The Financial Crisis and Information Gaps

Implementation Progress Report

Prepared by the IMF Staff and the FSB Secretariat
June 20112

Contents

Page

Acronyms ..................................................................................................................................3
Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................4
I. Introduction ..........................................................................................................................13
II. Progress To Date .................................................................................................................15
A. Progress on the G-20 Recommendations ................................................................15
B. Consultations With the G-20 National Authorities .................................................17
III. Implementation Schedule...................................................................................................17
IV. Challenges and Institutional Arrangements .......................................................................21
A. Resources ................................................................................................................21
B. Priorities and Interlinkages......................................................................................23
C. Data Access .............................................................................................................24
D. International Coordination ......................................................................................25
V. Way Forward.......................................................................................................................26
Tables
1. Summary Table: Progress Report, Action Plans, and Timetables .........................................6
2. Stylized Overview of the 20 Recommendations ..................................................................14
3. Schedule of G-20 Data Gaps Initiative: Key Milestones Ahead ........................................18
4. Interlinkages Between Rec #15 and Recs #7, #12, and #17 as Reflected in the Financial
Account/Financial Balance Sheet of the SNA Integrated Sector Accounts ...........................39
Annexes
1. Summary of Main Themes from the Consultations with G-20 Economies .........................27
2. Interlinkages Between the Sectoral Accounts and Related Datasets ...................................38

3
ACRONYMS
2008 SNA
ABS
BCBS
BIS
BOPCOM
BPM6
BSA
CDS
CGFS
CPIS
DFID
ECB
FSB
FSIs
G-20
GFS
GFSM 2001
G-SIFIs
HSS
IAG
IBS
IFS
IIP
IMF
IMFC
IOSCO
IRB
ISWGPS
IT
LEI
MAP
NSDP
OECD
OFR
PGI
PIN
REER
RPPI
SDDS
SDMX
SNA
STA
TFFS
UNCTAD
UNSD
WEO

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 of Payments and International Investment Position
Manual, sixth edition
Balance-sheet approach
Credit Default Swaps
Committee on the Global Financial System
Coordinated Portfolio Investment Survey
UK Department for International Development
European Central Bank
Financial Stability Board
Financial Soundness Indicators
The Group of Twenty
Government Finance Statistics
Government Finance Statistics Manual, 2001
Global Systemically Important Financial Institutions
BIS-ECB-IMF Handbook on Securities Statistics
Interagency Group on Economic and Financial Statistics
International Banking Statistics
International Financial Statistics
International Investment Position
International Monetary FundIMF International Monetary and Financial Committee
International Organization of Securities Commissions
Internal Ratings Based
Inter-Secretariat Working Group on Price Statistics
Information Technology
Legal Entity Identifier
Mutual Assessment Process
National Summary Data Page
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
Office of Financial Research
Principal Global Indicators
Public Information Notice
Real Effective Exchange Rates
Handbook on Residential Property Price IndicesSpecial Data Dissemination Standard
Statistical Data and Metadata eXchange
System of National Accounts
IMF’s Statistics Department
Task Force on Finance Statistics
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development
United Nations Statistics Division
World Economic Outlook

4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report updates on progress by the Financial Stability Board (FSB) Secretariat andInternational Monetary Fund (IMF) staff in implementing the 20 recommendations in thereport The Financial Crisis and Information Gaps endorsed by the Group of Twenty (G-20)
Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors in November 2009. Since the last progress
report a year ago, consultations with national authorities revealed broad agreement with, anda positive view of, the G-20 Data Gaps Initiative, with better identification of the build-up ofrisks in the financial sector and financial interconnectedness (domestic and cross-border)
being among the highest priorities.
Work in the priority areas is progressing well:A draft reporting template for the global systemically important financial institutions
has been developed for banks, with the FSB Plenary agreeing to progress this work.



Agreements have been reached to enhance the Bank for International Settlements(BIS) international banking statistics (IBS) data to provide more granular information
on a nationality basis; to increase the frequency from annual to semi annual ofcross-border security holdings data in the IMF’s Coordinated Portfolio Investment
Survey (CPIS); and to introduce a reporting template to provide a better
understanding of domestic vulnerabilities by economic sector. The challenge over the
coming year will be to start implementing these enhancements.

Data availability is also increasing:

Reporting by G-20 economies on Financial Soundness Indicators (FSIs) and quarterlyInternational Investment Position (IIP) data is increasing. The BIS has started
publishing data on real estate prices. The public sector debt database has beenlaunched jointly by the World Bank and the IMF, initially primarily for developing
and emerging economies. The first stage of enhanced reporting of credit default
swaps (CDS) data has begun with the second stage to be introduced later this year.

The Principal Global Indicators (PGI) website has expanded to include data from thefive jurisdictions of the FSB that are not in the G-20.

Conceptual work is also progressing:Part 2 of the BIS-ECB-IMF Handbook on Securities Statistics, covering debt
securities holdings, is completed and work has started on Part 3 that will cover theissuance and holdings of equity securities. The Public Sector Debt Statistics Guide
has been released. Conceptual work to develop datasets is advancing to support
analysis of the build-up of risk in the financial sector, as well as on the distribution ofhousehold income, wealth, and consumption across social-economic classes.

5
But important challenges remain:Efforts to further strengthen the availability of consistent and comparable economic
and financial data remain important, including:

Sustaining efforts to close gaps in existing data collections for G-20
economies and, in some instances, for significant financial centers.



Improving the data availability on the activities of nonbank financial
institutions.



Harmonizing data collections from G-20 economies by international agencies
across macroeconomic statistics―a high priority over the coming year.

Ensuring adequate resourcing of statistical work; and limiting the reporting burden on
the private sector, national, and international authorities.

Ensuring appropriate access to data as macroprudential analysis needs more granular
data than has been required for macroeconomic analysis. Legal frameworks for data
sharing and for data collection may need to be reviewed in some instances.

The report seeks endorsement by the G-20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors of
the action plans and timetables summarized in Table 1 below.

Table 1. Summary Table: Progress Report, Action Plans, and Timetables
Recommendation

Progress to Date

Action Plans and Timetables

1.

As requested in June 2010, the present report,
prepared by the FSB Secretariat and IMF staff, isprovided to the G-20 Finance Ministers andCentral Bank Governors by June 2011.

The FSB Secretariat and IMF staff to provide the next
progress report by September 2012. IMF staff intends toundertake regional visits to discuss further progress towards
implementation of the recommendations. The IMF toconsider setting up procedures to monitor progress,
including asking G-20 economies to undertake self
assessments to update the detailed information from the G20 bilateral consultations.

Staff of the 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, staffof the 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.

Over the past year, the number of G-20
economies reporting FSIs has increased by three
to 18 economies (the euro area as a currency
union is not requested to report); of which 10
provide data on a quarterly or more frequentbasis. The seven FSIs in the IMF Special Data
Dissemination Standard (SDDS), submitted on an
encouraged basis, are available via the IMF’s
Dissemination Standards Bulletin Board forseven of the G-20 economies that are SDDS
subscribers. The FSI data reported regularly to
the IMF have been integrated into the IMF
Global Financial Stability Report starting in
April 2011.

In November 2011, the IMF is to organize a meeting of the
FSIs Reference Group of Experts to discuss possible
changes in the list of FSIs and the methodology forcompiling them. The work program for the Eighth Reviewof the IMF Data Standards Initiatives, scheduled for the
first half of 2012, includes the possibility of strengthening
the Data Standards, including regarding FSIs, through thepossible establishment of a higher tier (SDDS-Plus).

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.

IMF staff is close to developing conceptual
guidance for discussion at the FSIs ReferenceGroup of Experts.

IMF staff to present the conceptual guidance developed for
discussion at the meeting of the FSIs Reference Group ofExperts scheduled for November 2011.

62.

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

The IMF and the BIS have decided that the BIS
will focus its investigation on the banks and the
IMF on the shadow banks. Drawing on the BIS
IBS data, the BIS has completed its conceptual
work on defining measures of maturity
mismatches (―funding gaps‖) on banks’international balance sheets. The IMF iscompleting its conceptual work on maturity
mismatch and leverage data in cooperation with
the FSB task force on shadow banking. This
FSB task force was established following therequest to the FSB by the G-20 Leaders inNovember 2010 to develop recommendations tostrengthen the oversight and regulation of the
shadow banking system.

5.

The CGFS and the BIS to undertake further work inclose cooperation with central banks and regulatorson the coverage of statistics on the credit default
swaps (CDS) markets for the purpose of improving
understanding of risk transfers within this market.

The CGFS decided to expand the CDS statistics
in September 2009. Reporting central banks
have provided more detailed data on the type ofcounterparties from June 2010, and will provide
more detail on the geography of counterparties
and underlying instruments from June 2011. In
total, 11 economies report semi-annual CDS
data of which seven are G-20 economies. The
reporting population is expected to expand by
two economies at end-2011, of which one is a
G-20 economy. The BIS currently has no plans
to ask the remaining G-20 economies to reportsemi-annual CDS data given the limited size of
their markets in CDS contracts.

6.

Securities market regulators working through IOSCO
to further investigate the disclosure requirements forcomplex structured products, including public
disclosure requirements for financial reporting
purposes, and make recommendations for additional
improvements if necessary, taking account of workby 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 theirregulatory disclosure regimes for public
offerings and listings of ABS(http://www.iosco.org/news). In April 2011,
IOSCO held the first meeting of a new Standing
Committee on Risk and Research with theintention of creating a methodology forsecurities regulators undertaking research into
systemic risk.

IMF staff intends to complete their work soon afterJune 2011. The work of the BIS on banks can be further
enhanced if the CGFS approves the enhancements to the
IBS data (see recommendations 10 and 11).

Once data are reported for end-June 2011 thisrecommendation will be considered completed.

74.

This recommendation is completed.

7.

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

Part 2 (debt securities holdings) of the
BIS-ECB-IMF HSS was published in August
2010. This followed publication of Part 1 (debt
securities issues) in 2009. Work has started on
Part 3 (issues and holdings of equity securities).
The BIS is collecting available data on securities
from member central banks, including from 16
G-20 economies.

Part 3 of the HSS is expected to be finalized around the endof calendar 2011. The BIS intends to expand its coverage ofquarterly securities issuance data using the common
template to all G-20 economies during the remainder of
2011. Two further common templates, to be agreed at theinternational level, are being developed in coordination
with the work on sectoral accounts, and consistent withnational accounts based data: the intention is for economies
to supply to the BIS additional detail on securities issuanceby subsector, maturity, and interest rate; and on securities
holdings by sector. Once these tasks are finalized, thisrecommendation will be considered completed.

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, todevelop by end-2010 a common draft template forsystemically important global financial institutions
for the purpose of better understanding the exposuresof these institutions to different financial sectors andnational markets. This work should be undertaken inconcert with related work on the systemic
importance of financial institutions. Widespread
consultation would be needed, and due account takenof confidentiality rules, before any reporting
framework can be implemented.

The FSB Working Group on Data Gaps andSystemic Linkages was set up to take forward
the work on recommendations 8 and 9. It
completed its work, including developing acommon draft template, and reported to the FSB
Plenary in April 2011. The latter approved the
proposals to progress work on a common
template to its final form for improving thecollection, and sharing among relevant
authorities, of data on global systemicallyimportant financial institutions (G-SIFIs). A
consultation process is to be undertaken toprovide additional information on the costs andbenefits of alternative options, as well as on thelegal aspects. This will guide the decision on the
final form and phased implementation of thecommon template. Preparatory work is alsocommencing on strengthening data-sharing
arrangements and protocols within the official
sector, including a review of the legal aspects. It
has been agreed to commence preparatory workon the establishment of a central data hub at the
BIS to store the data reported by national
authorities.

The follow-up work to take forward the outcome of the
FSB Plenary has commenced. A phased approach isenvisaged. Key decisions are expected to be taken by the
FSB Plenary in late 2011 on the final form of the common
template and the data-sharing arrangements amongsupervisory authorities and with the central data hub; and inlate 2012 on broader data sharing among the official sector.
The collection of data is expected to start in 2012 and,through a series of incremental steps, be fully operationalby end-2014. New agreements may need to be reached tofacilitate the sharing of data received by the data hub. The
initial focus of the work on a common template for G-SIFIs
has been banks, but work to include nonbank financial
institutions is scheduled to start in the coming year.

88.

Coverage of significant financial centers and ofother economies, including G-20 economies in
the BIS IBS and the IMF CPIS has continued to
be good although further improvement isneeded. For the BIS IBS, there are five G-20
economies that do not report data on either alocational or consolidated basis; and there is one
large offshore centre missing in the reporting of
the locational data. For the CPIS, there are two
G-20 economies that do not report data; andthere are a significant number of offshore
centers that do not report, the same as last year.
For the CPIS, the IMF Committee on Balance ofPayments Statistics (BOPCOM) agreed toincrease the frequency (from annual to semi
annual) and timeliness (a dissemination lag ofless than nine months) of the data, and to collectdata on the institutional sector of the foreign
debtor on an encouraged basis. The first set ofenhancements to the BIS IBS has been approvedby the CGFS.

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 are encouraged
to continue their work to improve the coverage ofsignificant financial centers in the CPIS and IBS,
respectively.

Both the BIS and the IMF to continue working to increase
country participation in their surveys, including by G-20
economies. The CGFS ad-hoc group for statistics isworking on a second set of enhancements to present to the
CGFS for approval during 2011. Improvements in thefrequency, timeliness, and scope of the CPIS survey may be
implemented in time for the reporting of 2013 data.

11.

The BIS and the CGFS to consider, among otherimprovements, the separate 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 BOPCOM, tostrive to enhance the frequency and timeliness of the
CPIS data, and consider other possible
enhancements, such as the institutional sector of theforeign 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
SDDS, after a four-year transition period,
quarterly reporting (from annual) of the IIP data,with a maximum lag of one quarter (quarterly
timeliness). Among the G-20 economies, 10
economies disseminate quarterly IIP data,
increasing from eight a year ago. Six economies
have plans to introduce quarterly reporting. To
assist implementation, in March 2011 the IMF
produced a pamphlet to advise compilers onquarterly IIP compilation.

IMF staff is working with economies to implement the
Executive Board decision on the SDDS by September 2014.
IMF staff will encourage reporting by the G-20 economy
that does not disseminate IIP as yet, and will introduce in2012 the new specific requirements for reporting dataconsistent with BPM6 standards in consultation with the
BOPCOM.

13.

The Interagency Group on Economic and Financial
Statistics (IAG) to investigate the issue of monitoringand measuring cross-border, including foreignexchange, derivatives, exposures of nonfinancial,and financial, corporations with the intention ofpromoting reporting guidance and the disseminationof data.

A working group has been created under the
auspices of the IAG and led by the BIS. In
cooperation with the Irving Fisher Committee on
Central Bank Statistics, a workshop was
conducted in Basel in January 2011 to discuss
the key issues and the way forward. As a firststep in the work on improving data availability

Following the January 2011 Workshop, the IAG working
group is to develop a reference document, consulting withmajor stakeholders and drawing on the material presented
to the Workshop. The first part of the document will focus
on evolving user requirements, and could possibly be readyin 2012.

9

10.

14.

The IAG, consulting with the FSB, to revisit therecommendation of the G-20 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.

on the international exposures of large nonbank
financial institutions an inventory of data on
cross-border positions has been developed. The
inventory will be made available through the
PGI website by mid-2011.

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 to promote thecompilation and dissemination of the balance-sheet
approach (BSA), flow-of-funds, and sectoral 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 SDDS could beconsidered.

A working group has been created under the
auspices of the IAG and led by the IMF. An
IMF/OECD Conference of Sectoral Accounts
Experts was conducted on February 28–March
2, 2011 in Washington D.C., which agreed on
the basic outline of a reporting template, and thetimeframe and priorities for implementation.

The IAG working group will take forward the outcomes of
the conference, including the draft reporting template, anddevelop an implementation plan with the intention ofstarting data collection during the coming year. As far as
possible the work will be integrated with theimplementation of the System of National Accounts 2008
(2008 SNA) occurring in many economies at the same time.
The reporting template will be finalized and consultations
with the national experts will be undertaken, including
through relevant OECD working parties. The reporting
frameworks for recommendations 7, 12, and 17 will beconsistent with the sectoral accounts framework. The IAG
is looking to hyperlink available sectoral accounts data on
the PGI website. The work program for the Eighth Reviewof the IMF Data Standards Initiatives, scheduled for the
first half of 2012, includes the possibility of strengthening
the Data Standards, including integrated sectoral
balance-sheet information, through the possible
establishment of a higher tier (SDDS-Plus).

16.

As the recommended improvements to data sources
and categories are implemented, statistical experts
to seek to compile distributional information (suchas ranges and quartile information) alongsideaggregate figures, wherever this is relevant. The
IAG is encouraged to promote production anddissemination of these data in a frequent and timely
manner. The OECD is encouraged to continue in its
efforts to link national accounts data with
distributional information.

The OECD and Eurostat set up two expert
groups in early 2011 with member country
participation. One group is to investigate themeasurement of disparities in a national
accounts framework (micro-macro); and theother group will investigate the joint distributionof income, consumption, and wealth (micro).
Work has started and is progressing well.

The micro-macro group is to define a common
methodology and to implement pilot studies with results
expected by the end of 2012. The micro group will
undertake methodological work on the joint distribution ofincome, consumption, and wealth with results expected also
by the end of 2012.

10

15.

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.

From May 2011, IMF staff reports are adopting
a standardized presentation of fiscal data
following the Government Finance Statistics
Manual, 2001 (GFSM 2001). Such presentations
are beginning to be incorporated in IMF staff
reports. In addition, the fiscal data of the IMF
World Economic Outlook (WEO) now follows
the GFSM 2001 format. Among the G-20
economies, seven economies compile quarterly
government finance statistics (GFS) based on
the GFSM 2001, the same as last year, with two
G-20 economies expected to start reportingsoon.

IMF staff is finalizing a Government Finance Statistics
Compilation Guide for Developing Countries, significantly
funded by the UK Department for International
Development (DFID). The work program for the Eighth
Review of the IMF Data Standards Initiatives, scheduled
for the first half of 2012, contemplates dissemination ofquarterly general government information and thepossibility of strengthening the Data Standards through thepossible establishment of a higher tier (SDDS-Plus). The
IMF with its IAG partners is developing a common
reporting template for GFS data. Once this template is
implemented and countries start reporting, thisrecommendation will be considered completed.

18.

The World Bank, in coordination with the IMF, andconsulting with the Inter-Agency Task Force on
Finance Statistics, to launch the public sector debt
database in 2010.

In December 2010, the World Bank jointly with
the IMF launched the quarterly public sector
debt database initially primarily for developing
and emerging-market countries. Among the G20 economies, five provide data to the WorldBank for redissemination. The Inter-Agency
Task Force on Finance Statistics (TFFS) has
published a Public Sector Debt Statistics Guide
which provides the methodological guidance forcompiling these data.

19.

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

Under the auspice of the Inter-Secretariat
Working Group on Price Statistics (ISWGPS),and led by Eurostat, the work on the Handbook
on Residential Property Price Indices (RPPI) is
well advanced and expected to be completed inlate 2011. The BIS, with the assistance of its
member central banks (and, in certain cases, alsoof statistical offices), has started to disseminate
real estate price statistics on its website. These
data are also available through the PGI website.

The ISWGPS to complete its work on the RPPI onschedule. Thereafter discussion will begin on a Handbook
on Commercial Property Price Index. The BIS is working
to expand the number of central banks reporting real estate
price data for public disclosure.

The PGI website was significantly enhanced in
March 2011, when five non-G-20 economies
that are FSB members were added, along withcross-country comparable government financedata. Also, the range of ways by which the PGIDuring 2011, the high priorities for enhancing the PGI
website will be to close gaps in the availability of nationaldata, and improve data timeliness and quality. The bilateral
consultations with G-20 economies discussed gaps in data
availability; some follow-up discussions to close these gaps

The TFFS agreed that the World Bank could investigate thepossibility of inviting all advanced countries to participate.
Before approaching advanced countries, the World Bank is
consulting with the OECD, Eurostat, and the ECB to ensurethat such an initiative would not duplicate current
collections of general and central government debt data.
Once coverage is extended and when countries start
reporting, this recommendation will be considered
completed.

Communication of Official Statistics
20.

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

11

17.

website could be accessed was increased with
new IPhone and IPad applications, and therelease of a Statistical Data and Metadata
eXchange (SDMX) web service to facilitatecomputer-to-computer access. During May
2011, the PGI website was accessed by visitorsfrom over 130 jurisdictions.

are ongoing. Ways of improving the efficiencies in data
supply will continue to be investigated, including thecontinued promotion of the SDMX standards for the
dissemination of official statistics. Also, IMF staff intends
to investigate integrating the G-20 datasets disseminated on
the PGI website with the historical data series underpinning
the G-20 Mutual Assessment Process (MAP) exercise.
Data-sharing arrangements to be reviewed for the nextreport from both a supplier and a user perspective.

12

13
I. INTRODUCTION
1.
In November 2009, the Financial Stability Board (FSB) Secretariat and International
Monetary Fund (IMF) staff presented the report The Financial Crisis and Information Gaps
to the G-20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors. The report, which contained
20 recommendations for closing information gaps (the so-called G-20 Data Gaps Initiative),
was endorsed at the meeting. In June 2010, FSB Secretariat and IMF staff reported back onprogress, with a concrete plan of action, including a timetable, to address each of theoutstanding recommendations. 1 The work on the G-20 Data Gaps Initiative was also
endorsed by the IMF International Monetary and Financial Committee (IMFC) at its
meetings in 2009, 2010, and, more recently, in April 2011. The G-20 Finance Ministers andCentral Bank Governors requested an update by June 2011.
2.
The present report responds to this request. It describes the progress to date, theproposed implementation schedule, and the challenges ahead. Moreover, a summary reporton the IMF staff bilateral consultations with G-20 national authorities is presented in
Annex 1.
3.
To ensure that the action plans and timetables were informed by a broad range ofexpertise, the IMF’s Statistics Department (STA) and the FSB Secretariat organized a
Conference for Senior Officials (Senior Officials conference) in Washington, D.C., in March
2011, hosted by the IMF. Detailed information on this Conference, including a summary of
key points made, is available at http://www.imf.org/external/np/seminars/eng/2011/datagaps.
The work has also benefited from consultations and coordination among the members of theInter-Agency Group on Economic and Financial Statistics (IAG).24.
For ease of reference, Table 2 presents a stylized overview of the 20
recommendations, organized in matrix form. The rows reflect the four main themes
highlighted by the global financial crisis as drawn out in previous reports, and the columns
reflect their status in terms of whether reporting/conceptual frameworks exist or need to be
developed.
5.
Many cross-linkages across recommendations, within the same theme, have proved
relevant. For example, the recommendations on the cross-border linkages cover the activitiesof the major players in the international financial markets, the broader international
community of banks, and of cross-border security holders; while also the national perspective
is covered by the International Investment Position (IIP), and the consolidated cross-border1

The two reports to the G-20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors are available at
http://www.imf.org/external/np/g20/pdf/102909.pdf , for the November 2009 meeting, andwww.imf.org/external/np/g20/pdf/053110.pdf , for the June 2010 meeting, respectively.
2

The members of the IAG are the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), the European Central Bank (ECB),
Eurostat, the IMF (Chair), the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the United
Nations Statistics Division (UNSD), and the World Bank.

14
behavior of national entities. The work has also identified linkages across the themes. For
example, the strengthening of data on cross-border activities of banks is expected to support
the analysis of maturity mismatches and leverage; and work on improving securities data
would help in the development of sectoral accounts.
6.
Most notably, through the use of internationally-agreed statistical standards, data on
cross-border financial exposures can be linked with the domestic sectoral accounts data tobuild up a powerful picture of financial interconnections domestically and across borders,with a link back to the real economy through the sectoral accounts. Nonetheless, achieving
such a ―vision‖ will take time.
Table 2. Stylized 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# 20 (Principal Global Indicators)

15
II. PROGRESS TO DATE
A. Progress on the G-20 Recommendations
7.
Considerable progress has been made on implementing the 20 recommendations. This
progress reflects the impetus given to the G-20 Data Gaps Initiative through the repeatedendorsements by the G-20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors and the IMFC, andthe willingness of national authorities to positively embrace it, combined with the good
institutional arrangements at the international level (both new and established).
8.
The progress by recommendation is described in the summary table above (Table 1).
Firm progress has been made on a number of fronts.
These include:

For FSIs (recommendation 2), following the IMF Executive Board’s decision to
include seven FSIs in the SDDS on an ―encouraged‖ basis 3―the data reported byseven G-20 economies for these indicators are now available via the IMF’s
Dissemination Standards Bulletin Board.

The BIS has completed its initial conceptual work on defining measures of maturity
mismatches (―funding gaps‖) on banks’ international balance sheets using the IBS(recommendation 4).



For CDS (recommendation 5), in late 2009 the CGFS approved changes to data on
credit-risk transfer statistics. The first stage of enhanced reporting, starting with endJune 2010 data, is implemented, and the second stage is due to be implemented withthe end-June 2011 data. Thereafter, this recommendation will be considered
completed.



The International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) released a reporton ABS Disclosure Principles4 to guide securities regulators who are developing orreviewing their regulatory disclosure regimes for ABS public offerings and listings(recommendation 6). It created a new Standing Committee on Risk and Research andintends to set up an independent research department to undertake research on
systemic risk. Against this background, recommendation 6 is considered completed.

For debt securities (recommendation 7), the BIS is working with G-20 (andnon-G-20) central banks to collect issuance data from national sources based on theconceptual framework and reference tables of the BIS-ECB-IMF Handbook on

3

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

4

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

16
Securities Statistics (HSS). Part 2 of the HSS (debt securities holdings) has been
published, and work has started for Part 3 (equity securities issues and holdings).
On recommendations 8 and 9, the FSB Working Group on Data Gaps and Systemic
Linkages made considerable progress in a complex and sensitive field, producing its
final report. The Working Group developed a common draft reporting template tocapture the activities of G-SIFIs and made proposals with regard to data access. In
April 2011, the FSB Plenary agreed to progress the work on these issues through twowork streams. The IMF Executive Board has also discussed progress on these tworecommendations.

On recommendations 10 and 11, the IMF BOPCOM has agreed to increase thefrequency (from annual to semi annual) and timeliness (a dissemination lag of lessthan nine months) of the CPIS. Also, the CGFS Working Group’s first set ofenhancements to the BIS IBS has been approved by the CGFS.



For the IIP (recommendation 12), the number of economies reporting quarterly IIP
data increased to 64 (an increase of 16 economies from a year ago), including 10
G-20 economies (an increase of two economies from a year ago). This development
was given impetus by the IMF Executive Board’s decision to prescribe quarterly IIP
data reporting under the SDDS (from annual) data, with a maximum lag of one
quarter (quarterly timeliness), after a four-year transition period, ending in 2014.



For government finance statistics (recommendation 17), from May 2011, IMF staff
reports have started using the GFSM 2001 format to present government finance data.

For general government and public sector debt statistics (recommendation 18), in
December 2010 the World Bank, jointly with the IMF, launched a quarterly database,initially primarily for developing and emerging markets. In total, 62 countries agreed
to participate, of which 33 have provided data, of which five are G-20 economies.
Also, the TFFS has published the Public Sector Debt Statistics Guide that provides
the methodological guidance for compiling these data.5

For real estate prices (recommendation 19), in August 2010, the BIS started todisseminate available data from its member central banks. The BIS receives
residential real estate prices from 14 G-20 economies and commercial real estate
prices from one G-20 economy.



The PGI website (recommendation 20) was expanded in March 2011 to cover data for
the five non-G-20 economies that are members of the FSB. Also, cross-country5

The members of the TFFS are the BIS, the Commonwealth Secretariat, the ECB, Eurostat, IMF (chair), theOECD, the Paris Club Secretariat, the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), and
the World Bank.

17
comparable government finance data were added (seewww.principalglobalindicators.org).
9.
For those recommendations where the conceptual/statistical framework needs
development (recommendations 3, 4, 13, 14, and 16), progress in terms of data availability isunderstandably slower; while for sectoral accounts (recommendation 15), given the scale ofthe potential data collection, a draft reporting template has been the subject of discussion,
with the intention of starting data collection during the coming year.
B. Consultations With the G-20 National Authorities
10.
IMF staff approached all G-20 economies for bilateral consultations, which were
undertaken between September 2010 and March 2011. The main themes arising from those
consultations are included in Annex 1.
11.
Overall, a positive view of the G-20 Data Gaps Initiative was reported, with data toidentify the build up of risks in the financial sector and understand financial
interconnectedness seen as the highest priorities in many economies. There were also
consistent messages that resource constraints exist, that the speed of implementation mayvary across economies, that there needs to be consideration of the reporting burden on theprivate sector and the national authorities, and that the international agencies must cooperate
closely.
12.
These themes were also broadly reflected in the March 2011 Senior Officials
conference which was part of the consultation process. The conference also stressed theimportance of consistent and comparable data across G-20 economies, based oninternationally-agreed standards, the need for coordination of work across the various
recommendations as well as with other G-20 initiatives, and for an ongoing monitoringprocess of implementation of the actions required to address the data gaps. The conference
was also keen to maintain the momentum achieved so far.
13.
The key messages from these consultations are reflected in the next two sections of
this report.
III. IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
14.
The work on implementing the 20 recommendations is well underway. There aresome particularly important milestones in the coming 12 months. The milestones in 2011 andthe plans through 2014 are set out in Table 3. These include:Following a consultation exercise, and further examination of costs and benefits, the
FSB Plenary is expected to take decisions in late 2011 on the final form of the
G-SIFIs data template and on the initial data confidentiality and access arrangements,
following additional preparatory work. The recommendations relating to G-SIFIs

18
activities are considered to be among the most important of the G-20 Data Gaps
Initiative.


The FSIs Expert Reference Group meeting in November 2011 at which the FSI list
will be reviewed and the work on tail risks and leverage in the financial sector
discussed.

The meeting of the IMF’s Executive Board in the first half of 2012, at which
enhancements to the IMF Data Standards Initiatives, including the possibility of
implementing a higher tier (SDDS-Plus), will be discussed. A number of the datasetsthat are potential candidates for inclusion in such a higher tier are drawn from theG-20 Data Gaps Initiative, supporting public disclosure of financial sector data.

The development and implementation by international agencies of common templates
to collect datasets for which statistical frameworks already exist and whose statistics
are interlinked; these include templates for securities, sectoral accounts, andgovernment finance statistics. Also, work to implement common reporting templates
for balance of payments and the IIP will take place with the conversion of these data
to the new international guidance, the BPM6. Over the remainder of 2011, it isexpected that agreement will be reached on these common templates among theinternational agencies in consultation with member countries.
Table 3. Schedule of G-20 Data Gaps Initiative: Key Milestones Ahead 67

Year

Actions to be taken

2011
Around mid-year

Report on conceptual work on maturity mismatch and leverage data in the banking
and shadow banking system (recommendation 4).

IMF/BISCDS enhancements implemented (recommendation 5). Thereafter, thisrecommendation will be considered completed.

BIS

Inventory of sources on cross-border data hyperlinked to the PGI website(recommendation 14).

BIS

Finalization of a Government Finance Statistics Compilation Guide for Developing
Countries (recommendation 17).

IMF

Investigation into extending coverage of the Public Sector Debt Statistics Databaseto advanced countries (recommendation 18). Once extended, and when countries
start reporting, this recommendation will be considered completed.

World Bank

6

Lead Agency(s)This table gives an overview of the milestones related to the G-20 Data Gaps Initiative expected over the next
three years as can be best judged at this time. The table focuses on milestones for which there is a reasonableprobability that action will be taken and does not include possible actions that are dependent on decisions yet tobe taken.
7

The figure in brackets refers to the recommendation(s) involved.

19

Decision to launch work on developing a Commercial Real Estate Prices
Handbook (recommendation 19).

Eurostat

FSIs Reference Expert Group meeting (recommendations 2, 3, and 4).

IMF

Complete Part 3 of the Handbook on Securities Statistics (issues and holdings ofequity securities) and data collection for G-20 economies; agreement on theenhanced securities templates (recommendation 7).

BIS, ECB, IMF

FSB Plenary decision on the common template and initial data-sharing
arrangements for G-SIFIs (recommendations 8 and 9).

FSB

CGFS working group and the second set of enhancements to the BIS IBS(recommendations 10 and 11).

BIS

Agreement on the new IIP and balance of payments report forms to implement
BPM6 (recommendation 12).

IMF

Agreement on the sectoral accounts templates; hyperlink available sectoral
accounts data to the PGI (recommendation 15).

IMF, OECD

Agreement on the government finance statistics common reporting template for use
by international agencies (recommendation 17). Once this template is implemented
and countries start reporting, this recommendation will be considered completed.

IMF

Handbook on Residential Real Estate Prices to be finalized (recommendation 19).

Eurostat

2012
First half

Eighth Review of the IMF Data Standards Initiatives (recommendations 2, 10, 11,
15, 17, and 19, and perhaps 9).

IMF

2012
Second half

FSB Plenary and the second phase of the work on G-SIFIs (recommendations 8
and 9).

FSBFirst set of IBS enhancements implemented (recommendations 10 and 11).

BISFirst part of the documentation on consolidation (recommendation 13).

BIS

Results from the two groups investigating the measurement disparities in a national
accounts framework (micro-macro); and joint distribution of income, consumption,
and wealth (recommendation 16).

OECD, Eurostat

2013

CPIS enhancements implemented (recommendations 10 and 11).

IMF

2014

Dissemination of quarterly IIP data by all SDDS subscribers (recommendation 12).

IMF

Later in 201115.
Further, a number of national authorities pointed out that the 20 recommendations
should not be seen as mutually exclusive. Indeed, there are considerable interlinkages amongrecommendations that can create synergies in implementation.
16.
For instance, the BIS IBS datasets have a close link with the template proposed by the
FSB Working Group for the G-SIFIs. Consequently, the Secretariats of the CGFS and FSB

20Working Groups are liaising closely to ensure that the industry consultation is as smooth asreasonably possible. The consultation on the BIS IBS datasets started in early June 2011.
Furthermore, the work on maturity mismatches and leverage for banks also relies on the BIS
IBS data and so further progress on recommendation 4 may be expected when the newenhanced IBS data become available.
17.
The concepts behind the IBS consolidated data could also provide the methodology
for the consolidated data for nonbank financial corporations and nonfinancial corporations(recommendation 13), and hence the BIS leads the work and hosted the January 2011
workshop on this issue.8 The work on the consolidation concepts for the G-SIFIs data
templates could have implications for the methodological work on recommendation 13 andfor the work on FSIs (recommendation 2).
18.
For the national accounts-based datasets, the centerpiece of the work is thedevelopment of the sectoral accounts. A number of the other recommendations are related torecommendation 15: these include the recommendations relating to the IIP(recommendation 12), government finance statistics (recommendation 17), and securities
statistics (recommendation 7). All of these other recommendations will help to enhance thesectoral accounts data.
19.
In addition to recommendation 15, the work on securities data can support the workon the recommendations on the CPIS (recommendations 10 and 11), the IIP, government
finance statistics, and public sector debt data (recommendation 18), because theserecommendations have a securities data component. The templates for government financestatistics are consistent with those developed and used in the public sector debt database.
Indeed, all the common templates being developed and referred to above have instrument andsector classifications consistent with the 2008 SNA.
20.
In 2011, the international agencies, working in cooperation through the IAG, in
consultation with G-20 member economies, and through the relevant statistical committees,
intend to develop harmonized and consistent reporting for sectoral accounts, government
finance, securities, and external data, as described in paragraph 14, based on the 2008 SNA;
agree on modalities for the organized data flow and data quality management among theinternational agencies; and work towards presenting these harmonized data on the PGI
website. As a consequence intersectoral consistency of data will be promoted, enhancing
analytical usefulness and reducing compliance costs for data providers. Annex 2 sets out intabular form the relationship between the sectoral accounts and those for government,
monetary and financial, securities, and external datasets.

8

The paper prepared for the meeting discussed a variety of consolidation methods including those used incommercial accounting and for financial supervision.

21
21.
Finally, the recent crisis has seen pressure on some statistical agencies to increase thetimeliness of the data provided to policymakers and the public. The need for timely
information is recognized, while preserving data quality.
IV. CHALLENGES AND INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS
22.
During the bilateral consultations with G-20 national authorities, including at the
Senior Officials conference, a number of challenges were identified in implementing the
G-20 Data Gaps Initiative. Some of these challenges had been identified in the May 2010
Progress Report, but as the recommendations begin to be turned into concrete and practicalactions, the challenges have become clearer. This section sets out the main challenges
identified and reviews the institutional arrangements for the work ahead.
A. Resources
23.
In an environment of budget stringency in many economies, the resources needed to
implement the G-20 Data Gaps Initiative are inevitably an issue. Overall, the initiative does
add mainly to the work load of compilers. Nonetheless, it was recognized at the Senior
Officials conference that the recent events had demonstrated the need to strengthen the data
infrastructure as the cost of not having the relevant information proved to be high.
24.
Resource allocation decisions are the responsibility of the national authorities andnational priorities vary. Also, different economies face differing circumstances and this willaffect their decisions on resource allocation. Nonetheless, some ideas for easing the burden
were raised, with potential implications for both national and international agencies.
25.
From a national perspective, it may be necessary to consider if the data coverage ofmore traditional areas of the economy that are in relative decline could be reduced to makeway for improved data on emerging priority areas. Second, effective coordination acrossnational agencies with responsibility for statistical work was considered essential to keep
down costs. The evidence from the bilateral consultations is that domestic agencies are
increasing their cooperation. This trend should be encouraged. Third, adherence tointernationally-agreed standards, particularly those based on the System of National Accounts(SNA), brings analytical benefits, and allows data to be compared across borders. Importantly
from a resource perspective, this can reduce costs by allowing data collected for one purposeto be used for other related datasets. This is the mirror image of the discussion above oninterlinkages across the various initiatives.
26.
There was also a call from national authorities for strengthening domestic
coordination among national statistical agencies/parties responsible for work in
macroprudential statistics and for international agencies to reduce the duplication of data
requests. Many countries raised concerns about similar datasets being required by different
international agencies, or even by multiple users in the same international agency, meaningthat national compilers maintain multiple sets of data that are essentially the same. Also, the22
G-20 Data Gaps Initiative should be coordinated with other G-20 initiatives that involve theprovision of data. In this regard, many national authorities encouraged international agencies
to ensure that, to the extent possible, data requests are consistent with international standards.
This is particularly relevant for exercises like the G-20 MAP that compares data across G-20
economies.
27.
Also, some national authorities emphasized the need to integrate the G-20 Data Gaps
Initiative to the extent possible with the implementation schedule of the new international
statistical manuals, particularly the 2008 SNA and the BPM6. For this reason theimplementation of the sectoral accounts is concurrent with the timetable for the countries’
implementation of the 2008 SNA; and the implementation of CPIS is scheduled for 2013,
when many economies will have completed implementing or be close to implementing the
BPM6.
28.
Finally, national authorities stressed the need for the G-20 Data Gaps Initiative tobuild in flexibility in the timetables for implementation to reflect differing national
circumstances and priorities. As a broad statement, emerging economies are likely to need alonger lead time for some of the recommendations than advanced economies. Also, allrecommendations are not necessarily relevant for all economies―for instance therecommendation on CDS is relevant for those economies with significant markets in these
instruments.
29.
On balance, there was a consensus that to implement the G-20 Data Gaps Initiative
additional resources are likely to be required for statistical functions. G-20 Finance Ministers
and Central Bank Governors are thus encouraged to support an increase in human andfinancial resources to address data gaps revealed by the global crisis.
30.
From the international perspective, the international agencies have committed tofoster common reporting templates, consistent with international standards, across a range ofstatistical domains. As described above, the vision of the members of the IAG is that data aresupplied through SDMX to one international agency that provides those data to the otherinternational agencies that have an interest in the dataset. This would have the benefit of
speeding up the delivery of data, and remove inconsistencies due to different sources of data
while keeping down the costs on national and international agencies.
31.
In this context the work on the G-SIFIs template, and the agreement to establish asingle data hub, is setting an example in minimizing reporting burdens because the data will
be collected only once to the benefit of supervisors and macroprudential authorities at anational and international level. This can be contrasted with an alternative of eachinternational agency collecting data for their own purposes. But it will need to beunderpinned by strong governance arrangements that support both the confidentiality ofsensitive data and provide appropriate access.

23
32.
Concern over the potential burden on reporting agents was raised. The ideas
mentioned above to reduce costs of the national compiling agencies, along withwell-structured and justified requests for data, would help keep down the compliance burden
on reporting agents.9
B. Priorities and Interlinkages
33.
The need to identify the priority areas of work in the G-20 Data Gaps Initiative wasstressed in discussions with G-20 national authorities. Indeed, while national authorities had
their own views on priorities, there was a broad degree of consensus.
34.
Overall, the impression gained is that strengthening data on the financial sector,
including shadow banking, financial interconnectedness, and sectoral balance sheets inparticular were considered high priorities. Also, in a number of economies there is work
being undertaken to improve real estate price information. Areas such as government financestatistics were also considered important but significant challenges in some economies tocompiling frequent and timely general government data were recognized.
35.
The potential synergies across recommendations were also noted, encouraging thejoint implementation of related recommendations. In this regard, early specification ofreporting requirements supports the integrated implementation of the recommendations. This
need is recognized in the implementation schedule, and in a number of key milestones.
36.
Further, national authorities acknowledged that some of the recommendations
represent work in an ―experimental/conceptual‖ phase that may not require the provision ofdata for some time. These recommendations, notwithstanding the importance of making
progress in conceptual development, are viewed as having lower priority, at this stage, interms of data collection than others. Among those in the conceptual phase arerecommendation 4 (on the maturity mismatches and leverage), and recommendations
13 and 14 (cross-border consolidated data for financial and nonfinancial corporations). For
recommendation 14, the intention is to utilize existing datasets as far as possible, including
the OECD’s statistical exercises on nonbank financial institutions.
37.
At the Senior Officials conference, participants stressed the importance of keeping
close communication between the statistical functions and policymakers to understand thepriorities attributed by the latter to various datasets.

9

In April 2011, a letter from financial sector associations to the G-20 Ministers of Finance and Central Bank
Governors called for the G-20 to support the creation of a ―legal entity identifier (LEI).‖ Such an identifier
would provide an internationally recognized data standard for the identification of legal entities engaged infinancial transactions. By promoting the accurate identification of legal entities engaged in financialtransactions, an LEI would support improved data reporting. The development of an LEI involves a coordinatedglobal solution that is currently emerging.

24
C. Data Access
38.
The emergence of macroprudential analysis both nationally and internationally hasraised some important questions. This includes the scope and objective of both national andglobal macroprudential surveillance, and the broad governance issue for data access.
Macroprudential analysis draws on both micro and macro datasets, as macroprudential
analysis is as much about the tail risks within averages as well as the averages themselves.
39.
The G-20 Data Gaps Initiative is bringing together a wider range of participants. For
example, the FSB Working Group that developed the G-SIFIs common draft templatebrought together supervisors, statisticians, and macroprudential experts. Also, theconsultations with G-20 economies have involved not only central banks and statisticalagencies, but also the finance ministries and supervisory agencies.
40.
A crucial question relates to potential access to data. To undertake macroprudential
analysis, including developing network models to understand the transmission channels, tailrisks and emerging vulnerabilities in the system, access to more granular data is essential.
Financial data disaggregated by country, sector, instrument, maturity, and currency
denomination would facilitate the identification of interest rate and exchange-rate risks,maturity mismatches or funding gaps, and the potential for spillovers across sectors andacross borders. The G-20 recommendations regarding the BIS IBS and IMF CPIS datasetsand the emerging G-SIFIs template to varying degrees include such breakdowns. Indeed, the
IMF’s Executive Board recently underscored the need for granular data to support analysis
of financial interconnectedness at the international level, as well as at the national levels.10
41.
Such a need for data access raises issues of confidentiality of data for supervisors andstatisticians. More granular data potentially raises concerns over confidentiality.
Policymakers need to balance financial stability objectives that warrant detailed data accessagainst confidentiality concerns. To the extent national laws do not adequately address thebalance between confidentiality and data access in the post global crisis environment,
authorities may need to consider revising such laws.
42.
Further, national authorities may need to review their legal frameworks in order toenable them to collect additional data to support the improved assessment of system-widerisks and thus to enhance the development and implementation of macroprudential policies.
That may require enhancements to legal frameworks in some cases to provide the authorities
with the appropriate data-collection powers across the whole of the financial system. For any
newly developed BIS and IMF reporting frameworks to be effective, a strengthening of legal
frameworks for data collection might be necessary in some countries. In addition, the10

See IMF PIN No. 11/61 of May 25, 2011.

25
authorities may take further actions to support enhanced public disclosures by financial
firms, including in the context of the Basel Accords.11
43.
It is proposed that the next report discusses in more detail progress on data sharing
both from the supplier (such as progress on implementing common reporting templates for
macroeconomic data) and the user perspective, in consultation with G-20 economies and
IAG members.
D. International Coordination
44.
The institutional structure that was developed to take forward the G-20 Data Gaps
Initiative has proved effective in coordinating the work at the international level, not least toleverage resources and minimize costs.
45.
Lead agencies have been appointed to take responsibility for individual
recommendations. Staff from the IMF and the FSB Secretariat have cooperated closely inoverseeing the whole program, and provided annual updates on progress to the G-20 Finance
Ministers and Central Bank Governors.
46.
Most of the coordination work has been undertaken through the IAG, with theexisting relevant bodies, such as the BOPCOM, the FSB, and the CGFS taking the decisions
for the datasets under their responsibility. The meetings of senior officials have also proved
effective in bringing the ―big picture‖ ideas, issues, and priorities in advance of the reports to
the G-20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors.
47.
In taking forward the full range of G-20 recommendations, it is important torecognize that the coordination effort has also comprised central banks (statistical
departments and financial stability departments), national institutes of statistics, ministries offinance, supervisory agencies, and international macroprudential authorities. Furthermore,this coordination work facilitates comparison of data across G-20 economies.
48.
One new international governance issue that was raised at the Senior Officials
conference was that there should be ongoing global monitoring of the progress G-20
economies are making in implementing the G-20 Data Gaps Initiative. The IMF will consider
setting up procedures to support this. One suggestion was for the IMF to ask G-20 economies
to undertake self assessments to update the detailed information from the G-20 bilateral
consultations. This monitoring could be achieved through a standardized template.
49.
Further, IMF staff intends to investigate integrating the G-20 datasets disseminated on
the PGI website with the historical data series underpinning the G-20 MAP exercise.

11

For instance, the need to publicly disclose information is part of the requirements of Pillar 3 (Market
Discipline) of the Basel II Accord for banks.

26
V. WAY FORWARD
50.
Table 1, following the Executive Summary, reports on progress and the proposed
work program going forward for implementing the G-20 Data Gaps Initiative.
51.
This report asks for the endorsement by the G-20 Finance Ministers and Central
Bank Governors of these proposed action plans and timetables.

27
Annex 1. Summary of Main Themes from the Consultations with G-20 Economies
The Financial Crisis and Information Gaps: Progress Report, Action Plans, and Timetables(May 2010), was presented to and endorsed by the G-20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank
Governors in June 2010. It envisaged that IMF staff would consult with the authorities on thechallenges, resource implications, and reporting involved in implementing the action plansset out in the noted progress report. IMF staff undertook bilateral consultations with G-20
economies during the period September 2010 to March 2011, including at a Senior Officials
conference on March 30–31, 2011 at IMF Headquarters.
The discussions focused on two aspects: the main data gaps identified by the national
authorities; and a discussion of the specific recommendations, distinguishing between:Those recommendations for which the conceptual/statistical framework needs
development, and

Those recommendations for which conceptual/statistical frameworks exist andongoing collection needs enhancement.

IMF staff described the ongoing progress being made by the international community on thefirst set of recommendations and, in advance of the consultations, identified for the second
set the current reporting practices of each economy consulted.
From these discussions came a clear view of the priorities, cross-cutting problems, andchallenges that the G-20 economies face in addressing data gaps.
I. THE DATA GAPS
A. Summary Views
Consulted authorities welcomed and expressed strong support to the G-20 Data Gaps
Initiative and, in particular they:

Welcomed the opportunity to engage in a dialogue with IMF staff on the G-20 Data
Gaps recommendations;

Saw the initiative as a means to strengthen the availability of critical data acrosssectors and countries; and

Pointed out the need to push this work forward, tackle the difficult issues, and findways to ensure progress is monitored in the implementation of the recommendations
at the country level.

While there was broad agreement that the data gaps identified in the G-20 Data Gaps
Initiative were appropriate, the relevance of the G-20 recommendations varies across28
countries. This reflects differences in the impact and nature of the global crisis and in quality
dimensions (including coverage, scope, timeliness, frequency, accessibility, andcommunication) of existing datasets. As a result, national authorities considered that actionplans and timeframes to address data gaps need to be flexible and pragmatic, recognizing:The conditions and capacities in different countries; and

Cost/benefit trade-offs.

Recognizing the interlinkages across the G-20 recommendations, consulted authorities
underscored the need to make parallel progress in the implementation of the recently updated
statistical methodologies, namely: the 2008 SNA, the BPM6, and the GFSM 2001.
Moreover, it was considered important to improve the analysis of existing data and recognizethat more data may not always be the best answer.
B. Emerging Common Priorities
There was a large degree of consensus over the main data gaps: those related to financial
interconnectedness (domestic and cross-border), and the build up of risk in the financial
sector more generally, including shadow banking.
Cross-border financial interconnectedness
A widespread conclusion among national authorities was that the global crisis had
highlighted the importance of obtaining a better understanding of the interconnections
between domestic and foreign entities, and the nature of financial networks more broadly.
National authorities see a need to better understand the interlinkages among banks, sectors,
and countries. This leads to strong support for such existing internationally coordinatedexercises such as the BIS IBS and the CPIS, and also for the new work on G-SIFIs. On thelatter, the nature of the policy interest varies, not least depending upon whether the G-20
economy in question is a home supervisor of a G-SIFI or not, but encompasses
understanding:The financial networks in which G-SIFIs operate;

Their impact on domestic markets and economies; andThe linkages between global, regional, and national SIFIs.

This interest is heightened by the growing concentration of financial activity in large
financial institutions. The need is primarily for information on G-SIFIs exposures andfunding behaviors.

29
Further, for some economies, improving information on cross-border exposures between
offshore financial entities and domestic nonfinancial corporations is also important.
Domestic financial interconnectedness
Many G-20 economies consulted gave a high priority to improving sectoral accounts,
particularly sectoral balance-sheet data. Such data helps better understand financial
connections within the economy, real and financial linkages, and the role played by nonbank
financial institutions in the financial sector. Also, as one country authority described, ―whileflows provide a snapshot of developments in the past, balance-sheet data provide a better
guide to future developments, as stock data represent cumulative developments.‖
Financial sector
The importance of improving the data available on nonbank financial institutions wasrecognized to better understand their role in the financial system. In a number of countries,
these institutions are growing in importance, and the balance of systemic relevance betweenbank and nonbank financial institutions can shift over time. For instance, new orstrengthened regulations on the formal banking system could push more financial
intermediation activity into the shadow banking system, absent further policy action to offset
this.
Further, there is a need to gain a better understanding of tail risks, maturity mismatches andleverage, both in banking and shadow banking, to help identify the build up of risk in thefinancial system as a whole. These were recognized as complex but vital issues to address.
Better use of data to identify asset bubbles was noted by some consulted.
Some economies also are giving priority to enhancing their data on FSIs.
Real estate prices
Given the role of real estate markets in the recent global crisis and the relevance of mortgage
debt in many economies, developing and/or strengthening data on real estate (residential andcommercial) prices, along with making these data available to concerned parties, wasidentified as a priority going forward. The consultations revealed that there is an ongoing andsignificant effort in many economies to improve the availability and quality of residential
real estate price indices. Development of appropriate commercial property price indices isalso seen as important for financial stability analysis, but this work lags behind that forresidential real estate.

30
Government finance statistics
The need to upgrade fiscal data was recognized in a number of economies. This includes thedevelopment of accrual-based data to get a better handle on resources flows, coverage toinclude state and local government, and timeliness and frequency. However, this work
involves a significant commitment by the authorities because of the need to change IT
systems and the wide range of government entities that exist in some economies. In some
economies these enhancements are linked to a broader public policy of improving
transparency.
C. Other Related Issues
Data communication/transparency
Timely, comprehensive, and comparable data with user-friendly metadata are instrumental to
the success of the G-20 Data Gaps Initiative. In this connection, the PGI website waswelcomed and considered an excellent example of cooperation among international
institutions involved in statistical work. Longer and more homogeneous (cross-country
comparable) time series are desirable, and could be linked with the historical data underlying
the G-20 MAP exercise.
Some economies saw a need to improve their communication with data users.
Data access
While it was recognized that macroprudential analysis needs could lead to increased
pressures for data sharing, significant legal challenges are foreseen with the sharing ofconfidential information. This applies both among domestic institutions and across border.
This is particularly relevant with regard to data for G-SIFIs. While some economies saw
confidentiality restrictions as an important challenge to overcome, and practices varied acrosseconomies, it was widely recognized that better data access and sharing would not be easily
achieved and may require changes to existing legal frameworks in some jurisdictions.
Resources
As budgetary constraints exist, consulted authorities noted that adequate resources would
need to be identified and allocated to statistical work to ensure progress. Resource constraints
are a reality that could slow down new tasks to address data gaps or could stop ongoing work
programs, which is cause for concern. In any event, resource considerations play animportant role in determining implementation timelines for the various recommendations anddraw attention to cost/benefit trade-offs.
In addition to the costs incurred by public agencies, private reporting entities are also subject
to considerable compliance costs. These costs would need to be taken into due consideration.

31
Domestic coordination
Many economies raised the subject of coordination among domestic statistical agencies.
There appears to have been a growing awareness of the need to coordinate and while practicevaries considerably across economies, the impression left by the consultations was thatcoordination among national agencies involved in economic and financial data appears tohave improved in recent years.
This is being supported by strengthened institutional arrangements for macroprudential/
financial stability analysis—these include the establishment of the Office of Financial
Research (OFR) in the United States, new departments responsible for financial stability
analysis at the Deutsche Bundesbank, and interagency coordinating arrangements in India,
among others. Nonetheless, coordination of multiple national agencies involved in statisticalwork remains a challenge.
The importance of also strengthening the relationship between policymakers and statisticians
was stressed at the Senior Officials conference.
International agencies
The bilateral consultations raised many issues with regard to international agencies.
Better coordination among international agencies is encouraged. In this connection, theestablishment of the IAG is a major step forward, and further efforts should be made buildingon the positive experiences of the IAG and the PGI website. Data compilation templates
could be revamped so that the same information is collected once to avoid duplication ofeffort, and publicly available data should be harvested as much as possible.
Further, there are various interrelated work streams that cut across the 20 recommendations
and the implementation of certain recommendations overlaps with other international
initiatives, e.g., external accounts and the BPM6.
Data-sharing arrangements among various international agencies could be improved and theirwork programs be better integrated, including to minimize differences in estimates acrossinternational agencies so as to provide users with consistent datasets. Moreover, otherG-20 initiatives that involve the provision of data could be better connected to the G-20 Data
Gaps Initiative.
Frequent changes to questionnaires requested by international institutions have significant
resource implications for official institutions and reporting private entities, not least because
they result in changes in coding systems and increased IT costs. Hence, questionnaires
should be modified infrequently.

32
At the same time, there is a need to address the link between the recommendations being
coordinated by the IAG and their actual implementation at the country level where theserecommendations are not legally binding, which may lead to uneven progress.
II. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR WHICH CONCEPTUAL/STATISTICAL FRAMEWORKS EXISTThis section summarizes the main messages from the bilateral consultations with regard to
the recommendations for which conceptual/statistical frameworks exist.
Recommendation 2: Financial Soundness Indicators (FSIs)
FSIs are a relatively new dataset with regular reporting to the IMF starting in 2009. The
consultations revealed that economies are continuing in their efforts to improve theavailability of FSI data. One G-20 economy does not provide FSI data for redissemination by
the IMF.
Increasingly most of the core FSIs are compiled and disseminated, although a number of
economies do not disseminate data on the net open foreign exchange position. Among theencouraged FSIs, the best coverage is for deposit takers. Gaps in nonbank financial
institutions coverage were noted by some. The frequency of the reported FSI data varies from
economy to economy and by type of institutions covered. Data for deposit takers areinvariably the most frequent, and data may be available on a monthly, quarterly, semi-annual,and annual basis. There is a trend towards increasing frequency, such as moving to quarterly
reporting. Currently, 10 G-20 economies report data on deposit takers’ FSIs to the IMF for
redissemination either monthly or quarterly. During the consultations, some economies
expressed a willingness to compile more FSIs with higher frequency.
There is an interest in providing historical data, back to the mid-2000s or earlier. But a
concern about data quality can restrict further historical data. Some economies indicated thatlack of resources, a reliance on existing supervisory surveys not designed for compiling FSIs,
and a lack of appropriate source data, as hampering their efforts to improve FSIs coverageand frequency of dissemination.
Recommendation 5: Credit Default Swaps (CDS)
The subset of G-20 economies, covering financial centers that are home to the mostimportant institutions active in CDS markets, report the semi-annual CDS data to the BIS.
Overall there is good coverage. There was general confidence that the central banks would be
able to meet the deadline for the new enhanced data which will be adopted in June 2011.
Recommendation 7: Securities Data
Many of the G-20 economies participate in the review group on the Handbook on Securities
Statistics and this has helped focus attention on the need for these data. Also, during the33consultations it was acknowledged that the BIS is working very actively with G-20 countries
to report securities data.
While a few G-20 economies have good coverage, there is some way to go in many G-20
countries, and there are a number of challenges. These challenges include developing
systems to collect and compile the underlying data, with some considering moving to asecurity-by-security system to support this work; coordination among different agencies,
such as the central bank and the securities regulator; improving the coverage and detail ofdata such as widening from the government securities to the broader private sector and fromdomestic currency to foreign currency; and increasing frequency, with some G-20 economies
providing annual data but looking into the possibility of reporting quarterly data.
While there is general recognition of the importance of securities data, not least because thedata can be used in a wide range of datasets, the priority given to this work varies acrossG-20 economies.
Recommendations 10 and 11: International Banking Statistics (IBS)
Most G-20 economies provide IBS data to the BIS. Those G-20 economies that do not report,
are considering reporting, and are in discussions with the BIS. While no decisions have been
made, the impression gained in the bilateral consultations was that there is interest in looking
into the possibility of joining the BIS survey.
Among countries that do participate, the general standard of reporting is good. In a numberof economies, work is ongoing to close gaps, and in some instances reduce the level ofunallocated data. The bilateral consultations helped focus attention on these issues.
Not all economies reporting locational data also report consolidated data, which isunderstandable since not all countries have globally active banks with significant
international exposures. Moreover, within those reporting consolidated data fewer economies
provide data on an ultimate risk basis than on an immediate borrower basis. Some economies
that do not provide consolidated data are looking into the possibility of supplying these data,but others are not, as they did not see this dataset as a priority. Confidentiality remains an
issue in some instances, particularly where international banking activity is concentrated in a
few active banks.
During the consultations, central banks were fully aware and generally supportive of the
discussions on potential enhancements to the IBS data, and are working closely with the BIS
to see what is achievable at reasonable cost.
Recommendations 10 and 11: Coordinated Portfolio Investment Survey (CPIS)The CPIS is a long-established survey of portfolio assets on a from-whom to-whom basis, inwhich 18 of the G-20 economies participate. While no decisions have been made, the34impression gained in the bilateral consultations is that there is interest among thenonreporting economies in the possibility of joining the CPIS survey.
The bilateral consultations revealed that in many economies there is work underway toincrease the frequency of reporting of data on bilateral cross-border security positions,reflecting the growing interest in cross-border financial interconnections. For this reason,
there was support for moving to semi-annual data collection and for a reduction in thereporting time lag. Indeed, there were strong arguments made that the survey should move toquarterly reporting with the intent of integrating the CPIS with quarterly IIP reporting. Others
cautioned that action plans and timeframes for the proposed enhancements need to beflexible and pragmatic, recognizing in particular the resource implications of modifying
existing data collection systems.
Among the CPIS participating economies, the general standard of reporting is good. In some
economies, work is ongoing to extend the scope of data coverage by reporting encouraged
breakdowns, such as the currency composition of portfolio investment assets and the sectoral
information. However, while recognizing the relevance of such data, it was cautioned that themore sectoral information requested the greater confidentiality and perhaps data quality
concerns are likely to arise. There were requests that the IMF staff presents prototypes of the
proposed new data reporting forms and dissemination tables to allow for an in-country
analysis of the impact of the proposed enhancements to the scope of the CPIS.
Recommendation 12: International Investment Position (IIP)
With the impetus of the decision to prescribe IIP on a quarterly frequency in the SDDS
effective in 2014, six of the 10 G-20 economies not currently reporting quarterly IIP data to
the IMF/STA indicated a timeframe for implementing quarterly dissemination ranging from2011 to 2014. There was a call to share international experiences, and, in this regard, thepamphlet, published by IMF staff in March 2011 to assist statistical agencies and central
banks in compiling and disseminating quarterly IIP data, was welcomed. Also, it was notedthat in preparing quarterly data, some degree of estimation might be needed.
Recommendation 15: Sectoral Accounts
The discussion with G-20 economies on balance-sheet, flow-of-funds, and sectoral accounts
was positive in tone as many economies noted the relevance of such information for timely
policy responses. In particular, countries highlighted that balance-sheet and flow-of-funds
data were important for analyzing the build-up and transfer of risk across sectoral boundaries.
But the scale of the challenge was recognized given the broad range of institutions,
instruments, stocks, and flows to be covered and integrated.
Some specific challenges were identified: the difficulty in integrating financial andnonfinancial accounts, which may be compiled by different agencies; the problems inadequately covering the activities of households and nonfinancial corporations; the35measurement challenges in developing sectoral data on nonfinancial assets, within which
valuation of land and dwellings was seen as a crucial element; and the need to improvecoverage of the nonbank financial sector to understand the vulnerability of this sector andlinks to the economy as a whole.
While a number of economies noted they have limited balance-sheet and sectoral data atpresent, there was broad consensus that setting out a work program and priorities would
assist in progressing this work alongside implementation of the 2008 SNA. There was also
support within economies to coordinate among different agencies, such as the central bankand the statistical office, to produce a comprehensive set of sectoral accounts.
Recommendation 17: Government Finance Statistics (GFS)
While the bilateral consultations revealed that most G-20 economies are planning to enhancetheir GFS, many difficulties exist in compiling quarterly GFS data for general government
consistent with the GFSM 2001. These include ensuring coverage of, and timely reporting
from, state and local governments, which in many instances requires political support as wellas technical support, such as upgrading IT systems and training staff; access to quarterly data
for social security funds; and compiling data on an accrual basis when many systems rely on
cash reporting. Also, in many instances, data on stocks needs to be enhanced.
While 13 of the G-20 economies compile GFS for the general government, from the bilateral
consultations problems were identified regarding coverage, periodicity, and timeliness. Foureconomies compile data on general government operations or cash-flow statement within one
quarter after the end of the reference quarter. Three economies compile data on general
government financial balance sheet within one quarter after the end of the reference quarter.
Some economies informed that they have yet to change budget data into the GFSM
presentation.
Many authorities are in the process of implementing improvements to their government
finance statistics, with some passing laws to ensure that state and local governments report ina timely and standardized manner.
Recommendation 18: Public Sector Debt
Most of those G-20 economies that had not yet been invited to participate in the World Bank
Public Sector Debt Statistics database were willing to consider the possibility. As it wasnoted that the OECD collects debt data, the importance of coordinating data requests acrossinternational agencies was stressed.

36
Recommendation 19: Real Estate Prices
The bilateral consultations revealed that work is under way in a number of G-20 economies
to improve the availability and quality of real estate prices because of the relevance of thesedata for macroprudential policy analysis. In particular, countries were interested inunderstanding housing wealth trends so as to assess the build up of risks and vulnerabilities
in this sector, with potential wider economic and financial implications.
Support was shown by countries for the development of comparable data on real estate priceindices. Areas of interest include the valuation of residential land and dwellings, and thevalue of commercial real estate. The discussions also raised the importance of collecting
price data on existing and new real estate, and the ability to differentiate between houses andapartments. A number of countries also noted interest in analyzing capital city and regional
price trends.
While the current compilation practices vary across countries, there was broad consensus thatthe work to finalize the Handbook on Residential Property Price Indices in late 2011 would
be of assistance. There was also support for discussions to be held with private sector
vendors so as to ensure that quality of reporting is achieved.
Recommendation 20: Principal Global Indicators (PGI)
During the bilateral consultations with the G-20 economies, the national authorities
welcomed the PGI website. These consultations provided the opportunity to address some ofthe data gaps in the PGI. Among them is the fact that real effective exchange rates (REER)
are not disseminated for all G-20 economies, while the data are generally available at the
IMF. However, contrary to other data in the PGI, REER are calculated by the IMF rather
than being reported by countries. Permission was sought from G-20 economies that had notpreviously authorized the dissemination of these data, allowing expansion of the country
coverage for these important indicators. The consultations also covered plans to report datathat are currently not available on the PGI, such as data on general government.
Many countries observed that the PGI data are not as timely as the data available on thenational authorities’ website. To appear on the PGI, data must first be reported to
PGI-contributing agencies, mostly the IMF since a large share of PGI data are sourced fromthe IMF’s International Financial Statistics (IFS). The IMF is discussing with partner
agencies how to address this issue.
Some economies encouraged the IMF to further rely on the SDMX standards for theexchange of data with countries to enhance timeliness of the data. Almost all G-20
economies are SDDS subscribers and, when indicating timeliness issues for PGI, theyreferred to the more timely data available on the SDDS-mandated National Summary Data
Page (NSDP). In response to these observations, the IMF is now investigating modifying theformat of the NSDP to align it with the format of the SDMX standards. This will make the37
NSDP fully computer-readable and help address the timeliness issue of the PGI. This change
will require active consultation with the SDDS subscribers and is expected to take somemonths before being completed.
There were suggestions to broaden the scope of PGI to include other important datasets. In
the short term, these suggestions were addressed by providing links to more data sourcesfrom the ―Additional Data Sources‖ tab on the PGI website.

38
Annex 2. Interlinkages Between the Sectoral Accounts and Related Datasets
The 2008 SNA provides the core framework for the recording of residence-based statistics. Its
main features refer to the definition of institutional units and sectors, the distinction between
positions, transactions and other flows, the general concept of market valuation, and thequadruple entry principle.
This annex presents in a synoptic matrix the interlinkages between the G-20 Data Gaps
Initiative recommendations that draw on the conceptual framework of the 2008 SNA. These
are security statistics (Recommendation 7), the IIP (Recommendation 12), sectoral accounts(Recommendation 15), and government finance statistics (Recommendation 17). The matrix
uses the financial account/financial balance sheet of the SNA integrated sector accounts as theorganizing framework.
As illustrated in the matrix, the SNA provides a unifying framework for the other standards
flowing from it (the monetary and financial statistics, securities statistics, the IIP, andgovernment finance statistics). The matrix can be populated drawing from existing related
datasets in a cohesive and structured fashion to support a wide variety of analytical purposes.
The development of harmonized and consistent reporting of sectoral accounts, government
finance statistics, securities and external data, as described in paragraph 20, is to be based on
the framework presented in the matrix.

Table 4: Interlinkages Between Rec #15 and Recs #7, #12, and #17 as Reflected in the Financial Account/Financial Balance Sheet of the SNA Integrated Sector Accounts
Part of a system of institutional sector accounts (financial account and financial balance sheet)
Residents

Creditor by residency and resident sector

Nonresidents

Financial corporations andsubsectors

Nonfinancial corporations

All creditors

Households and nonprofit
institutions serving households

General government

Debtor by residency and resident sector
and by financial instrument
SNA

GFS

HSS

IIP

MFS

SNA

GFS

HSS

IIP

1/

MFS

SNA

























GFS

HSS

IIP

MFS

SNA

GFS

HSS

IIP

MFS

SNA

GFS

HSS

IIP

MFS

SNA

GFS

HSS

IIP

MFS

Monetary gold and SDRs

Nonfinancial
corporations

Currency and deposits*Debt securities



Loans



Equity and investment fund shares or units
Insurance, pension, and standardized guarantee
schemes
Financial derivatives and employee stock options







Other accounts receivable/ payable





















































Currency and deposits

Debt securities



Loans



Equity and investment fund shares or units
Insurance, pension, and standardized guarantee
schemes
Financial derivatives and employee stock options



Other accounts receivable/payable







Monetary gold and SDRs

Generalgovernment













































































Currency and depositsDebt securities





Loans





Equity and investment fund shares or units
Insurance, pension, and standardized guarantee
schemes
Financial derivatives and employee stock options





















Other accounts receivable/payable
































Monetary gold and SDRs

Households
and nonprofit
institutions
serving
households



Currency and deposits*

Debt securities



Loans



Equity and investment fund shares or units
Insurance, pension, and standardized guarantee
schemes
Financial derivatives and employee stock options









Other accounts receivable/ payable






































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































 



































 





































































































































 

  



 

  



 



 



 




























































































































 

































 































 
























 















































































39

Residents







Monetary gold and SDRs

Financialcorporations
and sub-sectorsTable 4 (continued): Interlinkages Between Rec #15 and Recs #7, #12, and #17 as Reflected in the Financial Account/Financial Balance Sheet of the SNA Integrated Sector Accounts
Part of a system of institutional sector accounts (financial account and financial balance sheet)
Residents

Creditor by residency and resident sector

Nonresidents

Financial corporations andsubsectors

Nonfinancial corporations

All creditors

Households and nonprofit
institutions serving households

General government

Debtor by residency and resident sector
and by financial instrument
SNA

GFS

HSS

IIP

MFS

HSS







Debt securities



Loans



Equity and investment fund shares or units
Insurance, pension, and standardized guarantee
schemes
Financial derivatives and employee stock options



Other accounts receivable/payable











































Currency and deposits

Debt securities



Loans



Equity and investment fund shares or units
Insurance, pension and standardized guarantee
schemes
Financial derivatives and employee stock options



Other accounts receivable/ payable













































IIP

MFS

SNA

GFS


















































































































































HSS


















SNA

GFS

HSS

IIP

MFS

SNA

GFS

HSS

IIP

MFS

SNA

GFS

HSS

IIP

MFS






































 




















































































































































































= Not applicable= Not relevant from a national orientation* = Conceptually possible but practically insignificant or nonexistent.
MFS = Monetary and Financial Statistics
HSS = Handbook on Securities Statistics (Recommendation #7)
IIP = International Investment Position (Recommendation #12)
GFS = Government Finance Statistics (Recommendation #17)
SNA = System of National Accounts (Recommendation #15) standards for sectors other than Financial corporations, General Government, and the Rest of the World.
All other standards noted—MFS, HSS, GFS, and IIP—flow from the SNA sector standards for Financial corporations, General Government, and the Rest of the World.
GFS data are presented on a consolidated basis so presenting the general government sector as if only a single unit existed.



MFS



Notes:

1/

IIP





































 













































































































































































































































40

Currency and deposits

Monetary gold and SDRs

All debtors

GFS



Monetary gold and SDRs

Nonresidents

SNA