The Financial Crisis and Information Gaps

Progress Report
Action Plans and Timetables

Prepared by the IMF Staff and the FSB Secretariat
May 2010

2

CONTENTS

PAGE

Contents .....................................................................................................................................2
List of Abbreviations and Acronyms .........................................................................................3
Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................4
Introduction ..............................................................................................................................11
I. Progress made since November 2009 ...................................................................................11
A. Conceptual/statistical framework needs development ...................................................13
Build-up of risk in the financial sector ..........................................................................13
Cross-border financial linkages ....................................................................................14
Vulnerability of domestic economies to shocks .............................................................16
B. Conceptual/statistical frameworks exist and ongoing collection needs enhancement ...16
II. Challenges and Institutional Arrangements ........................................................................18
III. Work Program ....................................................................................................................19
Summary Table: Progress Report, Action Plans, and Timetables .............................................5
Figure 1: Overview of the 20 Recommendations ....................................................................12
Annex: Detailed Action Plans and Timetables ........................................................................20

3
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
2008 SNA
ABS
BCBS
BIS
BOPCOM
BSA
BPM6
CCPs
CDS
CGFS
CPIS
CPPIs
CRT
ECB
Eurostat
FOF
FSAP
FSB
FSF
FSI
G-20
G-22
GFS
GFSM 2001
GFSR
HFCS
IAG
IAIS
IBS
IMF
IIP
IOSCO
ISWGNA
IWGPS
MCM
OECD
OTC
PGI
PSD
REPIs
SDDS
SIGFIs
SNA
SPV
SRF
STA
TFFS
UN
WG
WGSD
WEO

The System of National Accounts 2008
Asset Backed Securities
Basel Committee on Banking Supervision
Bank for International Settlements
IMF Committee on Balance of Payments Statistics
Balance Sheet Approach
Balance of Payments and International Investment Position
Manual, sixth edition
Central Counterparties
Credit Default Swaps
Committee on the Global Financial System
Coordinated Portfolio Investment Survey
Commercial Property Price IndicesCredit Risk Transfer
European Central Bank
Statistical Office of the European Communities
Flow of Funds
Financial Sector Assessment Program
Financial Stability Board
Financial Stability Forum
Financial Soundness Indicators
The Group of Twenty
The Group of Twenty Two
Government Finance Statistics
Government Finance Statistics Manual, 2001
IMF’s Global Financial Stability Report
Household Finance and Consumption Survey
Interagency Group on Economic and Financial Statistics
International Association of Insurance Supervisors
International Banking Statistics
International Monetary FundInternational Investment Position
International Organization of Securities Commissions
Inter-Secretariat Working Group on National Accounts
Inter-Secretariat Working Group on Price Statistics
IMF’s Monetary and Capital Markets Department
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
Over-the-Counter
Principal Global Indicators
Public Sector Debt Guide
Real Estate Price IndicesSpecial Data Dissemination Standard
Systemically Important Global Financial Institutions
System of National Accounts
Special Purpose Vehicles
Standardized Report Form
IMF’s Statistics Department
Inter-Agency Task Force on Finance Statistics
United Nations
Working Group
Working Group on Securities Databases
World Economic Outlook

4
The Financial Crisis and Information Gaps: Progress Report
Action Plans and Timetables
EXECUTIVE SUMMARYIn November 2009 the G-20 finance ministers and central bank governors endorsed 20
recommendations to address information gaps described in the report “The Financial
Crisis and Information Gaps” prepared by the Financial Stability Board (FSB) Secretariat
and International Monetary Fund (IMF) staff. They requested the FSB Secretariat and the
IMF staff to report back by June 2010 with a concrete plan of action, including atimetable, to address each of the outstanding recommendations in the report.
This report responds to that request. A consultative process was conducted involving
international experts on financial stability and statistics from national authorities,
international agencies, as well as standard setting bodies. The report describes the
progress since November 2009 and the plans going forward. It contains a number of key
messages:Work has started to address all the 20 recommendations. The November 2009
Report provided significant impetus for further action and, since then,considerable progress has been made in a number of the recommendations.



Some of the most challenging recommendations (such as those calling to better
understand global financial networks) are among the most important forenhancing financial stability analysis.

Closing all the gaps will take time and resources, and will require coordination at
the international level and across disciplines, as well as strong high-level support.
The legal framework for data collection might need to be strengthened in some
economies.

Flexibility and prioritization in the timetable of implementation will be needed toaccount for the countries’ level of statistical development and resource
constraints.



Before the next progress report is due in June 2011, IMF staff plan to visit
individual G-20 economies to discuss reporting practices and feasible strategies
for implementing the work plans and timetables going forward. Feedback fromthese visits will be reflected in the next report.

Set out ahead is a summary table of the progress to date, and the proposed action plans
going forward, with timetables, in addressing the 20 G-20 endorsed recommendations.
Detailed action plans and timetables are in the Annex. The report seeks endorsement by
the G-20 ministers and central bank governors of these action plans and timetables.

Summary Table: Progress Report, Action Plans, and Timetables
Recommendation

Progress to date

Action Plan and timetable1.

As requested in November 2009, the present
report, prepared by the FSB Secretariat andIMF staff, is provided to the G-20 financeministers and central bank governors fortheir meeting in June 2010.

FSB Secretariat and IMF staff to provide a second progress
report by June 2011. For those recommendations where there doexist frameworks and ongoing collection (the second column infigure 1), the next report intends to provide detailed information
on progress in data compilation and dissemination for each G-20
economy. It will be recognized that in some instances a specificrecommendation might not be applicable to all G-20 economies.
IMF staff intends to visit individual G-20 economies to discuss
reporting practices. In all other cases, progress towards
implementation of the recommendations will be reported.

Staff of FSB and the IMF report back to G-20
Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors by
June 2010 on progress, with a concrete plan ofaction, including a timetable, to address each of
the outstanding recommendations. Thereafter, staff
of FSB and IMF to provide updates on progress
once a year. Financial stability experts,
statisticians, and supervisors should work together
to ensure that the program is successfully
implemented.

Monitoring Risk in the Financial Sector
The IMF to work on increasing the number ofcountries disseminating Financial Soundness
Indicators (FSIs), including expanding country
coverage to encompass all G-20 members, and onother improvements to the FSI website, including
preferably quarterly reporting. FSI list to bereviewed.

In March, 2010, the IMF’s Executive Board
decided to include seven FSIs in the IMF’s
Special Data Dissemination Standard(SDDS), on an encouraged basis. Work is inprogress to integrate the regularly reported
FSI data into the IMF’s Global Financial
Stability Report by April 2011.

IMF staff to work in the implementation of the IMF’s Executive
Board decision on the SDDS, particularly with countries
subscribing to this standard. IMF staff will encourage the four
G-20 economies that do not report FSIs to disseminate thesedata on the IMF website. In the second half of 2011, the IMF isto organize a meeting of the FSI Reference Group of Experts todiscuss possible changes in the list of FSIs and the methodology
for compiling them. The IMF staff is to report back to the IMF
Executive Board on the work on FSIs at the Eighth Review ofData Standards, provisionally scheduled for the first half of
2012.

3.

In consultation with national authorities, anddrawing on the Financial Soundness Indicators
Compilation Guide, the IMF to investigate,develop, and encourage implementation ofstandard measures that can provide information on
tail risks, concentrations, variations in
distributions, and the volatility of indicators overtime.

Initial work has been undertaken to identify
the key issues. The IMF conducted a
conference in May 2010 attended byacademics, financial sector representatives,and public sector officials to discuss
conceptual issues.

IMF staff to develop conceptual guidance in the first half of2011for discussion at the FSI Reference Group of Experts.

52.

Further investigation of the measures of systemwide macroprudential risk to be undertaken by theinternational community. As a first step, the BIS
and the IMF should complete their work on
developing measures of aggregate leverage andmaturity mismatches in the financial system,
drawing on inputs from the Committee on the
Global Financial System (CGFS) and the BaselCommittee on Banking Supervision (BCBS).

Drawing on the BIS’s International Banking
Statistics (IBS) data, the BIS has made recent
advances in developing measures of maturity
mismatches (“funding gaps”) on banks’international balance sheets, and is pursuingfurther enhancements. The IMF conducted a
conference in May 2010 attended byacademics, financial sector representatives,and public sector officials to discuss related
conceptual issues.

IMF and BIS staff intend to complete their work on developing
measures of aggregate leverage and maturity mismatches in thefinancial system, in time for the June 2011 report.

5.

The CGFS and the BIS to undertake further workin close cooperation with central banks andregulators on the coverage of statistics on thecredit default swap markets for the purpose of
improving understanding of risk transfers within
this market.

Agreements have already been reached by
the BIS for the reporting central banks toprovide more detail on the Credit Default
Swaps data, with regard to counterparties,
starting with data reported for June 2010, andwith regard to geography of counterparties
and underlying instruments, starting withdata reported for June 2011.

Implementation of the agreements reached, by mid-calendar
2011.

6.

Securities market regulators working through
IOSCO to further investigate the disclosure
requirements for complex structured products,
including public disclosure requirements forfinancial reporting purposes, and makerecommendations for additional improvements if
necessary, taking account of work by supervisors
and other relevant bodies.

In April 2010, IOSCO published a report on
Asset Backed Securities (ABS) Disclosure
Principles providing guidance to securities
regulators who are developing or reviewing
their regulatory disclosure regimes for public
offerings and listings of ABS(http://www.iosco.org/news).

Later this year, IOSCO may also consider further work todevelop disclosure principles for more complicated instruments
such as collateralized debt obligations and examine thedistinction between public and private offerings which could
lead to the development of disclosure principles for private
offerings of ABS.

7.

Central banks and, where relevant, statistical
offices, particularly those of the G-20 economies,
to participate in the BIS data collection on
securities and contribute to the further
development of the BIS-ECB-IMF Handbook on
Securities Statistics (Handbook). The Working
Group on Securities Databases to develop andimplement a communications strategy for the
Handbook.

In March 2010, the Review Group on the
BIS-ECB-IMF Handbook on Securities
Statistics (Handbook) met to discuss the draftof Part 2 of the Handbook which focuses on
statistics of debt securities holdings. This
followed completion last year of Part 1 of the
Handbook which focused on statistics of debt
securities issues. The Review Group includes
experts from central banks, national
agencies, and international organizations.

Part 2 of the Handbook is well-advanced and scheduled to bereleased on the IMF website in mid-calendar 2010. Part 3 of the
Handbook is envisaged to cover non-debt securities statistics(equities) and be finalized by the end of calendar 2011. The BIS
aims to complete the initial improvement of its quarterly
securities data collection for all G-20 economies before endAugust 2010. It intends to further expand its securities database
based on the conceptual frameworks developed in Part 1 andPart 2 of the Handbook.

6

4.

International Network Connections
The FSB to investigate the possibility of improved
collection and sharing of information on linkages
between individual financial institutions, including
through supervisory college arrangements and theinformation exchange being considered for crisis
management planning. This work must take due
account of the important confidentiality and legal
issues that are raised, and existing information
sharing arrangements among supervisors.

9.

The FSB, in close consultation with the IMF, toconvene relevant central banks, national
supervisors, and other international financial
institutions, to develop by end 2010 a common
draft template for systemically important global
financial institutions for the purpose of better
understanding the exposures of these institutions todifferent financial sectors and national markets.
This work should be undertaken in concert withrelated work on the systemic importance offinancial institutions. Widespread consultation
would be needed, and due account taken of
confidentiality rules, before any reporting
framework can be implemented.

10.

All G-20 economies are encouraged to participate
in the IMF’s Coordinated Portfolio Investment
Survey (CPIS) and in the BIS’s International
Banking Statistics (IBS). The IMF and the BIS areencouraged to continue their work to improve thecoverage of significant financial centers in the
CPIS and IBS, respectively.

The FSB has set up a working group(covering recommendations 8 and 9) that ismoving forward in three work streams:(i) identifying data needs in various key
areas—micro prudential supervision, macro
prudential oversight, and crisis management;(ii) mapping data sources to supply theseneeds, and (iii) reviewing the legal andconfidentiality issues involved in theprovision of data.

The FSB working group aims at producing a report and a draft
template for systemically important global financial institutions
for review by the FSB by the end of calendar 2010.

Country participation in the IBS hascontinued to increase. The Committee on
Global Financial Systems (CGFS) and the
IMF Committee on Balance of Payments
Statistics (BOPCOM) have set up working
groups to investigate possible enhancements
to the IBS and the CPIS, respectively.

Both the BIS and IMF to continue working to increase country
participation in their surveys, including from G-20 economies.
CGFS and BOPCOM working groups to report back to theirparent committees in the second half of calendar 2010 for
decisions on possible enhancements.

7

8.

The BIS and the CGFS to consider, amongst otherimprovements, the separate identification of
nonbank financial institutions in the consolidatedbanking data, as well as information required to
track funding patterns in the international financial
system. The IMF, in consultation with the IMF’s
Committee on Balance of Payments Statistics, tostrive to enhance the frequency and timeliness of
the CPIS data, and consider other possible
enhancements, such as the institutional sector of
the foreign debtor.

12.

The IMF to continue to work with countries toincrease the number of International Investment
Position (IIP) reporting countries, as well as thequarterly reporting of IIP data. The Balance ofPayments and International Investment Position
Manual, sixth edition (BPM6) enhancements to the
IIP should be adopted by G-20 economies as soon
as feasible.

In March 2010, the IMF Executive Board
decided to prescribe for subscribers to the
IMF’s SDDS, after a four year transition
period, quarterly reporting (from annual) of
the IIP data, with a maximum lag of one
quarter (quarterly timeliness). The working
group set up by BOPCOM described above
is considering ways of improving theavailability of bilateral IIP data andaccelerating implementation of the BPM6’s
recommendations for enhancements,
including the separate identification of
nonbank financial institutions.

BOPCOM working groups to report back in the second half ofcalendar 2010. IMF staff to work with economies to implement
the Executive Board decision on the SDDS by 2014. Guidanceis to be provided in the upcoming BPM6 Compilation Guide.
IMF staff will encourage reporting by the G-20 economy that
does not disseminate IIP as yet.

13.

The Interagency Group on Economic andFinancial Statistics (IAG) to investigate the issueof monitoring and measuring cross-border,
including foreign exchange derivative, exposuresof nonfinancial, and financial, corporations with
the intention of promoting reporting guidance andthe dissemination of data.

A working group has been created under the
auspices of the IAG and led by the BIS. It
has undertaken an initial review of existing
methodological guidance and of data
availability.

In 2010, the BIS-led working group intends to bring together
information on various datasets that shed light on the crossborder positions of non-bank financial corporations and nonfinancial corporations either from direct or indirect sources, andwork on an issues paper on the concept of nationality/consolidation as compared to residency/location. This work
will form the background for a workshop organized later incalendar 2010 (with the sponsorship of the Irving Fisher

8

11.

14.

Committee) to assist in identifying the issues that may need tobe addressed in specific methodological standards or guidelines,
and in developing reporting templates.

The IAG consulting with the FSB to revisit therecommendation of the G-22 to examine thefeasibility of developing a standardized template
covering the international exposures of large
nonbank financial institutions, drawing on theexperience with the BIS’s IBS data, other existingand prospective data sources, and consulting with
relevant stakeholders.

Sectoral and Other Financial and Economic Datasets
The IAG, which includes all agencies represented
in the Inter-Secretariat Working Group on
National Accounts, to develop a strategy topromote the compilation and dissemination of thebalance sheet approach (BSA), flow of funds, andsectoral data more generally, starting with the
G-20 economies. Data on nonbank financial
institutions should be a particular priority. The
experience of the ECB and Eurostat within Europe
and the OECD should be drawn upon. In themedium term, including more sectoral balance
sheet data in the data categories of the Special
Data Dissemination Standard could be considered.

A working group has been created under the
auspices of the IAG and led by the IMF. The
IMF has created an inventory of existing
practices with regard to the reporting of data
to international agencies or otherwise
disseminating sectoral data.

A conference of experts is planned in early 2011 to shareexperiences, discuss the gaps, and seek to agree upon someminimum reporting needs for G-20 economies, drawing upon
the existing frameworks of the IMF and the OECD. The work
program for the Eighth Review of the IMF’s Data Standards
Initiatives, provisionally scheduled for the first half of 2012,
includes the possibility of strengthening the SDDS with regard
to integrated sectoral balance sheet information.

16.

As the recommended improvements to data
sources and categories are implemented, statisticalexperts to seek to compile distributional
information (such as ranges and quartile
information) alongside aggregate figures, whereverthis is relevant. The IAG is encouraged to promote
production and dissemination of these data in afrequent and timely manner. The OECD is
encouraged to continue in its efforts to linknational accounts data with distributional
information.

The OECD and Eurostat have set up task
forces to define common international
methodology and implement pilot studies.

During 2010 and 2011, the OECD and Eurostat task forces willdevelop the methodology for matching survey data with national
accounts aggregates and pilot studies will be conducted inindividual countries. It is expected that a first set of
methodological studies and estimates will be completed in thecourse of 2012. Once methodologies are in place, periodic
monitoring of the distribution of household economic resources(income, consumption, and wealth) within the System of
National Accounts could be envisaged.

915.

The IMF to promote timely and cross-country
standardized and comparable government financedata based on the accepted international standard,
the Government Finance Statistics Manual 2001.

In March 2010, the IMF Executive Board
decided to adopt a standardized presentationof fiscal data following the Government
Finance Statistics Manual, 2001
(GFSM 2001), with staff reports to use thisformat by May 2011. In addition, the fiscal
data of the IMF’s World Economic Outlook(WEO) now follows the GFSM 2001 format.

The IMF staff to work with countries to promote the
GFSM 2001 consistent with the IMF Executive Board decision.

18.

The World Bank, in coordination with the IMF,
and consulting with the Inter-Agency Task Forceon Finance Statistics, to launch the public sector
debt database in 2010.

In March 2010, the Task Force on Finance
Statistics (TFFS) endorsed the proposal for
the World Bank to gather quarterly public
sector debt data from developing andemerging market countries.

The website to be launched by end-calendar year 2010.

19.

The Inter-Secretariat Working Group on Price
Statistics to complete the planned handbook onreal estate price indices. The BIS and member
central banks to investigate dissemination on the
BIS website of publicly available data on realestate prices. The IAG to consider including realestate prices (residential and commercial) in the
Principal Global Indicators (PGI) website.

Under the auspice of the Inter-Secretariat
Working Group on Price Statistics (IWGPS),and led by Eurostat, a first draft of the
Handbook on Residential Property Price
Indices is expected to be posted for commentin mid-calendar 2010 with, following further
international consultations, a final draft
planned for mid-calendar 2011. In February
2010, the BIS solicited authorization fromthe central banks reporting residential
property price indices to allow theirdissemination on the BIS website.

The IWGPS to complete its work on schedule. Provided the BIS
receive authorization from its member central banks, data on
residential property price indices will be disseminated on the
BIS website. They will then be made available through the PGI
website later in 2010.

The PGI website was significantly enhancedin December 2009 and offers access to an
on-line database with user-selected longer
runs of historical data presented incomparable units of measure (growth rates,index numbers, and/or percent of GDP).
During March 2010, the PGI website wasaccessed by visitors from over 150 countries.

During 2010, the high priorities for enhancing the PGI website
include: (i) expanding the data coverage and timeliness of the
PGI website by the G-20 economies; (ii) encouraging use ofexisting systems to report data to international organizations(such as the IMF Integrated Correspondence System), and(iii) increasing the world-wide sharing of data disseminated by
G-20 economies by promoting the adoption of SDMX for the
dissemination of official statistics.

Communication of Official Statistics
20.

The G-20 economies to support enhancement of
the Principal Global Indicators website, and close
the gaps in the availability of their national data.
The IAG should consider making longer runs ofhistorical data available.

10

17.

11
The Financial Crisis and Information Gaps: Progress Report
Action Plans and Timetables
INTRODUCTION
1.
For the meeting of the G-20 finance ministers and central bank governors in
St. Andrews, Scotland, in November 2009, Financial Stability Board (FSB) Secretariat
and International Monetary Fund (IMF) staff presented a report on “The Financial Crisisand Information Gaps.”1 The report, which contained 20 recommendations for closing
information gaps, was endorsed at the meeting, with a request that FSB and IMF staff
report back by June 2010 on progress, with a concrete plan of action, including atimetable, to address each of the outstanding recommendations (Recommendation # 1).
2.
The present report responds to this request. It describes progress so far, andpriorities and constraints going forward, and notes institutional arrangements for guiding
and monitoring progress. Moreover, two-page progress reports for each recommendation
providing more details on action plans and timetables are presented in the Annex.
3.
To ensure that the action plans and timetables were informed by a broad range ofexpertise, the IMF Statistics Department (STA) and the FSB Secretariat organized asenior official’s conference in Basel in April 2010, hosted by the Bank for International
Settlements (BIS). The material from the conference, including a summary of key points
made, is available at www.imf.org/external/np/seminars/eng/2010/infogaps/index.htm.
The work has also benefited from consultations and coordination among the members of
the Inter-Agency Group on Economic and Financial Statistics (IAG).2
I. PROGRESS MADE SINCE NOVEMBER 2009
4.
The November 2009 report provides a thematic framework for closing
information gaps highlighted during the global financial crisis. The 20 recommendations
are grouped under four themes (build-up of risk in the financial sector, cross-borderfinancial linkages, vulnerability of domestic economies to shocks, and improving
communication of official statistics).
5.
Work has started to address all the recommendations. In some cases, closing thegaps raises significant challenges. In others, the identified gaps relate to existing
initiatives where the conceptual framework for capturing data is well developed.
Considerable progress has been made in several recommendations. Going forward,
prioritization, coordination, and cooperation among international agencies and G-20
economies remains essential to a successful implementation of the work program.
1
2

The G-20 November 2009 Report is available at http://www.imf.org/external/np/g20/pdf/102909.pdf.

The members of the IAG are the Bank for International Settlements, the European Central Bank, Eurostat,
the IMF (chair), the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, the United Nations, and
the World Bank.

12
6.
Figure 1 presents an overview of the 20 recommendations, organized in a matrix
form. The rows reflect the four themes noted above and the columns reflect their status interms of whether reporting/conceptual frameworks exist or need to be developed. This isa broad representation to provide a stylized overview of the present situation.
Figure 1: Overview of the 20 Recommendations

Build-up of riskin the financial
sectorConceptual/statistical frameworkneeds development

Conceptual/statisticalframeworks exist and ongoingcollection needs enhancement# 3 (Tail risk in the financial system
and variations in distributions of,and concentrations in, activity)# 2 (Financial Soundness Indicators(FSIs))# 4 (Aggregate Leverage andMaturity Mismatches)# 5 (Credit Default Swaps)# 7 (Securities data)# 6 (Structured products)
Cross-borderfinancial linkages

Vulnerability ofdomestic
economies toshocks# 8 and # 9 (Global network
connections and systemicallyimportant global financial
institutions)# 10 and # 11 (International
Banking Statistics (IBS) and the
Coordinated Portfolio Investment
Survey (CPIS))# 13 and # 14 (Financial andNonfinancial Corporations crossborder exposures)# 12 (International Investment
Position (IIP))# 16 (Distributional Information)# 15 (Sectoral Accounts)# 17 (Government Finance
Statistics)# 18 (Public Sector Debt)# 19 (Real Estate Prices)

Improvingcommunication of
official statistics

7.

# 20 (Principal Global Indicators)

This report is organized along the columns and rows as presented in Figure 1.

13
A. Conceptual/Statistical Framework Needs Development
8.
Some of the most challenging recommendations are also among the mostimportant for improving financial stability analysis and macro-policy decision making
more broadly. These include gaining a better understanding of global financial networks.
9.
These important recommendations require considerable analytical input, as thecrisis has highlighted complexities that may prove difficult to measure. Cooperation
across disciplines—financial stability, supervisory, statistical, and coordination withstandard setters, notably the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, as well as highlevel support are needed to deliver a successful outcome. There may also be some needfor strengthening legal frameworks for data collection in some economies.
Build-up of risk in the financial sector
10.
The build-up of leverage and maturity mismatches within the financial systemwere identified at an early stage as major contributing factors to the crisis(recommendation # 4). Further progress needs to be made on the conceptual basis formeasurement, and on which data gaps would be the most critical to fill. Given theimportance of monitoring leverage and maturity mismatches to prevent future crises,
addressing the gaps is a high priority.
11.
Data gaps in this area were already noted in 2009 by the report by the Financial
Stability Forum (the predecessor of the FSB) on “Addressing Procyclicality in the
Financial System” and by the IMF Staff Position Note on “Addressing Information
Gaps.” The relevance of these factors in cross-border funding markets was also
highlighted in a recent report by the Committee on Global Financial Systems (CGFS).3
For leverage, in particular, a recent study by the McKinsey Global Institute concluded
that policymakers should work toward developing an international system for tracking
leverage at a granular sector level across countries and over time.4
12.
Further, the need to look beyond aggregated data and improve the identification of
tail risks (as well as variations in distributions of, and concentrations in, activity) wasanother lesson drawn by financial stability analysts from the crisis. This is reflected in
Recommendation # 3.
13.
The IMF and the BIS staff are working closely on addressing these gaps. The BIS
has made significant recent advances in the analysis of maturity mismatches (“funding

3
4

The Functioning and Resilience of Cross Border Funding Markets, CGFS paper no. 37, March 2010.

McKinsey Global Institute, “Debt and Deleveraging: The Global Credit Bubble and its Economic
Consequences,” January 2010.

14gaps”) for the banking sector on the basis of its IBS data. 5 But pursuing this work further
is likely to involve longer-term projects, as the analytical and data challenges involved
remain significant. For instance, in practice, the measurement of leverage and maturity
mismatches is not necessarily conceptually uniform across sectors, institutions or markets
and, therefore, it may prove difficult (or in fact misleading) to devise aggregate measuresacross sectors. To take this work forward, the IMF held a conference on these topics inlate May 2010, which was attended by academics, private sector representatives, andpublic sector officials, while the BIS is looking to further enhance the work describedabove on “funding gaps” for the banking sector, drawing on the IBS data. In time for theJune 2011 report, IMF and BIS staff intend to complete their work on developing
measures of aggregate leverage and maturity mismatches in the financial system.
14.
In April 2010, the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO)
released a report on Asset Backed Securities Disclosure Principles6 to guide securities
regulators who are developing or reviewing their regulatory disclosure regimes for public
offerings and listings of asset-backed securities (Recommendation # 6). Later this year,
IOSCO may also consider further work to develop disclosure principles for more
complicated structured products, such as collateralized debt obligations.
Cross-border financial linkages
15.
In terms of priorities, the improved understanding of global financial networks
and the role of systemically important global financial institutions (SIGFIs) areconsidered by the financial stability experts consulted to be particularly important.
Although financial network analysis is increasingly recognized as a priority,7 the limited
availability of data is a major challenge to analysts.
16.
In this connection, two recommendations (# 8 and # 9) cover the possibility of
improved collection and sharing of information on linkages between individual financial
institutions, and the development by end-calendar 2010 of a common draft template for
SIGFIs.8 These recommendations pose significant analytical and legal issues. There is a5

For details, see McGuire, P. and G. von Peter (2009), “The US dollar shortage in global banking and theinternational policy response,” BIS Working Papers, no 291, October.
6

http://www.iosco.org/news.

7

For instance, a good description of this work was provided to the IMF Executive Board in the March 2010
paper on Financial Sector Surveillance and the Mandate of the Fund by IMF staff (available at
http://www.imf.org/external/np/pp/eng/2010/031910.pdf). Other relevant work includes New Financial
Order: Recommendations preparing G 20-London, April 2, 2009. O. Issing, J. Asmussen, J.P Krahnen, K.
Regling, J. Weidmann, W. White; Rethinking the Financial Network, Andrew Haldane, Bank of England,
May 5, 2009; Recent advances in modeling systemic risk using network analysis, Introductory remarks by
Gertrude Tumpel-Gugerell, ECB workshop, October 5, 2009; and in the IMF Working Paper 10/105,
Cross-Border Financial Surveillance: A Network Perspective, by Marco Espinosa and Juan Solé.
8

Also, relevant for this work is the report on Guidance to Assess the Systemic Importance of Financial
Institutions, Markets and Instruments: Initial Considerations produced by the staff of the IMF, BIS and15need to develop a conceptual framework and identify the specific data needs before any
additional collection of data can be initiated. In this connection, the FSB has set up a
working group to take work related to these recommendations forward, including
identifying the data needs, map data sources, and review the legal and confidentiality
issues involved in the provision of data by individual institutions. This work could apply
to both systemically important bank and non-bank financial institutions.
17.
There is also a lack of information on the cross-border exposures of large
nonbank financial institutions, despite their increasing importance in the international
financial markets as highlighted by Recommendation # 14. Further, for policy makers tobetter understand the risks that entities in their economy face, and more broadly
understand the distribution of risks in the global economy, the need for data on
corporations (both financial and nonfinancial) on a consolidated basis (in addition to theusual residency-based perspective) was highlighted by the crisis (Recommendation# 13).9 For instance, in some economies, locally-owned nonfinancial corporations wereusing offshore entities to borrow funds. This activity was not known to domestic policy
makers, until risks crystallized and these loans came back on the corporations’ balance
sheets when the crisis intensified.
18.
These recommendations raise conceptual and definitional challenges for
economic and financial statisticians, not least to determine how best to adapt (or link)
data compiled on a residency basis to (or with) information on a group consolidated
basis.10 In particular, traditional economic and financial statistics, such as national
accounts, are compiled based on the residence of the entity (residency criteria).
19.
A working group of the IAG, led by the BIS, has been created to take forward thework on these recommendations (# 13 and # 14). The working group intends to carry out
a stock-take of existing data collection initiatives, both with respect to direct sources aswell as to indirect sources, i.e., those where these sectors might be identified ascounterparties. Further, after a stocktaking of available methodologies for measuring
international exposures of financial and non-financial corporations, the plan is to work on
an issues paper on the concept of consolidation as compared to residency/location and
FSB in response a request made by the G-20 Leaders in April 2009 to develop guidance for national
authorities to assess the systemic importance of financial institutions, markets and instruments. The reportis available at http://www.imf.org/external/np/g20/pdf/100109.pdf.
9

For instance, in his opening remarks to the high-level conference in April 2010, Hervé Hannoun (Deputy
General Manager, BIS) noted that the inability to “see” the consolidated balance sheet, either at theindividual bank level or at the headquarter country level, could mean that the build-up of stresses at thesystemic level are not monitored (http://www.bis.org/speeches/sp100419.htm).
10

The issue of consolidation of enterprise groups is on the research agenda of the System of National
Accounts. See page 604 of the System of National Accounts, 2008. Available at:
http://unstats.un.org/unsd/nationalaccount/SNA2008.pdf.

16organize a workshop to help identify more clearly the methodological and datacompilation guidance needed. For Recommendation # 14 this includes the need todevelop a standardized template covering the cross-border exposures of large nonbank
financial institutions.
Addressing the above gaps is of a high priority given the need to better understandnetwork connections in an increasingly globalized world. However, the technical andresource challenges should not be underestimated, most particularly for the gaps related
to SIGFIs being addressed by the FSB working group. On these, close consultation would
be needed with the intermediaries, who themselves should benefit substantially from
improved data on network connections, as a result of an improved understanding of how
their business activities relate to the aggregate picture. Given the significant resource
implications of collecting and—more importantly—making efficient use of all these
additional data, this effort will remain focused on what is necessary to deliver concrete
improvements.
20.

Vulnerability of domestic economies to shocks
21.
The lack of information on how income, consumption, and wealth are distributed
within sectors, particularly households (as reflected in Recommendation # 16) hampered
the identification of vulnerabilities developing in the domestic economy. The OECD,
with Eurostat, are leading this work to rectify this gap, and are looking to define common
international methodology and implementing pilot studies.
B. Conceptual/statistical Frameworks Exist and Ongoing Collection Needs
Enhancement
22.
The November 2009 Report provided significant impetus for further action for
those recommendations for which conceptual/statistical frameworks exist and there isneed to strengthen ongoing collection. For several of the 20 recommendations,international bodies have already taken a number of actions that support theirimplementation, including the IMF with regard to FSIs (# 2), IIP (# 12), and Government
Finance Statistics (# 17), and the BIS (via the CGFS) with regard to Credit Default Swaps(# 5). For other significant recommendations progress has been made in international
working groups and task forces (securities (# 7), public sector debt (# 18), real estate
prices (# 19), and the Principal Global Indicators (PGI) website (# 20)).
23.
In March 2010, the IMF Executive Board took a number of decisions related torecommendations # 2, # 12, and # 17. In particular, the IMF Executive Board decided toenhance the Special Data Dissemination Standard (SDDS) by11:

11

IMF Public Information Notice (PIN) 10/41 of March 23, 2010.

17


including seven FSIs into the SDDS on an “encouraged” basis (that is, not legally“prescribed” under the SDDS)―to strengthen information about the financial
sector and better detect system risks (Recommendation # 2); andmoving to quarterly reporting (from annual) of the IIP data, with a maximum lagof one quarter (quarterly timeliness), on a “prescribed” basis, after a four year
transition period―in order to better understand cross-border linkages(Recommendation # 12).12

24.
Also in March 2010, the IMF Executive Board approved a phased migration
strategy for implementing the Government Finance Statistics Manual 2001 (GFSM 2001)
as the standard for IMF fiscal data (Recommendation # 17).13 This will contribute tobetter and more comparable fiscal data, including on government assets and liabilities.
25.
In June 2009 the CGFS approved changes to Credit Risk Transfer Statistics(Recommendation # 5) that include improved information on counterparty risk andexposure to various reference entities and expanding the reporting to collect details on
instruments such as index CDS contracts http://www.bis.org/publ/cgfs35.htm).
Subsequently agreements have been reached by the BIS with the reporting central banks
to report these new datasets, with implementation phased in 2 steps, for June 2010 andJune 2011 data.
26.
Progress has been made also to enhance security statistics (Recommendation # 7)
both conceptually through the BIS-ECB-IMF Handbook on Securities Statistics andthrough the collection of data by the BIS. The BIS has solicited authorization from awider range of central banks to report residential property price indices for disseminationon the BIS website (Recommendation # 19).
27.
The public sector debt database (Recommendation # 18) is well advanced to belaunched by end-calendar 2010, following the Task Force on Finance Statistics (TFFS)14
endorsement of the proposal for the World Bank to gather quarterly public sector debt
data from developing and emerging market countries. The PGI website(Recommendation # 20) of economic and financial data for G-20 economies, initiallyreleased by the IAG in April 2009, was significantly enhanced in December 2009 and is
attracting world-wide attention.
28.
The global financial crisis reinforced the importance of integrated economic data,
both stocks and flows, so that the impact of developments in one sector of the economy
12

It was also decided to add a simplified table on countries’ external debt by remaining maturity (on an
encouraged” basis) to better monitor the vulnerability of domestic economies to shocks.

13
14

See http://www.imf.org/external/pp/longres.aspx?id=4431.

The TFFS consists of representatives of the BIS, Commonwealth Secretariat, ECB, Eurostat, IMF(Chair), OECD, Paris Club, UNCTAD and the World Bank.

18
on other sectors, and flows such as valuation changes, can be reliably analyzed.
Strengthening sectoral information is reflected in Recommendation # 15. The IMF iscurrently creating an inventory of existing practices with the intent of conducting anexpert group meeting in early 2011, to share experiences, discuss the gaps, and identify
common templates to take this work forward.
29.
Two recommendations deserve particular attention because of their importance inhelping to understand cross-border financial networks (recommendations # 10 and # 11).
These recommendations build on the existing initiatives of the quarterly BIS IBS and theannual IMF CPIS, which provide data on cross-border banking transactions and portfolio
debt and equity positions respectively.15
30.
These data sets help track financial transactions and/or positions on a bilateralbasis. In addition to enhancements regarding country coverage, the CGFS and the IMF
Balance of Payments Statistics Committee have created working groups to study otherenhancements (such as the separate identification of nonbank financial institutions in the
consolidated banking data, as well as information required to better track funding patterns
and maturity mismatches in the international financial system in the case of the BIS (alsorelevant for Recommendation # 4); and, the enhancement of the frequency and timelinessof the CPIS data and the identification of the institutional sector of the foreign debtor in
the case of the IMF). These working groups are expected to give careful consideration to
the benefits and the costs of enhancements and report to their parent committees in thesecond half of calendar 2010.
31.
The involvement of all the G-20 economies in these two long-standing collections
is fundamental given their relevance for understanding cross-border financial flows andpositions. In particular, there are positive externalities that flow to other economies
through mirror data that can be compiled from the counterpart information supplied. In
this regard, the IMF and the BIS continue to work to increase country participation in the
CPIS, and the IBS, respectively.
II. CHALLENGES AND INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS
32.
At the senior officials’ conference in Basel, a number of challenges wereidentified. Given the different levels of statistical development among the G-20
economies and resource constraints, flexibility will be needed in the timetables for
implementation. The legal framework for data collection might need to be strengthened
in some economies. Moreover, to close all the gaps identified in these 20
recommendations, additional resources are likely to be required for statistical functions.
Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors are encouraged to support an increase in
human and financial resources to address data gaps revealed by the global financial crisis.
15

The IMF has also conducted a Coordinated Direct Investment Survey with a reference date of end-2009.
First results are expected towards the end of calendar 2010.

19
33.
The IMF staff plan to visit individual G-20 economies to discuss reporting
practices and resource implications (including for respondents) in implementing the work
plans. They will discuss with national compilers the priorities that have emerged.
34.
To successfully implement the work program, an effective coordination of thework at the international level is needed, not least to leverage resources and minimize
costs. The G-20 November 2009 report set out the institutional structure for guiding andmonitoring progress. Lead agencies have been appointed to take responsibility for
individual recommendations. The IMF staff and FSB Secretariat have cooperated closely
in overseeing the whole program, and shall provide annual updates on progress to the
G-20 finance ministers and central bank governors, as agreed in November 2009. In
particular, the IAG and other international statistical groups have supported the process.
Moreover, the IMF staff and FSB Secretariat plan to conduct a further meeting of senior
officials in the first half of 2011 to assess further progress and next steps.
III. WORK PROGRAM
35.
The table following the Executive Summary provides a summary of progress, andthe proposed work program going forward for implementing the G-20 initiatives. As
noted above detailed two-page notes on each recommendation that provide further detailare presented in the Annex.
36.
The report asks for the endorsement by the G-20 finance ministers and central
bank governors of these action plans and timetables.

20
Annex: Detailed Action Plans and Timetables
Recommendation 2: Financial Soundness Indicators
The IMF to work on increasing the number of countries disseminating Financial Soundness
Indicators (FSIs)—including expanding country coverage to encompass all G-20 members—
and on other improvements to the FSI website, including preferably quarterly reporting. FSI
list to be reviewed.
Lead agency: IMF
I. MAJOR RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
In July 2009, the IMF launched a website to disseminate Financial Soundness Indicators data
for IMF member countries. Currently, 49 countries report FSIs for publication on thewebsite: http://fsi.imf.org/FSIHome.aspx#Group. Countries choose to report various
combinations of the 12 core FSIs (for deposit takers) and 28 encouraged FSIs (including
13 for deposit takers).16 Four G-20 economies do not report FSIs for dissemination on the
IMF website.
Work on updating the methodology in the Compilation Guide on FSIs (Guide) has involved
close consultation with the FSI Reference Group of Experts, composed of 17 internationaland regional agencies, with amendments posted on the IMF website in July 2008. Also,
training courses on FSIs have been conducted for IMF member countries’ compilers topromote the use of the Guide as a benchmark.
II. CURRENT POSITION
After the launch of the FSI website in July 2009, the IMF Statistics Department (STA) isgiving a high priority to streamlining the FSI template in order to reduce the burden on thereporting countries as well as to promote countries’ participation in the regular submission of
FSIs to the IMF. Further enhancements to the FSI website are also under way to make it
more user-friendly and capable of accepting queries created by users.
Following consultation with subscribers and capital market participants, the IMF Executive
Board agreed to include seven FSIs in the IMF’s Special Data Dissemination Standard(SDDS) on an encouraged basis.17 This should support reporting of FSIs. Further, work is inprogress to integrate the regularly reported FSI data into the IMF’s Global Financial Stability
16

Following an initial consultative meeting of experts and a survey of member countries, the IMF Executive
Board endorsed a list of core and encouraged Financial Soundness Indicators (FSIs) in June 2001:
http://www.imf.org/external/np/sta/fsi/eng/fsi.htm.
17

These FSIs are regulatory tier 1 capital to risk-weighted assets, regulatory tier 1 capital to assets,
nonperforming loans net of provisions to capital, nonperforming loans to total gross loans, return on assets,
liquid assets to short-term liabilities, and net open position in foreign exchange to capital.

21
Report (GFSR). This project is slated to be completed in early 2011 (with the April 2011
issue of the GFSR).
III. WAY FORWARD
In response to this recommendation, one of the objectives of the FSI project is to increase thenumber of countries reporting FSIs for dissemination on the IMF website, and encouragequarterly reporting. The recent steps taken and described above—streamlined reporting,inclusion of FSIs in the SDDS on an encouraged basis, and regular reporting of data in the
GFSR—should support this process. In particular, IMF staff will work in implementing thenoted Executive Board decision on the SDDS; expanding the use of FSIs in other Fund
publications, such as Financial Sector Assessment Program (FSAP) reports, and the IMF's
Vulnerability Exercise; and increasing the reporting of such indicators in staff reports. A
number of new countries will be invited each year to participate in the regular submission of
FSIs to STA, and in particular, the IMF is to work to encourage the remaining G-20
economies that currently do not report FSIs for dissemination on the IMF website to do so.
The recommendation calls also to review and extend the list of FSIs. In the second half of2011, when ongoing discussions on regulatory reforms are expected to be settled, the IMF
will organize a meeting of the FSI Reference Group of Experts as well as other international
agencies and national authorities to discuss possible changes needed in the list of FSIs andthe methodology for compiling them. The changes are envisaged to include developing new
FSIs for sectors other than deposit takers, such as other financial corporations, nonfinancial
corporations, and households. This work will also aim to improve cross-country
comparability of FSIs and encourage continued efforts by the IMF and other international
agencies to harmonize the methodologies of data compilation and reporting.
The IMF staff is to report back to the IMF Executive Board on the work on FSIs at theEighth Review of the IMF’s Data Standards Initiatives, provisionally scheduled for the firsthalf of 2012.

22
Recommendation 3: Tail Risks in the Financial System and Variation in Distributionsof, and Concentrations in, Activity
In consultation with national authorities, and drawing on the Financial Soundness Indicators
Compilation Guide, the IMF to investigate, develop and encourage implementation ofstandard measures that can provide information on tail risks, concentrations, variations in
distributions, and the volatility of indicators over time.
Lead agency: IMF
I. MAJOR RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
While there is no unequivocal and generally accepted definition of tail risk as it applies tofinancial stability, a working definition commonly used by researchers and practitioners isthat “tail risk is the risk of large unexpected losses (low probability but large impact) for thefinancial sector as a whole”. As such, this definition is very close to the concept of systemic
risk, for which there exist a number of techniques and modeling approaches that have been
recently developed.
In response to this recommendation, work has proceeded in taking stock of existing
conceptual frameworks and models. The Table below provides an illustrative taxonomy ofsome of these models. They can be divided according to the type of data that they rely on:(i) accounting data, (ii) interbank exposures data, (iii) price and market data, or (iv) a
combination of the above.
Going forward, data requirements to measure tail and systemic risks should be guided byadvances on the analytical side. Therefore, agreement on measures of tail and systemic risks
need to precede calls for collecting additional specific statistics.
Regarding measures of concentration and dispersion, these are described in the IMF’s
Financial Soundness Compilation Guide, Chapter 15. It should be noted, however, that dataon measures of concentration and dispersion are not currently collected under the existing
IMF data collection framework.
II. CURRENT POSITION
Progress in this area faces the following critical challenges:
Making definitions of tail and systemic risks operationally relevant: it is critical totranslate these definitions into measures for which data are relatively easy to collectand which are monitorable on an ongoing basis for macro prudential surveillance.

23


The definitions of tail and systemic risks must also be flexible enough to be able tocapture new tail and systemic risks as they emerge in the future.
III. WAY FORWARD

Given the complexity of the issues and the number of stakeholders involved, the IMF’s
Monetary and Capital Markets Department (MCM) held a conference on these topics in late
May 2010 (after this report was finalized) which was attended by academics, financial sector
representatives, and public sector officials at the Fund’s Headquarters in May 2010. The
priorities of the conference are to:

Explore whether there is a consensus among supervisors, financial sector
representatives, and academics regarding an operational definition of tail andsystemic risks.



Explore potential ways to develop operational measures of tail risks, and to review
different approaches to measuring such risks.



Identify common elements and elaborate proposals on a possible common approach.



Identify the needs for additional information to compile measures of tail risks.

Discuss the feasibility of devising practical ways to share relevant information among
key stakeholders while satisfying the main confidentiality concerns of the parties
involved.

Therefore, work on the identification and measurement of tail and systemic risks is likely toextend over a period of time. After the conference, a summary report highlighting potential
next steps will be circulated to interested parties for consultation. Based on this feedback,new concrete steps will be agreed upon.
The longer-term objective is to develop conceptual guidance in the first half of 2011 fordiscussion at the FSI Reference Group of Experts, adoption into the FSI methodology, andeventually data collection.

Taxonomy of Representative Financial Tail-Risk Models

Market-based

Accounting-basedInter-bank accounting exposures

Accounting Balance Sheet

Network Simulations

Equity Joint Tail Risk

CDS CoRisk Analysis

Implemented/Calibratedusing Information fromAccounting balance sheet datafor institution and system

Interbank exposures data

Equity market-based joint tail risk
indicators from equity returns or
higher moments of equity options

5-year individual CDS spreads offinancial institutions.

Individual CDS-PoDs 5

Outputs(i) Provides static accounting-based
financial stability inditcators, (ii)quanitfies changes in book assets
and capital(i) Provides metric on domino effectinduced by alternative distress events,(ii) Identifies systemic linkages andvulnerable countries/institutions, (iii)
Quantifies potential capital losses atcountry/institutional level; and (iv) can
track potential contagion paths.

(i) Provides metric of time varying
non-linear measures of dependence(i.e. correlation in the presence of fattailed distributions), (ii) Provides
probability measure of joint comovement in equity tail events overtime.

(i) Estimates of unconditional andconditional credit risk measures fordifferent quantiles (or 'risk regimes'),and (ii) estimates of the effect onconditional credit risk induced by'source' institutions on ‘locus’
institutions during stress regimes.

(i) Recovers multivariate density andthus common distress in the system:
JPoD, BSI; (ii) DiDe; and (iii)
Probability of cascade effects
triggered by particular FI.

Advantages(i) Data widely available(i) Allows identification of most
systemic and vulnerable institutions
within a system, and (ii) can be used toelaborate "risk maps" of contagion
effects.

(i) captures institutions’ codependence risk from direct andindirect linkages, (ii) can be used toelaborate " risk maps "(i) Able to use other PoDs; (ii)
Multiple outputs; (iii) Includes linear
and non-linear dependence; and (iv)
Endogenous time-varying distressdependence

Shortcomings(i) Requires data on inter-institution(i) static backward-looking
indicator; (ii) does not account for exposures, and (ii) static modeling ofinstitutional behavior.
probability of default; (iii) difficult
issues in proper aggegation andcorrelation methodologies(i) Captures effects of direct andindirect linkages in changes in equity
between financial institutions, as wellas the regime-dependent behavior,(ii) Can capture spill-overs between
financial institutions, markets, andbetween countries(i) Requires liquid and frequently
traded equity price data, and (ii) if themodel inputs use equity option
information it requires a set of liquid
equity option prices at different
strike prices.

Usefulness is undermined by factorsthat affect market efficiency(i) CDS may overstates objective
default probabilities; (ii) uncertainties
on what revovery rate to assume toget default probability; (iii) CDS
affected by presence of government
guarantees

GFSR (2009)2

Segoviano and Goodhart (2009)2

CDS-PoD Distress
Dependence

24

Examples/References

Cihak (2007)1

Bank of England (WP 383), GFSR (2009)3 Jobst (2007), Gray and Jobst (2009)4
Espinosa, Marco, and Sole, IMF,WP 10/105, (2010)

Notes: BSI = bank stability index; CCA = contingent claims approach; CDS = credit default swap; DiDe = distress dependence matrix; EDF = expected default frequency; JPoD = joint probability of default.
IMF Working Paper No. 07/59, 2007, (Washington: IMF).
2
IMF Working Paper No. 09/4, 2009, (Washington: IMF).
3
Global Financial Stability Report, World Economic and Financial Surveys, April, (Washington: IMF). Chapter 2, “Assessing the Systemic Implications of Financial Linkages.”
4
Gray, D.F., and A. A. Jobst, 2010, “New Directions in Financial Sector and Sovereign Risk Management, Journal of Investment Management, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 23–38.
1

25
Recommendation 4: Aggregate Leverage and Maturity Mismatches
Further investigation of the measures of system-wide macroprudential risk to be undertakenby the international community. As a first step, the BIS and the IMF should complete theirwork on developing measures of aggregate leverage and maturity mismatches in thefinancial system, drawing on inputs from the Committee on the Global Financial System(CGFS) and the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS).
Lead agencies: BIS and IMF
I. MAJOR RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
The BIS, both directly and indirectly via its Standing Committees, has done a lot of work on
systemic risk analysis over the years. Drawing on the BIS’s International Banking Statistics(IBS) data, the BIS has made significant advances in developing measures of maturity
mismatches (“funding gaps”) on banks’ international balance sheets.18 This work represents
the first consistent measures of maturity mismatch for the core financial system. One of thefindings is that maturity mismatches in the banking system seem to build up slowly over an
extended period of time. This suggests that they can in fact be tracked, given the availabilityof suitable indicators (such as the ones based on the IBS).
However, the BIS’s IBS-based work also illustrates the limits of analytical exercises basedon large-scale reporting frameworks. First, coverage is restricted to banking entities and, forthose, only their international activities. Second, only on-balance sheet items are covered(abstracting from certain adjustments made to generate ultimate risk positions; some otherderivatives positions can in principle be inferred from on-balance sheet data). Third,
interlinkages are known only at the sectoral level. This limits the usefulness of this and otheraggregate datasets in dealing with system-wide leverage, particularly outside the banking
sector.19
The IMF has started work to assess the viability and desirability of a framework formonitoring leverage and maturity mismatches at the sectoral level. This approachcomplements more aggregate, model-based approaches to macroprudential risk
measurement. Severe information gaps among some of the most leveraged sectors of thefinancial system have been identified. Thus, by design, the IMF intends to focus ondeveloping leverage and maturity mismatch indicators for sectors where such indicators do
not exist or where data availability is extremely sparse. These sectors would include hedge
funds, components of the shadow banking system (e.g., money and repo markets), off18

For details on the methodology, see McGuire, P. and G. von Peter (2009), “The US dollar shortage in global
banking and the international policy response”, BIS Working Papers, no 291, October.

19

In order to be truly meaningful for system-wide loss estimation purposes, leverage measures would need tocapture the dynamic interactions of leveraged positions in cases where they are being unwound. This suggests a
focus on analytical exercises that can take these interactions into account.

26balance sheet activities, and derivatives, including their use by corporates and public sector
institutions.
II. CURRENT POSITION
The BIS’ IBS data allow for an analysis of maturity mismatches in the international context,
and relatively small enhancements could be made to improve these measures (this includes
measures of on-balance sheet leverage). Going beyond this existing work, and hence beyond
the IBS, would likely require additional data collection or extensions of the reporting
perimeter of existing statistical datasets. It is unlikely, however, that extensions to aggregate
datasets will reliably capture system-wide leverage. Alternative analytical frameworks for themeasurement of system-wide leverage exist, but would require individual institution-level
data to cover inter-linkages.20 Possibilities in this context are being explored with regard torecommendations # 8 and # 9.
III. WAY FORWARD
Taking into account ongoing work and in response to this recommendation, the IMF, with theparticipation of the BIS and the FSB, held a conference in May 2010 (after this report was
finalized) to focus on operationalizing systemic risk measurements. The conference aimed todevelop an intellectual consensus around conceptually sound measures for the sectors noted
above. If such a consensus can be developed, the next steps would be to explore specificmetrics, identify the data required to calculate them, and assess the desirability (e.g.
cost/benefit) and feasibility of collecting relevant data.
In addition to its contribution to the IMF conference, the BIS intends to continue its current
work on system-wide measures of risk. Key priorities include analytically-driven
improvements of existing data sets (in particular, its IBS; see also Recommendation # 11),efforts to enhance indirect measures of leverage for systemically important institutions thatembed inter-linkages, and regular dissemination of updates of existing measures.
IMF and BIS staff intend to complete their work on developing measures of aggregate
leverage and maturity mismatches in the financial system, in time for the June 2011 report.
The work will draw on the final version of the joint BCBS/CGFS working group report on
systemic liquidity risk,21 and any results from ongoing work on recommendations # 8 and
# 9.

20

See, Huang, X., H. Zhou and H. Zhu (2009), “A framework for assessing the systemic risk of major financial
institutions”, BIS Working Papers, no 281, April.

21

This working group was established in May 2009 to gather information on the pricing of liquidity risk bybanks, to consider the usefulness of quantitative and price-based approaches to assessing system-wide liquidity
risk, and to explore how the structure of funding markets influences liquidity risk and its pricing. The report is
expected to be completed in June 2010.

27
Recommendation 5: Credit Default Swaps
The CGFS and the BIS to undertake further work in close cooperation with central banks andregulators on the coverage of statistics on the credit default swap markets for the purpose of
improving understanding of risk transfers within this market.
Lead agency: BIS

I. MAJOR RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
The BIS has compiled and published data on credit default swaps (CDS) since 2005. These data arereported on a consolidated and semi-annual basis by the G-10 countries and Switzerland. In the earlystage of the financial crisis significant gaps were revealed in statistics on credit risk transfer (CRT)
instruments. The Committee on Global Financial Systems (CGFS), in September 2008, established a
Working Group (chaired by the ECB) to review the CRT statistics and gain a better understanding of
the structural changes in global CRT markets, as well as obtain better information on the transfer andultimate distribution of credit risk.
In June 2009 the CGFS approved the recommendations of its Working Group on Credit Risk Transfer
Statistics (see: http://www.bis.org/publ/cgfs35.htm) that are to be phased in 2 steps, in June 2010 andthen in June 2011, both in the context of the regular semi-annual BIS Survey on over-the-counter(OTC) and CDS activity. These included improved information on counterparty risk and exposure tovarious reference entities and expanding the reporting to collect details on instruments such as index
CDS contracts.

II. CURRENT POSITION
Presently, aggregate G-10 data on CDS are published by the BIS, with a limited counterparty,
instrument and maturity breakdown, in both total amounts outstanding and gross market values. From
June 2010 data disseminated by the BIS will include data on central counterparties (CCPs), index
CDS and a finer counterparty breakdown, including hedge funds and Special Purpose Vehicles(SPV). The first data should be released to the public by the end of October 2010.
From June 2011, the BIS semi-annual survey will be expanded to a regional counterparty breakdown
as well as information on asset-backed securities and synthetic collateralized debt obligations, grosscredit exposure, detailed rating category, and sector.
Agreements have been reached by the BIS with the reporting central banks to report these newdatasets. The degree of granularity of the data released by the BIS will then be considerablyincreased.

III. WAY FORWARD
The main task is to implement the agreements reached. Communication has started with the central
banks on the modalities of the expansion of the reporting framework at end-June 2011. Details should
be finalized in the coming months on time for the preparation of the new report by the main financial
institutions (reporting dealers) active in the trading of these instruments.

28
Recommendation 6: Structured Products
Securities market regulators working through IOSCO to further investigate the disclosure
requirements for complex structured products, including public disclosure requirements forfinancial reporting purposes, and make recommendations for additional improvements if
necessary, taking account of work by supervisors and other relevant bodies.
Lead agency: International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO)
I. MAJOR RECENT DEVELOPMENTSIOSCO established, in 2007, a task force to find out the implications of the ongoing crisis on
financial markets regulation. Soon after, IOSCO decided to start working on disclosure
principles for asset-backed securities (ABS Disclosure Principles), including residential
mortgage-backed securities and commercial mortgage-backed securities. The work was
carried out by the IOSCO Technical Committee through its Standing Committee on
Multinational Disclosure and Accounting and was finalized in April 2010 with the
publication of the final report (http://www.iosco.org/news). The report provides guidance tosecurities regulators who are developing or reviewing their regulatory disclosure regimes for
public offerings and listings of asset-backed securities (ABS). This will in turn contribute toenhancing investor protection by facilitating a better understanding of the issues that should
be considered by regulators.
The ABS Disclosure Principles for regulatory regimes outline the information (on about 20
fields) which should be included in any offer document of these complex financial products.
With this publication IOSCO has met an important part of the gaps identified in
Recommendation # 6 while improving the publicly available information for these structured
products at the moment of sale.
II. PRESENT POSITION
The ABS Disclosure Principles have been published.
III. WAY FORWARD
The IOSCO Technical Committee through its Standing Committee on Multinational
Disclosure and Accounting is considering a mandate for developing principles for on-goingdisclosure of public offered and listed ABS. Later this year, the Technical Committee may
also consider further work to develop disclosure principles for more complicated instruments
such as collateralized debt obligations and examine the distinction between public andprivate offerings which could lead to the development of disclosure principles for private
offerings of ABS.

29
Recommendation 7: Securities Data
Recommendation 7: Central banks and, where relevant, statistical offices, particularly thoseof the G-20 economies, to participate in the BIS data collection on securities and contribute to
the further development of the BIS-ECB-IMF Handbook on Securities Statistics (Handbook).
The Working Group on Securities Databases to develop and implement a communication
strategy for the Handbook.
Lead agencies: BIS, ECB, and IMF
I. MAJOR RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
Part 1 of the BIS-ECB-IMF Handbook on Securities Statistics (Handbook) was published in
May 2009 and provides a conceptual framework, including presentation tables, for thecompilation and dissemination of statistics on debt securities issues. It is designed to encouragenational and international statistics bodies to produce consistent and comparable securities
data. The Handbook is available at http://www.imf.org/external/np/sta/wgsd/hbook.htm. The
concepts and definitions are based on the System of National Accounts 2008 and the IMF
Balance of Payments and International Investment Position Manual, 6th edition.
The development of Part 2 of the Handbook is well advanced. It provides a conceptual
framework, including presentation tables, for statistics on debt securities holdings.
II. CURRENT POSITION
There are a variety of national sources for debt securities issuance. Some specific data are
published by central banks or national statistical institutes, typically for the government andbanking sectors. In this context, in addition to approaching the entities issuing debt securities,
various commercial or institutional sources are used, including stock exchanges, central
securities depositories, securities settlement systems, and custodians. Many of these individual
national sources lack comparability, including due to the application of rather heterogeneous
accounting and valuation rules.
Many central banks or national statistical agencies use debt securities statistics (issues andholdings) as a source to compile financial accounts, other flow accounts, and balance sheets byinstitutional sector.
The BIS has published statistics on international debt securities issues since the mid-1980s andon domestic debt securities issues since the second half of the 1990s. In 2007 the Committee
on Global Financial Systems (CGFS) recommended that central banks work actively with the
BIS to improve its data, in particular to make them more internationally comparable andconsistent. In response, the BIS is working with central banks in this area. In the Eurosystem,
national central banks are sending data to the ECB, which has published securities issues
statistics for the euro area as a whole since 1999. National central banks also publish theirrespective national statistics on the basis of this methodology. The IMF is collecting,compiling, and disseminating debt securities holdings data in the context of the CoordinatedPortfolio Investment Survey (CPIS) (see Recommendation # 10 for further details).

30
III. WAY FORWARD
The BIS has approached central banks to report securities on a regular quarterly basis to the
BIS based on the reporting templates in Part 1 and Part 2 of the Handbook (attached). The BIS
intends to disseminate the data collected in its publications and on its website. Good progress isbeing made with respect to G-20 economies and all the 40 non-euro area central banks. The
BIS aims to complete this improvement of its quarterly data collection for debt securities for all
G-20 economies before end-August 2010, with improved data collection for remaining
countries before end-2010, and the reporting of these debt security issues (sector, market, andcurrency) data on a regular quarterly (end-quarter) basis with a three-month reporting lag by
early 2011. For the euro area, the ECB is foreseen to continue collecting data on debt securities
issues from euro area countries and compiling euro area aggregates.
Further collections are anticipated. Further breakdowns, for all markets, by selected sub-sector,
maturity, and interest rate is anticipated by 2012; and some limited information of holdings
would also be released by 2012, covering only the key institutional sectors holding debt
securities issued by residents and non-residents. As these additional data become available, theBIS will disseminate the data in comparable formats in its publications and on its website. The
ECB and euro area national central banks intend to publish new statistics on traditional andsynthetic securitization transactions in early 2011.
Regarding the Handbook, Part 2 is well-advanced and scheduled to be released on the IMF
website in mid-calendar 2010. Part 3 is envisaged to cover non-debt securities statistics(equities) and be finalized by the end of calendar 2011. A specific Data Structure Definition for
securities statistics will also be developed to facilitate the exchange and dissemination of dataon securities using SDMX.
Finally, with respect to the communication strategy to be developed by the Working Group on
Securities Databases (WGSD), involving the BIS, the ECB, the IMF, and the World Bank, thefocus will be on supporting the dissemination of improved debt statistics on the BIS website(and on the ECB website for the euro area and euro area countries). Also, some aggregate
information will be included in the Principal Global Indicators website (seeRecommendation # 20 for further details on this website). With respect to data on securities
holdings, the IMF’s CPIS will provide an opportunity to promote work on the Handbook.
The WGSD website (http://www.imf.org/external/np/sta/wgsd/index.htm) will be used topromote the communication on the work of the WGSD and press statements will be made toalert the public of the release of new or updated parts of the Handbook. WGSD members will
make presentations on the Handbook and its implementation at international meetings,
seminars and workshops.
The WGSD will continue to consult with the Review Group on the Handbook on Securities
Statistics which includes experts from central banks, national statistical institutes and otherinternational organizations. Drafts of new parts of the Handbook, as well as any revisions toexisting parts, will be posted on the WGSD website during a public comment period.

31
Debt Securities Issues Classified by Issuers and Maturity (for all markets, all currencies)
Residents
IssuerFinancial corporations
Non
financialcorps.

Maturity/
Interest rate

Total

of
which
Centralbank

General governmentof which
Deposittaking
corporations

Total

Nonresidents

Allissuersof whichCentralgovernment

1. Short term at original
maturity
1.3. All interest
rates
2. Long term at original
maturity
2.1. Fixed interest
rate
2.2. Variableinterest rate
2.3. All interest
rates
3.

All maturities
1.1. Fixed interest
rate
1.2. Variable interest
rate
1.3. All interest rates

4. Memo item: longterm at original maturity,with a remaining maturity
up to and including oneyear
5. Memo item:
Securitization debt
securities

Key Breakdowns on Holdings of Debt Securities
HolderIssuerResidents
Non-residents
All issuers

Nonresidents

Residents
Non-financial
corporations

Financialcorporations

Generalgovernment

Households andnon-profit
institutions serving
households

All residents

32
Recommendations 8 and 9: Global Network Connections andSystemically Important Global Financial Institutions
Recommendation 8: The FSB to investigate the possibility of improved collection and sharing
of information on linkages between individual financial institutions, including throughsupervisory college arrangements and the information exchange being considered for crisis
management planning. This work must take due account of the important confidentiality andlegal issues that are raised, and existing information sharing arrangements amongsupervisors.
Recommendation 9: The FSB, in close consultation with the IMF, to convene relevant central
banks, national supervisors, and other international financial institutions to develop by end2010 a common draft template for systemically important global financial institutions for the
purpose of better understanding the exposures of these institutions to different financial
sectors and national markets. This work should be undertaken in concert with related workon the systemic importance of financial institutions. Widespread consultation would beneeded, and due account taken of confidentiality rules, before any reporting framework can
be implemented.
Lead agency: FSB
I. MAJOR RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
In response to these recommendations, the FSB set up, in March 2010, a working group(WG) on data gaps and systemic linkages under the chairmanship of Aerdt Houben, Director
for Financial Stability at De Nederlandsche Bank. The WG is charged with taking forward
recommendations 8 and 9 which have been grouped together given the close links between
them. The group has just less than 30 members, drawn from national authorities, international
institutions and standard setting bodies, including the International Association of Insurance
Supervisors (IAIS). The WG draws on a wide range of expertise, bringing together memberswith experience in financial stability analysis, supervision and regulation, crisis management,
statistics, and legal issues, given that it will be necessary to harness a wide range of skills totake forward the recommendations.
At the time of writing, the WG has undertaken initial investigations identifying data needs
and gaps from a micro and macro-prudential perspective, some possible data sources to fill ingaps, and legal and confidentiality constraints governing the collection and sharing of data on
individual institutions. The data needs on linkages between individual financial institutions
necessary for crisis management purposes are also being reviewed.
II. CURRENT POSITION
To move the work forward, the WG has created three streams namely: (i) identifying dataneeds in various key areas—macro prudential supervision, macro prudential oversight, and33crisis management; (ii) mapping data sources to supply these needs, and (iii) reviewing thelegal and confidentiality issues involved in the provision of data.
III. WAY FORWARD
In identifying institutional data gaps and codifying information requirements from theperspectives of micro and macro prudential oversight and supervision, and crisis
management, strong and clear arguments as to the potential benefits the information will
provide and the costs associated with not obtaining it will be ascertained. The WG will be
asked to justify the needs on the basis of clear and concrete examples, drawing on experienceof the financial crisis and on plausible hypothetical examples as needed. That hurdle will
help to ensure that the important gaps are addressed.
The WG will also focus on assessing potential sources of information that could be used toaddress gaps (for example through amendments of or extensions to existing sources as wellas publicizing underused sources). It will then review the requirements identified by the dataneeds team and draw on knowledge and statistical experience to advise on how these might
be met. Data sources could vary across countries because of inconsistencies in availability.
The WG will draw on national, regional, and international experiences.
The WG will also focus on confidentiality of information sharing, outlining current
constraints and, as needed, setting out the issues, questions and options that policymakers
will need to address if such constraints are to be relaxed.
In response to Recommendation # 9, the WG is working to a timetable with a view to
producing a report and a draft template for systemically important global financial
institutions for review by the FSB by the end of calendar 2010.

34
Recommendations 10 and 11: International Banking Statistics and the CoordinatedPortfolio Investment Survey
Recommendation 10: All G-20 economies are encouraged to participate in the IMF’s
Coordinated Portfolio investment Survey (CPIS) and in BIS’s International Banking
Statistics (IBS). The IMF and the BIS are encouraged to continue their work to improve thecoverage of significant financial centers in the CPIS and IBS, respectively.
Recommendation 11: The BIS and the CGFS to consider, amongst other improvements, theseparate identification of nonbank financial institutions in the consolidated banking data, as
well as information required to track funding patterns in the international financial system.
The IMF, in consultation with the IMF’s Committee on Balance of Payments Statistics, tostrive to enhance the frequency and timeliness of the CPIS data, and consider other possible
enhancements, such as the institutional sector of the foreign debtor.
Lead agencies: BIS, IMF
I. MAJOR RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
The Committee on Global Financial Systems (CGFS), which sponsors the BIS international
financial statistics, approved in March 2010 the establishment of an Ad-hoc Working Groupto address solutions to close gaps in both the international banking (and OTC derivatives)
statistics. This is a continuation of the efforts that the BIS has been undertaking since the1970’s and the mid 1980’s to compile, on a locational and consolidated basis respectively,
data on the international lending and borrowing of the financial institutions in the main
financial centers. In addition to the separate identification of nonbank financial institutions,
proposals for enhancing the international banking statistics aim to better help analysts trackbanks’ funding patterns (and this is also related to the work on Recommendation # 4).
With the support of the IMF Committee on Balance of Payments Statistics (BOPCOM), theIMF has assembled the IMF Task Force on IIP/CPIS Data Enhancements. The Task Force isto advise the IMF’s Statistics Department and the BOPCOM on possible enhancements to the
CPIS to improve its usefulness and relevance, particularly with regard to country
participation in the survey and the frequency and timeliness of data releases, consistent withrecommendations # 10 and # 11. The Task Force is also to propose a timetable for
implementing its advice.
II. CURRENT POSITION
The IMF is conducting missions to significant financial centers to promote participation in
the CPIS, and to promote broadening in the coverage of domestic sectors by current CPIS
reporters. As of March 2010, about 75 countries participate in the CPIS. Among the G-20
economies, 18 currently participate in the CPIS. The CPIS data are annual with around one
year lag in publication.

35
The BIS has made constant efforts to expand the coverage of the countries/financial centers
reporting to its IBS, in particular to capture systemically important countries or centers. For
instance, all the main offshore centers are reporting quarterly to the BIS the locational assets
and liabilities, on both a residency and a nationality basis, with a currency, sector, and vis-àvis country breakdown. The number of reporting countries to the BIS’ IBS has regularly
increased over time. Currently 43 central banks participate in the locational and 30 in the
consolidated banking statistics. It should be noted that some of the reporting countries are
currently not fully compliant with all the requested breakdowns. However, efforts areconstantly being made to close the gaps. BIS’ IBS are available on a quarterly (internationalbanking) frequency, with publication of the provisional data done at Q+110 days.
(http://www.bis.org/statistics/index.htm). Five out of the 20 G-20 economies do not provide
data, of which two have yet to be officially invited to participate. Of the three invited,discussions with the central banks in these countries have been ongoing for several years.
III. WAY FORWARD
The work of the Task Force on IIP/CPIS Data Enhancements is scheduled to conclude in
October 2010, and report to the BOPCOM in regard to possible enhancements to CPIS data,
its estimates of the compilation burden, and possible implementation timetable. The IMF willreach out to stakeholders to explain the importance of enhancing CPIS data in therecommended ways. Also, the IMF will provide compilation guidance to its members, tofacilitate the compilation and timely provision of relevant data.
The Ad-hoc Working Group is also expected to report back to the CGFS in the second half ofcalendar 2010. In parallel, work will be undertaken within the BIS to improve not only thetimeliness of the publications and the availability of the data on the BIS website, but also thecoverage of the data to additional G-20 economies.
Both the BIS and IMF continue to work to increase country participation in their surveys,
including from G-20 economies.

36
Recommendations 12: International Investment Position
Recommendation 12: The IMF to continue to work with countries to increase the number ofInternational Investment Position (IIP) reporting countries, as well as the quarterly
reporting of IIP data. The Balance of Payments and International Investment Position
Manual, sixth edition (BPM6) enhancements to the IIP should be adopted by G-20 economies
as soon as feasible.
Lead agency: IMF
I. MAJOR RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
In March 2010, the IMF Executive Board decided to prescribe for subscribers to the IMF’s
Special Data Dissemination Standard (SDDS), after a four year transition period, quarterly
reporting (from annual) of the IIP data, with a maximum lag of one quarter (quarterly
timeliness). In addition, the IMF has continued its work on the IIP pipeline project, which
helped to increase the number of countries providing annual and quarterly IIP data to the
IMF for redissemination.
Further, the newly formed Task Force on IIP/CPIS Data Enhancements, working on theissues identified in recommendations 10 and 11, will consider accelerating the following
BPM6 enhancements: (i) a more detailed sectoral breakdown, including identification of
nonbank financial institutions; (ii) standardized reporting for the currency composition ofinternational assets and liabilities; (iii) information on the impairment of cross-border loans;and (iv) supplementary detail on the remaining maturity of international assets and debt
liabilities. The Task Force is also to consider improving the availability of bilateral IIP data.
II. CURRENT POSITION
As of April 2010, 119 economies provide year-end IIP data, of which 48 provide quarterly
IIP data to the IMF’s Statistics Department (STA). Among the G-20 economies, 19 currently
provide IIP data.
III. WAY FORWARD
The IMF staff is to work with economies to implement the Executive Board decision on the
SDDS by 2014. Guidance is to be provided on compiling the IIP in the upcoming BPM6
Compilation Guide. IMF staff will encourage reporting by the G-20 economy that does notdisseminate IIP data.
The Task Force on IIP/CPIS Data Enhancements intends to give careful consideration to thebenefits and costs of accelerating implementation of the enhancements to the IIP, and is
expected to report to the IMF Committee on Balance of Payments Statistics in the second
half of calendar 2010.

37
Recommendations 13 and 14: Financial and Nonfinancial Corporations
Cross-border Exposures
Recommendation 13:
The IAG to investigate the issue of monitoring and measuring cross-border, including foreignexchange derivative, exposures of non-financial, and financial, corporations with theintention of promoting standardised reporting guidance and the dissemination of data.
Recommendation 14:
The IAG, consulting with the FSB, to revisit the recommendation of the G-22 to examine thefeasibility of developing a standardized template covering the international exposures oflarge nonbank financial institutions, drawing on the experience with the BIS’s IBS data, otherexisting and prospective data sources, and consulting with relevant stakeholders.
Lead agency: BIS
I. MAJOR RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
The crisis has, in certain jurisdictions, highlighted the lack of data on cross-border exposuresof non-financial corporations, in particular of larger corporations using foreign affiliates toraise finance, provide implicit guarantees or engage in derivative transactions. Small andmedium firms that were highly concentrated in exporting in some instances also acquired
foreign exchange exposures through derivatives contracts booked in foreign markets.
With respect to financial corporations, in particular internationally active banks, the BIS
consolidated banking statistics as well as the BIS OTC derivative statistics capture theirglobal consolidated exposures, including those arising from derivative transactions and otheroff-balance sheet activities. The BIS consolidated banking statistics are available on an
immediate borrower basis as well as on an ultimate risk basis (the latter takes account of
inward and outward risk transfers by reporting banks). But despite their increasing
importance, there is a lack of information on the cross-border exposures of nonbank financial
institutions.
Accounting and measurement of financial exposures on a consolidated basis is a relatively
new area of work. Definitions are not always clear. For instance, in the national and financial
accounting area, consolidation refers to offsetting claims and liabilities of institutions within
the same institutional sector (e.g., interbank). In the BIS international banking statistics theterm is used for globally consolidating the claims (exposure) of banks headquartered in aparticular country. This latter approach is also followed in international accounting standards,
in banks’ internal risk management practices and in global supervisory standards. A thirdconcept of consolidation refers to complex banking groups which include affiliates providingbanking services as well as non-bank financial services such as insurance (e.g., holding
companies). Apart from clarifying relevant concepts and definitions, work is needed tounderstand how a framework for consolidated data can be made compatible with, or
integrated into, the traditional financial statistics compiled on a residency basis.

38
A working group of the IAG, led by the BIS, has been created to take forward the work onthese recommendations. It has undertaken an initial review of methodological guidance and ofdata availability.
II. CURRENT POSITION
Through the framework of the System of National Accounts 2008 and related methodologies,
frameworks exist for the collection and dissemination of data on financial and nonfinancial
corporations on a residency basis.
However, statistical information on non-financial corporations compiled on a residency basis
would not capture the financial exposures of non-resident affiliates. On the other hand,
information on a consolidated basis is generally only available from the financial statements
which would not necessarily provide the level of detail needed with respect to financial
positions such as those related to derivatives.
Both the consolidated data of the BIS’s consolidated banking statistics and from the IMF’s
Financial Soundness Indicators (FSIs) capture data on a consolidated basis for deposit-takers.
The FSI guidance includes a template for capturing future cash flows arising from financial
derivative contracts.
There is ongoing statistical work and discussions at the BIS, IMF and ECB, in particular
relating to the methodological and practical issues of handling the concept of consolidationand the definition of banking/financial groups and in Eurostat, relating to non-financialgroups. But to date it has not been coordinated. The OECD also collects and publishes
statistics on financial statements of banks as well as indicators.
III. WAY FORWARD
The working group intends to undertake a more detailed review of existing methodologicaldevelopments and of the availability of data sources at the national and international level.
This work has two strands:
1.
A stock-take of available information. That is bringing together information on thevarious datasets that shed light on the cross-border positions of non-bank financial
corporations and non-financial corporations either from direct sources or from indirectsources, i.e., where these sectors are identified as counterparts in other datasets.
2.
Drafting an issues paper on the concept of nationality/consolidation as compared toresidency/location.
These two strands will form the background for a workshop/conference to be organized laterin 2010 (with the sponsorship of the Irving Fisher Committee). The workshop would assist in
identifying the issues that may need to be addressed in specific methodological standards or
guidelines (existing or new) and in developing reporting templates.

39
Recommendation 15: Sectoral Accounts
Recommendation 15: The IAG, which includes all agencies represented in the InterSecretariat Working Group on National Accounts, to develop a strategy to promote thecompilation and dissemination of the balance sheet approach (BSA), flow of funds, andsectoral data more generally, starting with the G-20 economies. Data on nonbank financial
institutions should be a particular priority. The experience of the ECB and Eurostat within
Europe and the OECD should be drawn upon. In the medium term, including more sectoral
balance sheet data in the data categories of the Special Data Dissemination Standard could
be considered.
Lead agency: IMF
I. MAJOR RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
The global financial crisis reinforced the importance of integrated economic data, both stocks
and flows, so that the impact of developments in one sector of the economy on other sectors,
and flows such as valuation changes, can be reliably analyzed. The System of National
Accounts 2008 (2008 SNA) framework is the established methodology for compiling national
accounts, and includes integrated current and accumulation accounts, and balance sheets for
institutional sectors. The 2008 SNA updates the earlier 1993 SNA standard that most G-20
economies have adopted. This framework covers both financial and nonfinancial assets.
The financial crisis highlighted the need for data identifying financial asset maturity andcurrency mismatches across sectors. In this context, the IMF developed the “balance sheet
approach” (BSA), a from-whom-to whom presentation of sectoral financial positions, in asequence of papers from 2002.22The BSA begins with the SNA balance sheet, augmenting itwith a counterparty sector and domestic/foreign currency of denomination breakdown.
The flow of funds (FOF) account is a from-whom-to whom sectoral breakdown of the SNA
financial account showing intersectoral transactions in financial assets and liabilities,
explaining the part of the difference between closing and opening positions in the BSA thatarises from transactions in financial instruments. For coherence and international
comparability, the FOF should be part of an integrated presentation of the national accounts.
II. CURRENT POSITION
All but two G-20 economies use the 1993 SNA in disseminating national accounts data to theinternational public. One G-20 economy has adopted the 2008 SNA and another still follows
the 1968 SNA. A number of G-20 economies have plans to adopt the 2008 SNA by 2014 and22

See for instance, using the Balance Sheet Approach in Surveillance: Framework, Data Sources, andData Availability, Johan Mathisen and Anthony Pellechio, IMF Working Paper, WP/06/100

40
2015. The IMF is currently compiling BSA financial balance sheet data from 13 G-20
economies based on its Standardized Report Form (SRF) (See the attached table layout.)
A working group has been created under the auspices of the IAG and led by the IMF. The
IMF has conducted an inventory of the data G-20 economies disseminate relative to the SNA
standards. A complete set of sectoral balance sheets and accumulation accounts (at least
covering the SNA main institutional sectors and the SNA main asset categories) for bothfinancial and non-financial assets is generally lacking. With respect to sectoral financialbalance sheet and financial account, all G-20 advanced economies (bar one) disseminate
these data using at least the minimum SNA institutional sector and the minimum SNA
financial instrument classifications. No G-20 emerging market economy has sectoral
financial balance sheets. With respect to sectoral non-financial balance sheets and capital
accounts, all G-20 advanced economies disseminate these data using the minimum SNA main
sectoral breakdown with further details for some asset categories (mainly for fixed assets).
Although all G-20 emerging market economies have a capital account for the total economy,
sectoral and asset breakdowns are available only in a few cases. OECD disseminates annual
financial accounts and balance sheet data for many of its member countries. (See the attachedtable layout). Eurostat disseminates annual financial accounts and balance sheet data for EU
member countries.
III. WAY FORWARD
The IMF, with OECD, is planning a conference of experts in early 2011 to share experiences,discuss the gaps, and seek to agree upon some minimum reporting needs for G-20
economies, drawing upon the existing frameworks of the IMF and the OECD. The intention
is thereafter to:

Post on the Principal Global Indicators website sectoral balance sheet data in the SNA
format already disseminated or available on request, sometime in 2011.

Expand the reporting of detailed annual and quarterly sectoral accounts by G-20 and
non G-20 advanced economies in accord with the 2008 SNA. Provide technicalassistance and training to economies as necessary.

Return to the IMF Executive Board at the time of the Eighth Review of the IMF’s
Data Standards Initiatives, provisionally scheduled for the first half of 2012, withpossible recommendations for strengthening the SDDS with regard to integrated
sectoral balance sheet information.

Given the resource costs involved in compiling these data, it is recognized that there mayneed to be flexibility in the timetable of implementation depending on the countries’ level ofstatistical development.

IMF “Balance Sheet Approach” Presentation of Financial Positions by Institutional Sector
Based on Standardized Report Form (SRF) Program
Public sector
Financial instrument/institutional sector/subsector

1993 SNA
financial
instrument/sectorcodes

Financial sector

Nonfinancial private sector

Rest of theworld
Nonresidents

Central bank

CentralgovernmentState andlocal
government

Publicnonfinancial
corporations

Other
depository
corporations

Other
financialcorporations(Other)Nonfinancial
corporations

S.121

S.1321

S.1322-1323

S.11001

S.124-S.127

S.128-S.129

S.11002-11003

Other resident
sectors(Households
and NPISHs)
S.14-15

S.2

Claims (assets), liabilities, net position

23

AF.1
AF.2
AF.3
AF.4
AF.5
AF.6
AF.7
AF.8
AF.1
AF.2
AF.3
AF.31
AF.32
AF.4
AF.41
AF.42
AF.5
AF.6
AF.7
AF.8

Table stub repeats for each institutional sector/subsector shown in the column headings.

41

Institutional sector/subsector23
In domestic currency
Monetary gold and special drawing rights (SDRs)
Currency and deposits
Securities other than shares
Loans
Shares and other equity
Insurance technical reserves
Financial derivatives
Other accounts receivable/payable
In foreign currency
Monetary gold and special drawing rights (SDRs)
Currency and deposits
Securities other than shares
Short-termLong-term
Loans
Short-termLong-term
Shares and other equity
Insurance technical reserves
Financial derivatives
Other accounts receivable/payableOECD Presentation of Financial Positions by Institutional Sector
1993 SNA financial Instrument/institutional sector

24
25

Nonfinancial
corporations

Financial

S.11

S.12

General government

Households andnonprofit institutions
serving households

Total economy

Rest of the world

S.13

S.14-S.15

S1

S2

corporations25

AF.1[AF.11][AF.12]
AF.2
AF.21
AF.22
AF.29
AF.3
AF.31
AF.32
AF.7
AF.4
AF.41
AF.42
AF.5

AF.6
AF.61
[AF.611][AF.612]
AF.62
AF.8
AF.81
AF.82

Bracketed items are implied by 1993 SNA Financial Account coding.
Banks, investment funds, insurance corporations, and pension funds.

42

Monetary gold and SDRs
Monetary gold
Special drawing rights (SDRs)
Currency and deposits
Currency
Transferable deposits
Other deposits
Securities other than shares
Securities other than shares, except financial derivatives
Short-term securities
Long-term securities
Financial derivatives
Loans
Short-term loans
Long-term loans
Shares and other equity
Shares and other equity, except mutual funds shares
Quoted shares
Unquoted shares
Other equity
Mutual funds shares
Insurance technical reserves
Net equity of households in life insurance and pension funds reserves
Net equity of households in life insurance reserves
Net equity of households in pension funds
Prepayments of premiums and reserves against outstanding claims
Other accounts receivable
Trade credits and advances
Other accounts receivable, except trade credits and advances

1993 SNA
instrument/
sectorcode24

43
Recommendation 16: Distributional information
Recommendation 16: As the recommended improvements to data sources and categories are
implemented, statistical experts to seek to compile distributional information (such as ranges
and quartile information) alongside aggregate figures, wherever this is relevant. The IAG is
encouraged to promote production and dissemination of these data in a frequent and timely
manner. The OECD is encouraged to continue in its efforts to link national accounts datawith distributional information.
Lead agency: OECD
I. MAJOR RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
National accounts-based data on household income, consumption and wealth provide no
information on how income, consumption and wealth are distributed across socio-economic
classes of households.26 Distributional information comes from other sources, in particularhousehold surveys and administrative data, and is of direct interest for economic policy andfor central banks. For example, a strongly skewed distribution of wealth and its composition
can be indicative of the exposure of some groups of households to financial risk.
The OECD and Eurostat have set up task forces to define common international methodology
and implement pilot studies. They are launching projects with their member countries toadvance and coordinate the development of distributional measures to accompany national
accounts figures. Eurostat is establishing a sponsorship program on the follow-up to the
Stiglitz-Sen-Fitoussi report (http://www.stiglitz-sen-fitoussi.fr) that would include work on
the issue, while the OECD is taking steps to create a project on these issues under the auspicesof its National Accounts Working Party. Work by the two organizations is closely
coordinated. The ECB has set up a Network of euro area researchers and statisticians forsetting up and doing research with the Eurosystem household finance and consumption survey(HFCS) data.
For a variety of reasons, there is a need to integrate micro results with macro-economic
statistics. Some are discussed in the Stiglitz-Sen-Fitoussi report. However, there are a numberof challenges. For instance, distributional information may need some adjustments before it
can be used to inform about the distribution of national accounts income, consumption andwealth e.g., to take account of under-representation of specific subpopulations in surveys(e.g., immigrants, homeless, people living in institutions, etc.), and households’ tendency tounderreport income and wealth.
The Canberra Manual on Household Income Statistics is an important methodological source(http://www.lisproject.org/links/canberra/finalreport.pdf that is currently being updated.
II. CURRENT POSITIONAt this point, very few empirical results are available that try to integrate in a systematic way
micro and macro information about household economic resources. The most prominent
exception is recent work undertaken by researchers at INSEE, the French national statistical26
The 2008 SNA (Chapter 4) recommends various breakdowns for the household sector, including also
according to income size.

44
institute.27 In this approach, households are classified into subcategories according to four
criteria: (quintiles of) equivalized income, employment status, age of the household head, andfamily structure. Subsequently, the various items of the household account are broken downby these categories. These statistics, which are currently limited to the year 2003 and tohousehold income, in-kind services, and consumption expenditures, give rise to policyrelevant information. Other statistical offices have also developed information on householdincome distribution (for instance those of the Netherlands and Germany) along withcoordinated efforts at the European level. However, income categories are not always
compatible with national accounts. This type of information is directly relevant for theformulation and for the monitoring of the effects of social policy.
III. WAY FORWARD
In 2010, the task forces set up by OECD and Eurostat will develop the methodology formatching survey data with national accounts aggregates. The challenge will be to define aharmonized approach able to accommodate a variety of data situations in different countries.
In parallel with establishment of the methodology, pilot studies will be conducted inindividual countries and it is expected to obtain selected results in the course of 2011. In
addition to the work by OECD and Eurostat, there are various initiatives underway.
At the initiative of Canada and Australia, the OECD’s Committee on Statistics is considering
starting methodological and conceptual work on the joint distribution of household income,wealth, and consumption. While not necessarily matched with the national accounts measuresof these variables, such work will be central to identifying the most vulnerable members of
our societies, namely those at the lower end of the income, wealth, and consumption
distribution. The OECD has approached the national statistical offices of Brazil, China, India,
Indonesia, Russia, and South Africa to participate in this work.
The ECB is coordinating the launch of the Eurosystem HFCS conducted in the 16 euro area
countries,28 as a primary source of information for complementing with distributive
information on households’ assets and liabilities the System of National Accounts. Similarhousehold wealth surveys already exist or are currently being set up in other OECDeconomies. Contacts are being established between the Household Finance and Consumption
Network and national account experts to explore the potential for synergies between theEurosystem HFCS and the euro area accounts, with a research conference planned for
October 2010 (www.ecb.int/events/conferences/html/joint_ecb_lux.en.html). Other projects
are underway at the World Bank and the United Nations.
It is expected that a first set of methodological studies and estimates will be completed in thecourse of 2012 such that an active contribution to the development of international
methodological standards/guidelines may be envisaged. Once methodologies are in place,
periodic monitoring of the distribution of household economic resources (income,consumption, and wealth) within the System of National Accounts could be envisaged.

27

For a first set of empirical results for France, see Fesseau and Le Laidier (2009), available under
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/33/30/43953916.pdf.
28

More information is available at http://www.ecb.europa.eu/home/html/researcher_hfcn.en.html).

45
Recommendation 17: Government Finance Statistics
The IMF to promote timely and cross-country standardized and comparable government
finance data based on the accepted international standard, the Government Finance
Statistics Manual 2001.
Lead agency: IMF
I. MAJOR RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
In March 2010, the IMF Executive Board decided to adopt a standardized presentation of
fiscal data following the Government Finance Statistics Manual, 2001 (GFSM 2001).29 IMF
Staff reports will be using this format by May 2011. In addition, the fiscal data of the World
Economic Outlook (WEO) now follows the GFSM 2001 format: for example, the concept of“net lending (+)/ borrowing (-)” will replace the concept of “overall balance.”
Further, the data in staff reports should include information on the government stock offinancial assets together with information on gross debt; this stock information should be
supplemented with information on “other flows,” if available. The inclusion of an integrated
balance sheet table is best practice whenever large changes in the volume, value, orcomposition of assets and liabilities take place. Gross debt should be recorded at nominal
value, and also at market value if available.
The above information will be reported, to the extent possible, for the general government (orwider aggregates when appropriate). In any case, all Fund publications should specify thecoverage of their data, according to a predefined institutional structure. Deviations from the
GFSM 2001 methodology due to data availability are to be flagged in footnotes.
II. CURRENT POSITION
As of April 2010, data reporting by G-20 economies remained uneven in each of the areas
outlined above.
Government Finance Statistics Yearbook (very detailed, annual data): As of April 2010, 15
out of the G-20 economies have reported annual data based on the GFSM 2001 framework
while four have not reported data. Of the reporting countries, 12 cover the general
government and three the central government.
The IMF is developing “Maps of Governments” to highlight the coverage basis on whichdata are reported - central government versus the general government - to help the users’
understanding when looking at data on a cross-country basis.

29“Government Finance Statistics to Strengthen Fiscal Analysis,” March 2010.

46
Reporting for publication in the International Financial Statistics (IFS) (less detailed, inmost cases quarterly or monthly timeliness and frequency): Again, the institutional coverage
varies: four G-20 economies provide data on the budgetary central government, four covercentral government, seven cover the general government. Five G-20 economies do not reporthigh-frequency (monthly or quarterly) fiscal statistics to the IMF Statistics Department for
publication in the IFS.
Some countries that report data in the GFSM 2001 framework maintain national
methodologies in parallel, which adds further layers of complexity and can lead to confusionas the data reported to international agencies may differ from data disseminated elsewhere.
Two G-20 economies use the GFSM 2001 framework for their national reporting and fiscal
analysis; five G-20 economies use the European System of Accounts (ESA95); three G-20
economies use the SNA93 framework—both are closely aligned with GFSM 2001; two G-20
economies use country specific frameworks, and the remaining eight G-20 economies use
presentations largely based on the GFSM 1986 framework.
While the GFSM 2001 framework is now well established among the IMF’s overall
membership as the international methodology for compiling comparable government financestatistics, many have not yet adopted the GFSM 2001 framework for their national reportingand fiscal analysis. To further support this work at the national level, the IMF will continue
to lead the consultative and coordinated process for promoting the application of the
GFSM 2001 methodology and improving availability of timely and comparable government
finance statistics.
III. WAY FORWARD
The IMF staff is to work with countries, in consultation with other international agencies, topromote the GFSM 2001 consistent with the IMF Executive Board decision.
Over the next year, IMF staff will start the update of the GFSM 2001 in line with the changes

arising from the 2008 SNA; and leverage the tools of the SDMX for data transmission andexchange.

47
Recommendation 18: Public Sector Debt
The World Bank, in coordination with the IMF, and consulting with the Inter-Agency Task
Force on Finance Statistics, to launch the public sector debt database in 2010.
Lead agency: World Bank
I. MAJOR RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
Data on public sector debt are important for a wide range of economic issues. During its
March 4–5, 2010 meetings in Washington D.C., the Task Force on Finance Statistics(TFFS)30 endorsed the proposal for the World Bank to gather quarterly public sector debt datafrom developing and emerging market countries.
The basic requirement for countries to participate is to supply quarterly data on central
government debt. Data on general government and public sector debt is encouraged, if
available. The Development Data Group of the World Bank will collect and disseminate dataon-line.
Central government debt is already included as a category in the IMF’s General Data
Dissemination System (GDDS) on an annual basis, with quarterly data encouraged. Central
government debt has been identified as the area where there is the most urgent data gap, andwhere there is scope for improvement in the short term. While data on debt of other levels ofgovernment will be sought, the values of debt tend to be larger for central government thanother levels of government and thus central government debt would indicate total general
government debt in many cases. As well, the smaller number of agencies involved for central
government means that data should be more timely and readily available than for broader
measures of government.
Data for general government may be available and are essential for comparison with external
debt data (that covers general government) and deriving domestic general government debt
as the difference between total general government debt and the corresponding external debt.
II. CURRENT POSITION
A structured template has been agreed by the TFFS (see attached table).
The data will be collected for the following sectors on an as-available basis:

30

General governmento/w Central governmento/w Budgetary central government

The TFFS consists of representatives of the BIS, Commonwealth Secretariat, ECB, Eurostat, IMF (Chair),OECD, Paris Club, UNCTAD and the World Bank.

48
Nonfinancial public corporations

Financial public corporations



Total public sector

It should be noted that different sectors and subsectors cannot be summed, or state and local
derived as a residual, because of debt held between different parts of the public sector. (Debt
between different public sector units is consolidated in the totals.)Also, a Public Sector Debt (PSD) Guide is being prepared by the IMF under the auspice of
the TFFS to provide guidance to compilers. This Guide will use the same harmonizedconcepts as from other macro-economic manuals and guides, allowing linkages to be
examined with other available data, e.g., between total general government debt and its
external components, or between general government debt and debt of other sectors. A final
version of the PSD Guide is expected early in 2011.
III. WAY FORWARD
The World Bank and the IMF are jointly approaching central government debt contacts
identified in selected Special Data Dissemination Standard (SDDS) and GDDS metadatathrough a letter inviting participation. However, reporters will have to coordinate internallywith responsible agencies to compile the data that will be needed, which might affect theoverall reporting process negatively. In particular, the primary source for public sector debt islikely to be the Ministry of Finance, while external debt is usually supplied by otheragencies, such as the Central Bank.
The data will be published in a public sector debt website with links to complementary andrelated information sources, such as the Joint External Debt Hub.
The project is on schedule for the website to be launched by end-calendar year 2010.

49

Gross Debt of [institutional coverage] at Nominal Value
By maturity and type of instrument:
Short-term, by original maturity:
Currency and deposits
Debt securities
Loans
Insurance, pensions, and standardized guarantee schemes
Other accounts payable
Long-term, by original maturity:
With payment due in one year or less:Currency and deposits
Debt securities
Loans
Insurance, pensions, and standardized guarantee schemes
Other accounts payable
With payment due in more than one year:
Special Drawing Rights (SDRs)
Currency and deposits
Debt securities
Loans
Insurance, pensions, and standardized guarantee schemes
Other accounts payable
Total gross debt
Special Drawing Rights (SDRs)
Currency and deposits
Debt securities
Loans
Insurance, pensions, and standardized guarantee schemes
Other accounts payable
By currency of denomination:
Domestic currency denominatedForeign currency denominated
By residence of the creditor:
Domestic creditors
External creditors
Memorandum item:
Debt securities at market value

50
Recommendation 19: Real Estate Prices
Recommendation 19: The Inter-Secretariat Working Group on Price Statistics (IWGPS) tocomplete the planned handbook on real estate price indices. The BIS and member central
banks to investigate dissemination on the BIS website of publicly available data on realestate prices. The IAG to consider including real estate prices (residential and commercial)in the Principal Global Indicators (PGI) website.
Lead agency: BIS and Eurostat
I. MAJOR RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
Eurostat is the lead agency responsible for the drafting of the Handbook on Residential
Property Price Indices (RPPIs) and is working under the aegis of the IWGPS. The
methodological foundation for the handbook on residential property price indices work has
been underscored by contributions to a series of conferences on real estate price indices(REPIs)—IMF-BIS, 2003; OECD-IMF 2006; and Eurostat-IAOS-IFC, 2009. These
contributions include methodological issues and details of country practice. No equivalentmethodological work on Commercial Property Price Indices (CPPIs) is underway.
In February 2010, the BIS solicited authorization from the central banks reporting RPPIs tomake this information publicly available on the BIS website.
II. CURRENT POSITION
The BIS currently receives RPPIs for 13 G-20 economies and CPPIs for one G-20 economy.
These data are only shared amongst the BIS member central banks. Frequencies vary frommonthly to annual. Timeliness varies from six weeks to fourteen months. Each series has
individual metadata, albeit limited. The BIS has now asked central banks for permission to
make this information publicly available on its website. As of April 2010, data reporting by
G-20 economies to the BIS on real estate prices remained uneven, in terms of statisticaldimensions (such as frequency, timeliness, and quality of metadata), for both RPPI andparticularly CPPI.
The ECB collects residential property price indicators for all euro area countries and makes
available an aggregate indicator for the euro area, weighting together the indicators
considered to be the most representative for each country. National data are managed in an
ECB internal database. The indicator for the euro area is compiled at semi-annual frequency
and is produced between four to six months after the end of the reporting period.
The ECB has been running a euro area wide survey on the availability of CPPIs. The
available data stem exclusively from non-official sources. Further investigations are requiredin order to assess the statistical quality—both in terms of data and metadata—and theusability of these indicators.

51III. WAY FORWARD
A first draft of the Handbook on RPPIs is expected by May 2010 with a final draft planned
for mid-calendar 2011. Given the lack of homogeneity of methodologies in the compilationof RPPIs by countries, an opportunity for national and international agency comments on theconceptual framework is considered essential before the final draft is released in 2011.
On data dissemination, provided the BIS receive agreement from its member central banks,
data RPPIs will be disseminated on the BIS website. These data could then be made available
through the Principal Global Indicators website later in 2010.
Eurostat and the EU National Statistical Institutes are carrying out pilot work to develop
harmonized RPPIs during the course of 2010-2011. Eurostat plans a first release of anexperimental index for the euro area as a whole in September 2010.
The IWGPS will consider the need to improve commercial real estate price information,
given its importance for financial stability analysis.

52
Recommendation 20: Principal Global Indicators
The G-20 economies to support enhancement of the PGI website, and close the gaps in theavailability of their national data. The IAG should consider making longer runs of historical
data available.
Lead agency: IMF
I. MAJOR RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
The Principal Global Indicators (PGI) website was launched in April 2009 and is anundertaking of the IAG. It presents data for the G-20 economies to facilitate the monitoringof economic and financial developments for these systemically important economies in
response to the on-going financial and economic crisis. Significant enhancements to the PGI
website were released on December 21, 2009. At present, the PGI website offers access to an
on-line database with user-selected longer runs of historical data presented in comparable
units of measure (growth rates, index numbers, and/or percent of GDP). The site is available
at http://www.principalglobalindicators.org/. In April 2010, visitors from over 140 countries
accessed the site.
The Statistical Data and Metadata Exchange (SDMX) initiative provides standards forexchanging data and its implementation on the PGI would increase the timeliness and accessto the data it contains. The SDMX initiative is sponsored by seven international agencies(BIS, ECB, Eurostat, IMF, OECD, UN, and World Bank) and the technical standards andcontent guidelines it developed and promotes will improve the exchange of statisticalinformation.
II. CURRENT POSITION
Data on the PGI website are limited to the series that the G-20 economies report to theinternational agencies participating in the PGI. For example, eight of the G-20 economies do
not report to the IMF monetary and financial data in the format that correspond to the IMF
Monetary and Financial Statistics Manual 2000; seven do not report government gross debt
data, with five not reporting any government finance statistics to the IMF Statistics
Department.
III. WAY FORWARD
The high priorities include: (i) expanding the data coverage and timeliness of the PGI website
for the G-20 economies; (ii) encouraging the use of existing systems to report data tointernational organizations (such as the IMF Integrated Correspondence System), and (iii)increasing the world-wide sharing of data disseminated by G-20 economies by promoting the
adoption of SDMX for the dissemination of official statistics. Another key priority is for IAG
agencies participating in the PGI website to prioritize SDMX in their data sharing

53
arrangements with the objective of reducing overlaps in data collection from the G-20
economies.
In close collaboration with participating IAG agencies, the IMF’s Statistics Department willcontinue the development and maintenance of the PGI website, including the identification ofpriorities for improving coverage and access to key macroeconomic statistics of the G-20
economies on the PGI. These include:Monitoring the timeliness of PGI data by comparing with the timeliness of the data
disseminated by the G-20 economies that subscribe to the IMF Special Data
Dissemination Standard.



Improving the coverage and accuracy of historical data through improved data
sharing with other international agencies.



Undertaking a thorough review of data reporting arrangements between G-20 data
producing agencies and the IMF to identify data deficiencies.



Developing world and regional aggregates for a key set of PGI indicators.

Working actively with G-20 economies that have not adopted the international
standards for reporting data to international agencies.



Visits by the IMF to individual G-20 economies to review their data reporting
practices with a view to improve the coverage of the PGI (during 2010–11).

In the medium to long-term, it is expected that Financial Soundness Indicators (FSIs) would
be added to the data coverage of PGI (2011) and consideration will be given to expand thecountry coverage of PGI beyond the G-20 economies to include other systemically importanteconomies (2011).