COMMISSION WORKING DOCUMENT assessing the quality of data reported by Member States in 2011 on balance of payments, international trade in services and foreign direct investment
Date: 2012-11-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU statistics, balance of payments, direct investment, disclosure of information, foreign investment, international trade, service industry, trade statistics

EUROPEAN 
COMMISSION 

Brussels, 20.11.2012  
COM(2012) 674 final 

COMMISSION WORKING DOCUMENT 

assessing the quality of data reported by Member States in 2011 on balance of payments, 
international trade in services and foreign direct investment 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
COMMISSION WORKING DOCUMENT 

assessing the quality of data reported by Member States in 2011 on balance of payments, 
international trade in services and foreign direct investment 

1. 

INTRODUCTION 

Article  4(3)  of  Regulation  (EC)  No 184/2005  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  on 
Community  statistics  concerning  balance  of  payments,  international  trade  in  services  and  foreign 
direct investment (the ‘BoP Regulation’) specifies that: 

‘The  quality  of  the  data  transmitted  shall  be  assessed,  on  the  basis  of  the  quality  reports,  by  the 
Commission with the assistance of the Balance of Payments Committee referred to in Article 11(1). 
This assessment by the Commission shall be sent to the European Parliament for information.’ 

This working document assesses the quality of the data reported by the Member States in 2011. It 
was  prepared  with  the  assistance  of  the  Balance  of  Payments  Committee,  as  required  by  the  BoP 
Regulation. It is the first working document on this subject prepared by Eurostat  for the  European 
Parliament and is based on the results of the balance of payments (BoP) quality assessment exercise 
undertaken by Eurostat between January and June 2012. 

After a short description of the principles that guide any assessment of the quality of official statistics 
and  a  brief  overview  of  the  challenges  encountered  in  compiling  BoP  data  in  a  globalised 
environment, this document analyses the extent to which BoP data comply with the quality principles 
that guide the European Statistical System (ESS). 

2. 

ASSESSING THE QUALITY OF OFFICIAL STATISTICS 

BoP  quality  assessment  is  an  annual  exercise  conducted  by  Eurostat  in  accordance  with  the 
principles established by Commission Regulation (EU) No 1227/2010 of 20 December 2010 (OJ L 
336, 21.12.2010) amending Regulation No 1055/2008. BoP quality assessment verifies compliance 
with  all  the  quality  criteria  laid  down  in  the  Regulation  on  European  statistics  (Regulation  No 
223/2009,  Article  12(1)),  namely:  relevance,  accuracy,  timeliness,  punctuality,  accessibility  and 
clarity, comparability and coherence. 

Eurostat has made great efforts to develop quality management methods and tools for supporting the 
production of high-quality European statistics. Quality reporting underpins quality assessment, which 
in turn is the starting point for quality improvements. The ‘ESS Handbook for quality reports’ details 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
 
 
the full range of methods that can be used for assessing the quality of official statistics1, which differ 
according to the type of statistical process.  

The purpose of statistics is to produce estimates of an unknown value; these estimates are not equal 
to  the  true  values  because  of  variability  and  bias.  Statistics  may  suffer  from  a  vast  typology  of 
sampling  and  non-sampling  errors.  For  statistics  based  on  a  sample  survey  there  is  an  established 
theory for checking accuracy that looks at the variability of an estimator around its expected value, 
expressed by its variance, standard error, coefficient of variation or confidence intervals. Balance of 
payments (like national accounts) data are compiled as aggregates of a variety of primary statistics, 
some based on sample surveys, some derived from administrative data, some resulting from models. 
In  the  case  of  aggregated  statistics  like  BoP,  a  direct  approach  for  measuring  accuracy  is  not 
possible.  The  two  main  instruments  that,  according  to  the  manuals  on  quality  of  statistics,  can  be 
used  for  assessing  the  quality  of  this  kind  of  statistics  are  the  analysis  of  revisions  and  the 
examination of errors and omissions2; both instruments are covered by this report. 

The IMF has also developed standards for assessing the quality of statistics, which are part of the so-
called Data Quality Assessment Framework (DQAF). One specific DQAF is dedicated to BoP3. 

Eurostat’s  BoP  quality  reports  reflect  the  best  standards  established  for  the  ESS  and  defined  by 
DQAF.  To  make  these  reports  more  suited  to  capturing  the  different  features  of  data  quality,  their 
content has been expanded over time and will be further improved in the future. 

While  the  quality  of  aggregated  statistics  is  not  the  simple  sum  of  the  quality  of  all  underlying 
primary  data,  the  quality  of  BoP  data  certainly  depends  on  the  quality  of  all  the  underlying  data 
sources. Quality reports are regularly prepared for international trade in goods4, the main component 
of  the  current  account;  it  would  however  be  extremely  costly  and  time-consuming  to  assess  the 
quality of every single component that feeds BoP data. 

3. 

CHALLENGES ENCOUNTERED IN COMPILING BOP STATISTICS 

Systems  for  compiling  balance  of  payments  statistics  were  initially  developed  as  by-products  of 
foreign  exchange  control  systems:  resident  banks  were  collecting,  and  providing  BoP  compilers 
(generally  part  of  the  national  central  banks)  with,  information  on  each  individual  transaction  in 
foreign  currency.  This  source  of  information,  called  the  international  transaction  reporting  system 
(ITRS)  or  ‘settlement-based  reporting’,  remains  the  primary  source  for  compiling  BoP  statistics  in 
many countries outside the European Union. 

The  lifting  of  foreign  exchange  restrictions,  the  increasing  number  and  complexity  of  cross-border 
financial  transactions  and  the  integrated  management  of  payments  made  by  multinationals  have 
gradually limited the comprehensiveness of the information collected from the settlement system. In 
the EU, the usefulness of settlement-based reporting for compiling BoP data has been further limited 

1 

2 
3 
4 

See ‘ESS Handbook for Quality Reports’, Eurostat Working Papers, 2009. See also ‘ESS Standard for Quality 
Reports’, Eurostat Working Papers, 2009. 
See ‘ESS Handbook for quality reports’, Eurostat, 2009, page 65. 
See http://dsbb.imf.org/images/pdfs/dqrs_bop.pdf 
See  http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/product_details/publication?p_product_code=KS-RA-10-
026 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
by  the  moves  to  liberalise  the  EU  market  for  financial  services5.  Since  the  traditional  data  source 
used  for  compiling  BoP  statistics  was  becoming  less  and  less  comprehensive,  European  BoP 
statisticians  developed  alternative  data  sources,  in  a  context  of  reduced  resources  and  increasing 
opposition to the statistical burden on respondents. 

From 2000 onwards, BoP compilers in the EU have introduced new data collection and compilation 
systems. The new systems, already implemented in most of the EU Member States, are based on a 
combination  of  different  surveys,  sometimes  integrated  with  the  limited  information  still  available 
from ITRS. Greater use is made of information obtained directly from firms or individuals. Fuller use 
is made of sampling and estimation methods. Consistency with other statistics like national accounts 
and data on merchandise trade is monitored more closely and common tools have been set up at EU 
and  euro-area  levels  to  bring  greater  homogeneity  to  the  compilation  process.  An  example  is  the 
Centralised  Security  Database  that  allows  compilation  of  portfolio  investment  data  looking  at  the 
information  on  each  single  security,  while  another  example  is  the  FDI  network,  which  allows 
exchanges of micro-data related to foreign direct investment (FDI). 

4. 

RELEVANCE 

‘Relevance’ means the degree to which statistics meet current and potential users’ needs. As a result 
of the financial crisis, BoP (and the international investment position, IIP) data have been attracting 
increased  attention  from  users.  BoP  and  IIP  statistics  are  fundamental  tools  for  analysing  external 
imbalances and are also used as primary data for three of the ten indicators that are part of the EU 
Macroeconomic Imbalance Procedure (MIP) scoreboard6. 

In the BoP quality assessment exercise, relevance is measured in terms of the availability of the data 
required by the BoP Regulation to the final users, assuming that users’ needs are well reflected in the 
Regulation. 

Since  users’  needs  evolve  over  time,  the  Commission  has  amended  the  BoP  data  requirements,  in 
line with the new international standards. The amended BoP Regulation was published in the Official 
Journal on 27 June 2012 and will apply from 1 January 20147. 

As  a  consequence  of  the  recent  troubles  in  the  financial  markets,  users  are  however  already 
expressing requests for detailed BoP and IIP data that go beyond what is included in the amended 
BoP Regulation. They would need more geographical breakdown for the financial flows, and ideally 
bilateral data related to many flows of investment. Users responsible for trade negotiations with third 
countries  reiterated  their  request  for  information  on  services  "by  mode  of  supply"8.  Eurostat  will 
investigate the possibility of collecting, on voluntary basis, also this kind of information from BoP 
compilers. 

5 

Regulation 2560/2001 on cross-border payments in euro exempted all transactions below the threshold of EUR 
12 500 from statistical reporting. When Regulation 2560/2001 was reviewed, the threshold was raised to EUR 
50 000 (Regulation (EC) 924/2009, Article 5(1)). 
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/excessive_imbalance_procedure/imbalance_scoreboard. 
See Commission Regulation (EU) No 555/2012 of 22 June 2012, 

6 
7 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2012:166:0022:0066:EN:PDF 
8 

This would imply to operate a clear separation between transactions depending on whether: a) it is the service 
which is provided across the border (so called "mode 1"); it is the consumer who crosses the border (so called 
"mode 2"); it is the provider of the service who moves across the border (so called "mode 4"). See Manual on 
Statistics of International Trade in Services 2010, Chapter V. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
4.1. 

Data availability 

The data completeness criterion focuses on the availability of the data required by Regulation (EC) 
No 184/2005, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 707/2009. It is measured as the share 
of the number of values which are provided in the total number of values required. Table 1 shows 
this indicator by Member State and by dataset. 

In the case of the euro indicators, in the reference quarters (2010Q3-2011Q2) all the Member States 
complied fully with the requirements of the BoP Regulation. 

For the quarterly balance of payments, data availability was stable throughout the latest quarters 
and  averaged  95 % for the reference periods (2010Q3-2011Q2), confirming the trend  noted for the 
previous four quarters. 

On  international  trade  in  services,  data  availability  decreased  slightly  from  the  previous  year  to 
97 % of all data cells requested (at the level of items) for the EU27. 

For both FDI flows and FDI stocks, in the reference period 2010 (t + 9), the EU average increased 
from  the  previous  year’s  level  and  reached  100 %.  The  overall  availability  of  FDI  data  with  an 
activity and geographical breakdown for the reference year 2009 (t + 21) improved to 92 % for FDI 
flows and held steady at 95 % for FDI stocks. Some countries had problems in complying with the 
FDI reporting due at t+21 months: Belgium did not report activity breakdown for FDI income, due to 
a  compilation  process  consisting  of  a  global  estimation  made  by  instrument/country,  Hungary  faced 
problems  in  the  production  of  the  gesmes  file,  and  Poland  provided  data  in  NACE  Rev.2  eight 
months after the deadline, too late to be used for making EU and euro area aggregates. 

Overall, data availability is very high for all BoP domains. The few data not reported are related to 
very detailed items and geographical or activity breakdowns. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
Table 1: Data completeness 

Euro 
indicators 
(t + 2) 

Quarterly 
balance of 
payments 
(t + 3) 

Internatio
nal trade 
in services 
(t + 9) 

FDI flows 
(t + 9) 

FDI stocks 
(t + 9) 

FDI flows 
(t + 21) 

FDI stocks 
(t + 21) 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

100 % 

100 % 

97 % 

100 % 

100 % 

40 % 

100 % 

100 % 

81 % 

100 % 

100 % 

100 % 

100 % 

100 % 

Czech Republic  

100 % 

100 % 

100 % 

100 % 

100 % 

100 % 

100 % 

Denmark 

100 % 

100 % 

100 % 

100 % 

100 % 

99 % 

99 % 

Germany  

100 % 

100 % 

100 % 

100 % 

100 % 

100 % 

100 % 

 Estonia  

100 % 

100 % 

100 % 

100 % 

100 % 

100 % 

100 % 

Ireland 

Greece 

Spain 

France 

Italy 

Cyprus 

Latvia 

100 % 

100 % 

100 % 

100 % 

100 % 

100 % 

100 % 

100 % 

100 % 

73 % 

100 % 

100 % 

100 % 

100 % 

100 % 

100 % 

100 % 

70 % 

98 % 

87 % 

99 % 

100 % 

81 % 

100 % 

100 % 

100 % 

100 % 

100 % 

100 % 

100 % 

100 % 

100 % 

100 % 

100 % 

100 % 

100 % 

92 % 

100 % 

100 % 

100 % 

100 % 

100 % 

100 % 

87 % 

100 % 

100 % 

100 % 

100 % 

100 % 

Lithuania 

100 % 

100 % 

100 % 

100 % 

100 % 

100 % 

100 % 

Luxembourg  

100 % 

100 % 

100 % 

100 % 

100 % 

100 % 

100 % 

Hungary 

Malta  

100 % 

97 % 

98 % 

100 % 

100 % 

75 % 

96 % 

100 % 

100 % 

98 % 

100 % 

100 % 

100 % 

100 % 

Netherlands  

100 % 

100 % 

92 % 

100 % 

100 % 

100 % 

100 % 

Austria  

Poland  

100 % 

100 % 

100 % 

100 % 

100 % 

99 % 

99 % 

100 % 

74 % 

100 % 

100 % 

100 % 

0 % 

6 % 

Portugal  

100 % 

100 % 

100 % 

100 % 

100 % 

100 % 

100 % 

Romania  

100 % 

85 % 

100 % 

100 % 

100 % 

100 % 

100 % 

 Slovenia 

100 % 

100 % 

97 % 

100 % 

100 % 

100 % 

100 % 

 Slovakia  

100 % 

93 % 

91 % 

100 % 

100 % 

100 % 

100 % 

Finland 

Sweden  

100 % 

100 % 

95 % 

100 % 

100 % 

100 % 

100 % 

100 % 

94 % 

98 % 

100 % 

100 % 

100 % 

100 % 

United Kingdom  

100 % 

100 % 

91 % 

100 % 

96 % 

91 % 

91 % 

EU average 

100 % 

95 % 

97 % 

100 % 

100 % 

92 % 

95 % 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
 
 
5. 

ACCESSIBILITY AND CLARITY 

BoP  data  for  the  EU27  Member  States  are  available  free  of  charge  from  Eurostat’s  website 
(Eurobase) at:   
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/statistics/search_database. 
They are organised as shown in Figure 1. 

Figure 1: BoP data online for all users 

Both the quantity and the detail of BoP data disseminated online have increased constantly over time 
and  appropriate  metadata  have  been  attached  to  each  table.  Regular  dissemination  of  data  on 
workers’  remittances  started  in  February  2010.  In  January  2011  a  table  on  the  ‘Main  Balance  of 
Payments and International Investment Position items as share of GDP’ was created, and in October 
2011 a table with ‘Export market shares’ was added and quarterly IIP data started to be disseminated. 
Due to the increasing interest in national BoP and IIP data, longer time series, deeper geographical 
breakdowns and more complete tables were disseminated. 

6. 

ACCURACY 

‘Accuracy’ means the closeness of estimates to the unknown true values. While primary statistics can 
measure accuracy with statistical indicators like mean errors and variance, similar indicators cannot 
be developed for macroeconomic statistics that are the result of a number of different data collection 
and compilation procedures. The BoP quality report measures accuracy by looking at the size of the 
revisions. It is assumed that each revision takes the dataset closer to the true value. 

Revisions  do  not  mean  that  ‘errors’  have  been  made  or  that  the  quality  of  the  data  has  been 
deteriorating  over  time.  On  the  contrary,  revisions  are  made  when  new  data  sources  and  better 
information  become  available.  A  well-established  and  publicly  communicated  revisions  policy  is  a 
sign of the strength of the statistical system in question. 

The size of revisions is, however, a measure of the quality of the first release of a specific dataset, 
compared  with  the  latest  vintage  made  available.  There  is  a  trade-off  between  timeliness  and 
revisions:  the  earlier  the  first  release  of  a  dataset,  the  higher  the  revisions  that  can  be  expected  as 
later vintages of the same dataset are released. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
 
 
6.1. 

Stability 

Tables 2 and 3 show the mean average values of revisions for the quarterly balance of payments over 
the  last  14  quarters  (2008Q1-2011Q2)  for  each  EU  Member  State,  expressed  as  percentage  of  the 
original value.  

Graph 1 shows the differences between the first and final estimates for the total current account of 
the EU27. The first estimates are available three months after the end of the reference period (Q+90 
days). Final estimates are normally available after three and half years, but revisions are also possible 
after longer periods.  

Revisions  were  highest  in  2007  and,  on  average,  bigger  for  debits  than  for  credits.  Revisions  of 
national  data  often  compensate  between  countries.  Estimates  of  the  EU27  aggregates  are  therefore 
quite stable over time. 

Revisions in different directions for credits and debits can result in sizeable revision of the balance, 
even if the absolute revisions are minor. 

Mean  average  values  of  revisions  should  be  interpreted  with  caution  as  they  might  be  abnormally 
high if the initial estimates were low. In particular, indicators for small economies are very sensitive 
to this factor: in a few cases they show extreme values despite the fact that the absolute amounts of 
both  the  first  estimates  and  subsequent  revisions  are  very  small.  More  generally,  cautious 
interpretation  is  also  warranted  in  cases  (e.g.  financial  derivatives)  where  revisions  of  net  flows 
(debits minus credits) are measured. 

In the current account very small revisions were recorded on both the credit and the debit sides of 
the  goods  account,  whereas  in  the  services  account  the  values  of  revisions  were  generally  higher 
than  for  goods.  The  income  account  is  affected  most  by  revisions,  with  very  high  values  often 
recorded on direct investment income due to the difficulties compilers have in estimating profits in 
their  first  transmissions.  Over  the  14  quarters  considered,  mean  average  revisions  were  generally 
higher  for  the  financial  account  items  than  for  the  current  account  items,  reflecting  differences  in 
both  the  scale  and  volatility  of  cross-border  financial  transactions.  For  the  EU,  the  revisions  were 
largest for outward direct investment and portfolio investment assets. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
Table 2: Mean average values of revisions for main items of current account, 2008Q1-2011Q2 

Goods 

Services 

Transport 

Travel 

Other 
services 

Comp. of emp. DI income 

OI 
Income 

Current 
transfers 

MS 

C 

D 

C 

D 

C 

D 

C 

D 

C 

D 

C 

D 

C 

D 

C 

D 

C 

D 

BE 

3.45 2.77 

1.75 12.21 -0.04 0.75 -1.52 0.92 3.08 -4.74

7.63 19.26 -16.05 61.67 -14.11 -32.95 59.44 15.57

BG 

-0.74 0.51 

3.79 3.14 -13.18 -8.44 15.87 16.51 6.24 10.77

-2.13 65.26 44.00

8.35 6.81 14.10 22.36 -3.70

CZ 

2.05 -2.79 

1.09 18.66 -6.59 3.60 0.22 8.14 15.47 5.81

2.64

-2.93 -63.06

1.68 -11.49 1.28 -1.75 2.34

DK 

1.01 -2.06 

1.95 0.22 0.16 2.51 -4.67 -0.76 9.30 -3.75

24.63

-3.13

3.62 -52.04 1.61 1.63 11.12 0.27

DE 

1.92 3.41 

3.45 2.11 6.22 5.67 0.39 -3.22 2.69 3.19

7.27

2.67

-3.45 -44.07 2.97 6.08 -6.28 -0.72

EE 

-0.41 0.53 

1.39 -3.94 0.92 -7.73 -8.93 -2.88 7.08 0.27

-4.30

-0.05

4.58 991.78 -1.08 -0.22 -6.53 0.40

IE 

-0.48 1.03 

-5.08 -2.92 0.13 1.08 0.76 -1.27 -5.36 -3.10

0.00

-0.11 11.99 -10.34 -8.42 0.49 -8.78 -5.99

EL 

-1.27 -0.70 

-0.21 -0.70 -0.17 -0.62 0.00 0.00 -1.33 -1.68

-1.40

-0.65 15.61 -18.94 -2.71 -1.39 -0.49 0.47

ES 

0.80 -0.62 

-0.35 -2.78 1.17 -5.69 -0.53 0.65 -0.63 -2.35

1.77

0.19

-6.85 -16.30 -0.27 0.91 3.37 4.16

FR 

0.14 -0.70 

-0.50 -2.57 -1.06 -0.24 3.98 -1.57 -1.91 -4.87

4.42

7.29 17.48

2.72 4.16 0.83 6.57 4.59

IT 

-0.26 0.74  14.73 11.26 3.16 0.24 1.12 0.39 38.14 26.11 353.33 145.17 200.05 40.58 43.04 -6.73 56.81 12.50

CY 

-29.69 -10.88 

7.10 1.78 6.48 -0.19 -1.06 -2.83 9.91 8.22

-4.02

-0.29 434.16 221.13 12.80 -1.11 -8.81 0.26

LV 

-0.20 0.09 

-0.08 -0.14 -0.37 2.47 0.00 0.00 -0.04 -0.82

-2.60

0.00 10.77

-6.22 0.02 -0.18 0.13 -0.11

LT 

-0.16 0.54 

-0.44 4.68 1.29 1.36 -3.25 16.04 -2.98 -1.02

17.57 32.36 321.03 -412.40 -5.46 -5.23 -11.99 15.71

LU 

7.07 -0.91 

-3.98 4.94 0.08 0.45 -0.21 0.86 -4.25 -3.41

10.28 48.85 10.17 13.79 -5.81 -31.27 -1.69 0.74

HU 

-6.33 -0.32 

2.44 -0.16 -2.19 2.38 0.00 -19.27 4.59 3.63 1610.53 -11.62 77.79  50.73 -1.82  1.07 -8.65 -18.07

MT 

1.27 -3.52  11.10 42.00 2.94 -2.84 6.97 -18.36 14.51 66.92

-4.99

-0.44 -183.68

-9.14 -0.17 -0.31 66.34 66.55

NL 

-1.92 0.28 

-1.67 3.80 0.57 1.04 -3.20 -0.68 -2.25 2.62

-1.15 97.62

4.84 23.89 -3.23 -2.76 2.19 7.33

AT 

0.68 -0.82 

1.42 0.47 3.28 1.07 -1.64 0.85 1.94 -0.17

-0.73 -10.89 12.63

-5.82 0.76 -0.41 -11.55 -2.74

PL 

-0.81 -1.02 

-0.95 -1.41 0.47 1.95 -2.77 -3.40 -0.22 -2.08

-21.69 293.84 308.05 -22.84 -0.07 -0.71 -63.93 -21.09

PT 

-0.38 -0.01 

1.43 0.25 3.45 -0.25 -0.10 -0.09 1.80 0.85

-0.70

3.96

4.98

-1.35 0.95 -6.33 -9.36 -11.57

RO 

0.04 0.36 

1.38 1.14 -7.51 0.45 2.39 0.81 5.34 3.79

6.83 27.92 -630.52 -327.00 24.01 0.46 -1.35 8.46

SI 

4.14 9.10 

-8.40 19.94 6.88 4.11 0.78 -3.55 6.27 3.75

95.52 15.68 -92.87 -27.29 0.57 4.95 -3.51 14.28

SK 

-1.90 0.19 

0.81 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.09 1.09 -0.36 0.04

50.17 -15.71 803.66 -26.93 0.95 1.12 0.74 -0.45

FI 

1.23 -0.06  16.51 24.49 9.39 10.17 1.04 2.21 19.37 36.31

4.12

5.51 24.05 545.66 -0.47 3.56 27.34 18.66

SE 

1.74 1.18 

1.51 1.59 -0.48 2.68 -9.07 -3.00 5.28 3.55

-3.03

-1.77 17.97 -15.40 -3.49 -9.77 -11.97 -3.50

UK 

0.28 0.21 

0.69 -2.72 3.91 -1.98 0.70 -5.54 0.30 -2.08

1.15

-3.84 -28.77 -13.93 9.80 -0.76 2.04 -0.17

EU 

0.62 0.81 

1.39 1.56 1.43 0.86 -0.18 -2.73 1.95 1.73

13.51 30.55

3.06

-2.17 1.13 -4.11 8.68 4.01

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
 
Table 3: Mean average values of revisions for main items of financial account, 2008Q1-2011Q2 

QBOP FINANCIAL ACCOUNT MEAN (%) 

MS  DI outward  DI inward  PI assets  PI liabilities  OI assets  OI liabilities  Fin deriv. 

-31.03 

27.54 

-124.24 

-44.69 

41.73 

10.10 

-186.75 

16.91 

67.33 

67.11 

17.69 

115.41 

-39.60 

5.54 

-111.98 

-397.93 

0.02 

DK 

-46.19 

53.49 

21.69 

-26.56 

52.11 

-4.10 

32.41 

71.28 

9.72 

7.41 

53.09 

9.56 

-377.19 

-7.77 

-54.83 

-4.25 

-36.64 

11.17 

-43.78 

-30.99 

-16.32 

3.46 

0.02 

12.30 

-0.67 

82.50 

-0.59 

-5.00 

-4.36 

-8.11 

-2197.80 

-0.71 

2.00 

54.50 

0.24 

-1.58 

-13.79 

-31.16 

-39.87 

-2.57 

-450.81 

-0.98 

0.28 

0.56 

20.77 

6.07 

1.49 

54.00 

-0.01 

-56.68 

-26.45 

-28.23 

-100.27 

234.78 

-63.77 

-185.28 

162.04 

-1369.01 

261.87 

666.93 

629.42 

404.98 

-15.00 

-847.87 

-80.27 

32.28 

-23.64 

-38.18 

-204.30 

33.65 

8.02 

162.63 

-44.70 

-41.77 

-9.10 

-3.44 

-37.02 

4.30 

-22.28 

-114.94 

-139.05 

-15.67 

-18.30 

32.03 

-12.60 

1597.77 

-4.36 

-1.38 

BE 

BG 

CZ 

DE 

EE 

IE 

EL 

ES 

FR 

IT 

CY 

LV 

LT 

LU 

HU 

-23.16 

204.44 

46.60 

5.65 

-18.19 

MT 

197.44 

-28.12 

-4.99 

-71.68 

0.08 

8.46 

2.29 

5.26 

-0.11 

NL 

AT 

PL 

PT 

-68.42 

95.70 

-4.15 

-38.61 

-25.58 

-16.72 

-28.15 

93.64 

91.07 

-1.37 

2.87 

3.71 

-52.24 

-66.65 

-15.51 

-8.75 

-1.70 

4.00 

-15.18 

-345.76 

-25.69 

-38.70 

46.58 

-54.88 

-258.31 

9.95 

0.67 

9.98 

RO 

2549.20 

-140.35 

-89.82 

-17.72 

-105.36 

9.16 

42.86 

SI 

SK 

FI 

SE 

UK 

EU 

-28.47 

8.74 

-0.55 

-49.32 

-18.22 

-3.54 

1.10 

1.42 

-1033.25 

66.04 

-588.34 

-1.85 

-11.61 

-100.32 

165.75 

-71.90 

-1.98 

-15395.81 

0.35 

-1.02 

17.56 

82.68 

-44.64 

10.48 

-64.85 

-146.32 

-16.56 

-44.98 

-12.63 

-17.94 

145.57 

-3.44 

5.21 

31.53 

-11.16 

68.69 

12.88 

29.94 

33.31 

6.49 

-5.97 

16.16 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
 
Graph 1: Differences between first and final estimates for EU27 current account, 2005Q1-
2011Q2, in EUR million 

EU27 current account credits

EU27 current account debits

60000

50000

40000

30000

20000

10000

0

-10000

-20000

2005
I

2005
II

2005
III

2005
IV

2006
I

2006
II

2006
III

2006
IV

2007
I

2007
II

2007
III

2007
IV

2008
I

2008
II

2008
III

2008
IV

2009
I

2009
II

2009
III

2009
IV

2010
I

2010
II

2010
III

2010
IV

2011
I

2011
II

7. 

TIMELINESS AND PUNCTUALITY 

Punctuality is measured in terms of compliance with the deadlines for data transmission set by the 
BoP  Regulation.  Table  4  analyses9  the  punctuality  of  the  balance  of  payments  statistics.  It  shows 
that, with very few exceptions, the Member States have been able to meet the deadlines for all the 
datasets. 

Timeliness  is  measured  as  the  gap  between  the  reference  period  covered  by  the  datasets  and  the 
moment  when  the  data  are  made  available  to  the  final  users.  Currently  BoP  data  are  reported  to 
Eurostat  90  days  after  the  end  of  the  reference  period.  The  amended  BoP  Regulation  takes  into 
account users’ requests for more timely statistics, reducing the reporting deadline from the current 90 
days to 85/82/80 days, respectively from 2014/2017/2019 onwards. 

9 

Punctuality  is  assessed  as  ‘good’  if  data  were  always  delivered  on  or  before  the  deadline,  ‘acceptable’  if,  on 
average, the delay did not exceed five days and ‘bad’ in other cases. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
Table 4: Punctuality of data transmission* 

Euro 
indicators 

Quarterly 
balance of 
payments 

International 
trade in 
services 

Foreign direct 
investment — 
flows 

Foreign direct 
investment — 
stocks 

reference 
period + 2 
months 

reference period 
+ 3 months 

reference 
period + 9 
months 

reference 
period + 9 (or 
21) months10 

reference 
period + 9 (or 
21) months 

good 

good 

good 

good 

good 

good 

good 

good 

good 

good 

good 

good 

good 

good 

good 

good 

good 

good 

good 

good 

good 

good 

good 

good 

good 

good 

good 

good 

good 

good 

good 

good 

good 

good 

good 

good 

good 

good 

good 

good 

good 

good 

good 

good 

good 

good 

good 

good 

good 

good 

good 

good 

good 

acceptable 

good 

good 

good 

good 

good 

good 

good 

good 

good 

good 

good 

good 

good 

good 

good 

good 

good 

acceptable 

good 

good 

good 

good 

good 

good 

good 

good 

bad 

good 

good 

good 

good 

good 

good 

good 

good 

good 

good 

good 

good 

good 

good 

good 

good 

good 

good 

good 

good 

good 

good 

good 

good 

good 

good 

good 

good 

bad 

good 

good 

good 

good 

good 

good 

good 

good 

good 

good 

good 

good 

good 

good 

good 

good 

good 

good 

good 

good 

good 

good 

good 

good 

good 

Deadline:  

Austria 

Belgium  

Bulgaria  

Cyprus 

Czech Republic  

Denmark  

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

Greece 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Italy 

Latvia  

Lithuania  

Luxembourg  

Malta  

Netherlands  

Poland  

Portugal  

Romania  

Slovakia 

Slovenia  

Spain 

Sweden  

United Kingdom  

*Punctuality: good: ≤ 0 days, acceptable: ≤ 5 days, bad: >5 days 

10 

For  FDI  (both  flows  and  stocks),  there  are  two  separate  data  requests,  each  with  different  deadlines:  one  9 
months after the end of the reference period, the other 21 months after the end of the reference period. 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
8. 

COMPARABILITY 

‘Comparability’ means the differences that can be observed when statistics on the same domain are 
compared between geographical areas or over time. 

The  BoP  quality  report  measures  comparability  over  space  by  looking  at  asymmetries.  Eurostat 
regularly provides tables that highlight the top persistent asymmetries for each country and item and 
encourages  countries  to  address  the  underlying  problems  via  bilateral  contacts  and  exchanges  of 
more  detailed  information.  The  foreign  direct  investment  (FDI)  network  was  also  set  up  to  allow 
exchanges of bilateral FDI data and, in the course of time, is expected to reduce the asymmetries in 
FDI. 

Graph 2 compares EU27 and World asymmetries. While EU27 asymmetries are by no means trivial 
(they  represent  almost  1 %  of  EU  GDP),  they  have  been  stable  from  2004  onwards.  The  various 
initiatives that Eurostat is undertaking to address asymmetries in the EU27 BoP are bearing visible 
fruit. 

Graph 2: EU27 and World asymmetries, total current account, 1999-2010, in EUR million 

400000

300000

200000

100000

0

-100000

-200000

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Current account World

Current account EU27

9. 

COHERENCE 

Coherence focuses on the consistency of statistics produced for different purposes. The BoP quality 
report  measures  this  component  by  looking  at  both  internal  consistency  (compliance  with  integrity 
rules, coherence between the quarterly and annual data and size of errors and omissions) and external 
consistency  (coherence  between  BoP  data  and  similar  statistics  from  different  statistical 
frameworks).  The  external  consistency  of  BoP  goods  data  and  foreign  trade  statistics  (FTS)  (as 
produced by Intrastat and Extrastat) is regularly monitored. 

9.1. 

Internal consistency 

Internal consistency is measured by looking at the values of net errors and omissions. Net errors and 
omissions  constitute  the  residual  item  balancing  the  accounts.  Sometimes  compilation  errors  offset 
one another. Consequently, the size of this residual item does not necessarily provide an indication of 
the overall accuracy of the statement. 

Net errors and omissions are closely monitored by national BoP compilers: high values or constant 
increases are a sign of problems in the compilation systems that have to be identified and addressed. 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
 
Table 5 shows the average relative error recorded by the Member States for the period 2008-2010. It 
is equal to the average of the absolute value of net errors and omissions during the period in question 
(measured  as  a  share  of  the  average  of  current  account  credits  and  debits),  as  recorded  in  the 
quarterly balance of payments of the Member States. For the period 2008-2010, three Member States 
(Italy, Finland and Sweden) recorded a value in excess of 10 % for this indicator and five (Bulgaria, 
Denmark, Ireland, France and Poland) showed a value higher than 5 %. In Italy errors and omissions 
jumped from 3.8 % in the period 2006-2008, as evidenced in last year’s quality report, to 12 % in the 
period 2008-2010, due to the transition towards a totally new collection and compilation system. 

Table 6 shows the cumulative average relative error recorded for the period 2008-2010. It is equal to 
the cumulative natural values of net errors and omissions for the same period (measured as a share of 
the average of current account credits and debits). One Member State (Sweden) recorded a value in 
excess of 10 % for this indicator and three (Bulgaria, Denmark and Finland) showed a value of more 
than 5 %. 

Table 5: Average relative error 2008-2010 

Belgium  

Bulgaria  

0.5 % 

8.6 % 

France 

5.1 % 

Austria  

Italy 

12.0 % 

Poland  

Czech Republic  

2.2 % 

Cyprus 

Latvia  

Lithuania  

2.1 % 

2.3 % 

0.9 % 

Portugal  

Romania  

Slovenia 

Luxembourg  

0.3 % 

Slovakia  

Denmark  

Germany 

Estonia 

Ireland  

Greece  

Spain  

8.0 % 

3.7 % 

1.8 % 

2.0 % 

2.3 % 

10.0 % 

Hungary  

Malta  

1.9 % 

4.1 % 

Finland 

Sweden  

Netherlands 

4.2 % 

United Kingdom  

3.6 % 

Table 6: Cumulative average relative error 2008-2010 

Belgium  

Bulgaria  

0.0 % 

France 

-5.7 % 

Italy 

3.3 % 

0.0 % 

Austria  

Poland  

Czech Republic  

-0.3 % 

Cyprus 

-0.5 % 

Portugal  

Denmark  

-5.5 % 

Latvia  

-1.9 % 

Romania  

Germany 

Estonia 

Ireland  

Greece  

Spain  

0.7 % 

0.9 % 

Lithuania  

0.2 % 

Slovenia 

Luxembourg  

-0.1 % 

Slovakia  

-2.3 % 

Hungary  

-2.1 % 

Finland 

0.0 % 

Malta  

1.3 % 

Sweden  

-16.3 % 

-0.9 % 

Netherlands 

0.7 % 

United Kingdom  

0.2 % 

3.4 % 

5.2 % 

1.7 % 

4.3 % 

1.5 % 

4.1 % 

12.0 % 

13.7 % 

0.7 % 

-4.6 % 

-0.3 % 

-2.9 % 

0.2 % 

-3.3 % 

-8.6 % 

9.2. 

External consistency 

External  consistency  is  related  to  the  coherence  between  BoP  data  and  similar  statistics  from 
different statistical frameworks. 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
 
External consistency related to goods, as reported in BoP data and in foreign trade statistics (FTS), is 
regularly  monitored  by  Eurostat.  When  comparing  the  two  datasets,  methodological  differences 
between the BoP and FTS should be taken into account. The main ones are related to the fact that the 
BoP requires a change of ownership in order to record a transaction, whereas FTS record physical 
cross-border  movements  of  goods,  and  to  differing  valuation  methods11.  One  example  of  this 
difference  is  the  treatment  of  non-monetary  gold  that  changes  ownership  without  being  physically 
transported to the country of the new owner; this gold is not included in FTS but is included in the 
BoP. 

The overall consistency between FTS and BoP data can be assessed quickly by looking at the time 
series of differences between the values for credits/exports and debits/imports available from the two 
statistical frameworks, and is shown in Graph 3 for the EU27 aggregate. From 2006Q1 onwards the 
consistency  between  the  data  on  goods  in  the  BoP  and  in  FTS  has  definitely  improved  and  has 
stabilised at fairly low levels. 

Graph 3: Goods ─ difference between FTS and BoP, EU27, partner ‘Extra EU27’ 

14000

12000

10000

8000

6000

4000

2000

0

-2000

-4000

-6000

-8000

I

6
0
0
2

I
I

6
0
0
2

I
I
I

6
0
0
2

V

I

6
0
0
2

I

7
0
0
2

I
I

7
0
0
2

I
I
I

7
0
0
2

V

I

7
0
0
2

I

8
0
0
2

I
I

8
0
0
2

I
I
I

8
0
0
2

V

I

8
0
0
2

I

9
0
0
2

I
I

9
0
0
2

I
I
I

9
0
0
2

V

I

9
0
0
2

I

0
1
0
2

I
I

0
1
0
2

I
I
I

0
1
0
2

V

I

0
1
0
2

I

1
1
0
2

I
I

1
1
0
2

E-C

I-D

10. 

CONCLUSIONS 

The  entry  into  force  of  Regulation  (EC)  No 184/2005  led  to  closer  harmonisation  of  balance  of 
payments statistics throughout the EU and increased the availability of data to users. 

This  working  document  shows  that  the  BoP  data  required  by  Eurostat  under  Regulation  (EC) 
No 184/2005 are reported by every Member State, generally on time. A much larger amount of BoP 
data is now available to final users compared to what could be obtained at the end of the 1990s: more 
detail is now available on transactions and geographical breakdowns, the frequency and timeliness of 
the  data  have  improved  and  longer  time  series  have  been  reconstructed  for  the  sake  of  economic 
analysis. Greater use is made of estimation, but the resulting quality is kept under very strict control. 
Quality reports allow regular monitoring of the stability and consistency of the data. 

11 

Imports/debits are valued free on board (f.o.b.) in the BoP, but are valued cost, insurance and freight (c.i.f.) in 
FTS.  

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
As  a  result  of  the  financial  crisis,  both  BoP  and  IIP  data  are  under  increased  scrutiny  by  users. 
Eurostat and national compilers are making every effort to ensure that BoP and IIP data fully meet 
the needs of the wide circle of users. 

The next BoP quality assessment exercise will start in January 2013. 

EN 

16 

   EN