at least for GOODS as
they show a matrix of trade for all MS for the latest GOODS data (2011) for exports,
imports and balance. Reporters in rows, partners in columns. Therefore the first row
shows Austrian exports to extra_EU, intra_EU, Belgium, Bulgaria etc. The UK has a
lower share of trade within the EU than the other MS (around 50% whilst some are
around 70%).
The final sheet is an example of the services data (more can be extracted from the
Eurostat BoP database if required). Latest data = 2010, again there is an EU trade
surplus with itself...
Please note that some tables are in billions of euros, others in actuals or millions.
You might also be interested in these visualisations Tony Wilkins has been trying out Exports
http://www-958.ibm.com/software/data/cognos/manyeyes/visualizations/hmrc-ots-ukgoods-exports-2011
Imports
http://www-958.ibm.com/software/data/cognos/manyeyes/visualizations/uk-goodsimports-2011
Point 3. Details and comparisons between EU countries of the share of FDI responsible for GDP growth
and the source of that FDI – especially in light of the contribution of certain countries to GDP growth in
other countries, eg how much is German investment responsible for Polish GDP growth?
I am sure you will have more detailed response from the FDI team or BOP at ONS. The
second spreadsheet "bop_..." is an extract of FDI outward positions. I have not had
chance to download GDP data for each country in order to see how investment
compares to GDP. Data is only for the years 2008-2010 but older data is available on a
slightly different basis in another table on the eurostat website.
International FDI positions by partner country is on the OECD website.
http://stats.oecd.org/
find it under:
Data by Theme
Globalisation
Foreign Direct Investment Statistics
FDI position by partner country
In 2010 Germany FDI in Poland was $26,461 million
GDP can be found under:
National Accounts
Main Aggregates
Gross Domestic Product
GDP, US $ current prices current PPPs millions
Poland GDP 2010: $759,271.8 Million
So German FDI (in Poland) as share of Polish GDP in 2010 =
26461/759271.8 = 3.5%
This isn't exactly what he is asking for - but......
Hope this is somewhat helpful - thanks to Paula and Tony for the work on digging this
out.
Siobhan
Siobhan Carey | Chief Statistician/Head of Profession | Statistical Analysis| Department for Business, Innovation and Skills |
siobhan.carey@bis.gsi.gov.uk | 1 Victoria Street, London, SW1H 0ET | +44 207 215 3276 | Mob: +44 7768301737| www.bis.gov.uk
The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) is making a difference by supporting sustained growth and higher skills
across the economy. BIS: working together for growth
From: Matthew Shearing [mailto:matthew.shearing@statistics.gsi.gov.uk]
Sent: 01 May 2012 20:13
To: Carey Siobhan (Analysis); Damian Whittard; Joe Grice; Sanjiv Mahajan
Cc: Edward.Wilson@hmtreasury.gsi.gov.uk; Ross Young; Tom.Orford@hmtreasury.gsi.gov.uk;
Caron Walker; Tim Andrews
Subject: URGENT - European Scrutiny Committee statistical requirements
Dear all,
Following a meeting yesterday with Bill Cash, Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee (prebriefing attached for info, although in the event the focus was as much on data needs as quality
and reliability), Jil would like us to investigate how we can better meet the statistical needs of one
of the GSS' primary customers (see note of meeting attached). The outcome may look like a
letter from Jil to Mr Cash as soon as possible explaining what information is already available,
notwithstanding any additional analyses we may also need to produce.
I propose the following steps:
- please inform me of data sources and analyses that might already fit the bill and other other
initial thoughts or comments by the end of this week.
- I will seek with Ross Young to have a constructive dialogue with the House of Commons library
about previous enquiries by the Committee in this area and how we can work together to develop
the right sort of information flows in the future. Ross - let's speak separately asap please.
- I will agree with you a submission to Jil suggesting a formal response to Mr Cash asap.
Many thanks
Matthew
Matthew Shearing | Head of International Relations | National Statistician's Office | UK Statistics
Authority | Tel: +44 (0)1633 455739 Mob: +44 (0)7801 522812 |
Email:matthew.shearing@statistics.gsi.gov.uk | www.statisticsauthority.gov.uk/nationalstatistician/index.html
For information on the work of the UK Statistics Authority visit:
http://www.statisticsauthority.gov.uk
NACDD BDB on NGROUP1
Created By:
Sanjiv Mahajan on 19/05/2012 at
17:05
Title: Invitation to XI-EC-SCA-ECLAC-uk
Categorisation
International Coordination\Conferences and
Meetings
Note for the record
From : Paula.FUENZALIDA@cepal.org
To : director.-.private.office@ons.gov.uk, Jil Matheson/ONS, International
CC : paula.fuenzalida@eclac.org, eba@dgeec.gov.py
Date Sent : 17/05/2012 15:47:57
Subject : Invitation to XI-EC-SCA-ECLAC-uk
Dear Ms. Jil Matheson,
As you know, the Eleventh meeting of the Executive Committee of the Statistical
Conference of the Americas of ECLAC will take place in Quito - Ecuador on July 2,3 and 4
2012.
For your information, attached kindly find formal invitation letter that has been sent to the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of your country, together with the Provisional Agenda and General
Information Sheet with hotel form and online link to register for this meeting.
In order to prepare for this event, in particular to make the necessary facility arrangements, I
would be obliged if you could inform us of the names of your delegation that will attend. Kindly
direct your communication or information to Ms. Paula Fuenzalida (paula.fuenzalida@cepal.org)
or Ms. Paula Warnken (paula.warnken@cepal.org).
Please be advised that the documents can be found at the Executive Committee web site
http://www.eclac.cl/scaeclac, as soon as they are available.
I thank you in advance for your participation and support in the success of this important
meeting.
Yours sincerely,
This email was received from the INTERNET and scanned by the Government Secure Intranet
anti-virus service supplied by Cable&Wireless Worldwide in partnership with MessageLabs.
(CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) In case of problems, please call your organisation’s
IT Helpdesk.
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal
purposes.
- 2012-354 CE.11 Provisional agenda.pdf
- General Information i.docx
- Great Britain.pdf
NACDD BDB on NGROUP1
Created By:
Sanjiv Mahajan on 23/07/2009 at
08:10
Title: Revised Eurostat paper on market / non-market
test for sector classification
R
R
e
p
o
n
e
Re
esssp
po
on
nssse
e
Note for the record
LuizaCristina.MUNTEANU@
ec.europa.eu
30/06/2009 14:51
To:
nikstrobl@statistics.gr, bill.keating@cso.ie, paul.schreyer@oec
reinhold.schwarzl@statistik.gv.at, rudi.acx@nbb.be, TTodorov@nsi.bg, gzeitountsian@cystat.mof.g
ondrus@czso.cz, wolfgang.strohm@destatis.de, kwi@dst.dk, gabriel.quiros@ecb.int, richard.walton
steven.keuning@ecb.int, werner.bier@ecb.int, Tonu.Mertsina@stat.ee, acristobal@ine.es, ari.tyrkk
fabrice.lenglart@insee.fr, pal.pozsonyi@ksh.hu, peter.szabo@ksh.hu, gamaliel.sveinsson@hagsto
Irena.Tvarijonaviciute@stat.gov.lt, marc.origer@statec.etat.lu, Dace.Tomase@csb.gov.lv, joseph.a
joseph.p.vella@gov.mt, pven@cbs.nl, ann.lisbet.brathaug@ssb.no, M.Jeznach@stat.gov.pl, carlos
caragea@insse.ro, Roberto.Barcellan@ec.europa.eu, Robin.LynchLtd@ntlworld.com, monica.nelso
andrej.flajs@gov.si, Frantisek.Bernadic@statistics.sk, ferhat.arslaner@tuik.gov.tr, mehmet.aktas@
Grice/ONS@ONS, Sanjiv Mahajan/NAD/MESAG/LONDON/ONS@ONS
cc:
Mariahelena.Figueira@ec.europa.eu, Luca.Ascoli@ec.europa.e
Christian.Ravets@ec.europa.eu, Jean-Pierre.DUPUIS@ec.europa.eu, Frederique.ROUARD@ec.e
Carsten.Olsson@ec.europa.eu, Karoline.Horlebein@ec.europa.eu
Subject:
FW: Market / non-market test for sector classification
Dear Directors of National Accounts,
Please find attached a revised version of the document on market/non-market.
The initial version of the issue paper that you received has been amended after the
FAWG meeting (8-9 June 2009) and the ESA Review Group (10-11 June 2009), notably
on the two following aspects (consistently with the usual decision tree implemented for
the sector classification of an entity):
1. It is underlined that the important qualitative assessment of an entity to be classified
must first include a check that the entity is a genuine institutional unit.
2. It is reminded then that the market assessment is mainly relevant for public producers.
In the ESA, private producers - except in the specific case of NPIs - are deemed to
always be market producers.
Best regards,
Luiza Munteanu
On behalf of Gallo Gueye
<<Market-non market update 30.06.09.doc>>
This email was received from the INTERNET and scanned by the Government Secure Intranet
anti-virus service supplied by Cable&Wireless in partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM
Certificate Number 2007/11/0032.) In case of problems, please call your organisation’s IT
Helpdesk.
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal
purposes.