COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT on quality assessment of balance of payments, international trade in services and foreign direct investment statistics for the year 2014 transmitted by Member States Accompanying the document Report from the Commission assessing the quality of data reported by Member States in 2014 on balance of payments, international trade in services and foreign direct investment
Date: 2016-03-30
Institutions: European Commission, European Union, Eurostat
Subjects: EU Member State, EU statistics, balance of payments, data collection, direct investment, economic statistics, exchange of information, foreign investment, international trade, service

EN 

   EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 30.3.2016  SWD(2016) 68 final   COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT on quality assessment of balance of payments, international trade in services and foreign direct investment statistics for the year 2014 transmitted by Member States   Accompanying the document Report from the Commission assessing the quality of data reported by Member States in 2014 on balance of payments, international trade in services and foreign direct investment {COM(2016) 163 final}  
 
 
Table of contents 

Executive summary .......................................................................................................................... 3 

1. 

Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 4 

2.  Overview  of  Balance  of  Payments,  International  Trade  in  Services  and  Foreign  Direct 

Investment Statistics ................................................................................................................ 5 

2.1. Legal basis ........................................................................................................................ 5 
2.2. Balance of payments and the related statistics ................................................................. 5 
2.3. Quality assessment and reports ........................................................................................ 5 

3.  Relevance ................................................................................................................................ 7 

3.1.  Data availability ........................................................................................................... 7 
3.1.1.  Completeness ................................................................................................ 7 
3.1.2.  Confidentiality ............................................................................................. 13 

4.  Accuracy ............................................................................................................................... 18 

4.1.  Stability ...................................................................................................................... 18 

5.  Timeliness and punctuality .................................................................................................... 24 

5.1.  Punctuality .................................................................................................................. 24 

6.  Comparability ........................................................................................................................ 27 

6.1  Asymmetries ............................................................................................................... 27 
FDI Network ............................................................................................................... 27 
6.2 

7.  Coherence .............................................................................................................................. 30 

7.1 

Internal consistency .................................................................................................... 30 
7.1.1.  Consistency with integrity rules .................................................................. 30 
7.1.2.  Consistency between quarterly and annual data .......................................... 31 
7.1.3.  Consistency between monthly and quarterly data ....................................... 32 
7.1.4.  Consistency between BOP and IIP data ...................................................... 34 
Errors and omissions ................................................................................... 36 
7.1.5. 
7.2.  External consistency ................................................................................................... 38 
7.2.1.  Overall consistency between ITGS and BOP.............................................. 38 
7.2.2.  Directional consistency ............................................................................... 39 

8.  Conclusions ........................................................................................................................... 41 

Annex 1: List of national institutions compiling BOP ................................................................... 43 

Annex 2: Overall quality assessment results .................................................................................. 44 

Annex 3: List of abbreviations and codes ...................................................................................... 46 

Abbreviations ........................................................................................................................ 46 
Geographical aggregates and country codes ......................................................................... 46 

Annex 4: Glossary .......................................................................................................................... 47 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
Executive summary 

This Commission Staff Working Document presents an in-depth analysis of the quality assessment on Balance 
of  Payments  (BOP),  International  Trade  in  Services  Statistics  (ITSS)  and  Foreign  Direct  Investment  (FDI) 
statistics for the year 2014 transmitted by Member States of the European Union (EU), as well as Iceland and 
Norway. The quality assessment has been carried out according to Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 184/2005(1). 
The  report  shows  the  first  assessment  results  since  the  update  of  the  data  requirements  by  Commission 
Regulation (EU) No 555/2012 of 22 June 2012 amending Regulation (EC) No 184/2005 and the introduction of 
the  methodology  outlined  in  the  6th  edition  of  Balance  of  Payments  and  International  Investment  Position 
Manual of the International Monetary Fund (BPM6). 

The results of the first quality assessment after the introduction of the BPM6 meet the expectations. All Member 
States except for Croatia coped with the changed data requirements and methodology. The situation regarding 
BOP data is the most satisfactory from a quality point of view while improvements are most often needed in the 
area of FDI statistics. In terms of quality criteria, the overall results are as follows: 

Relevance 

Completeness was over 95% in most of the cases. 

Accuracy 

Timeliness and punctuality 

Comparability 

Coherence 

Data  availability  to  the  final  users  was  satisfactory,  in  most  cases  with 
95%  of  main  items  publishable.  However,  some  Member  States 
exceedingly flag their data as 'non-publishable' or as 'confidential'. 

The  preliminary  analysis  of  revisions  shows  stable  estimates  for  the 
monthly  and  quarterly  current  account  items  and  lower  stability  for  the 
primary income and financial accounts items. The indicator on directional 
reliability shows a good predictability of the first assessments for monthly 
BOP. 

The  timeliness  of  BOP  and  IIP  kept  gradually  improving  during  the 
the 
assessed  period.  The  majority  of  Member  States  respected 
transmission deadlines for ITSS and FDI. 

The  asymmetries  for  the  current  account  components  have  improved 
during the reference periods but continue to remain an issue. 

The overall consistency with integrity rules improved slightly but not yet 
sufficiently.  There  have  been  almost  no  discrepancies  between  the 
quarterly  and  annual  ITSS  data,  while  there  have  been  some  differences 
for  FDI  flows  and  income.  Significant  efforts  have  been  made  by  the 
Member  States  to  reduce  the  size  of  errors  and  omission;  however,  their 
size  is  still  high.  The  BOP/ITGS  directional  consistency  remains  high 
except for few Members States. 

The  overall  quality  of  data  transmitted  according  to  the  requirements  of  Regulation  (EC)  No  184/2005  and 
Commission Regulation (EU) No 555/2012 is good. However, all Member States as well as Iceland and Norway 
need to address the existing deficiencies while bearing in mind that this first assessment could not explore all the 
dimensions  of  the  data  quality.  Moreover,  the  sound  implementation  of  the  new  methodology  is  yet  to  be 
analysed  and  assessed.  On  the  basis  of  the  current  quality  assessment,  Eurostat  recommends  to  the  Member 
States to address with priority the data completeness, the application of the confidentiality rules as well as the 
reduction of asymmetries and the size of errors and omissions. Eurostat in cooperation with the Member States 
has already started such an analysis within the remits of the Balance of Payments Working Group. Eurostat and 
the  ECB  are  also  conducting  missions  to  Member  States  to  address,  where  relevant,  country-specific  issues. 
Particular attention and support will be provided to Croatia. 

(1) OJ L 35, 8.2.2005, p. 23–55 and OJ L 166, 27.6.2012, p. 22–66 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
1. 

Introduction 

BOP, ITSS and FDI statistics undergo annual quality assessment as required by Article 4, Regulation (EC) No 
184/2005. This Commission Staff Working Document presents an in-depth analysis of the quality assessment on 
these statistics for the months October 2011-October 2014 for monthly BOP, the quarters 2011Q2-2014Q3 for 
quarterly BOP, IIP and revaluations and the year 2013 for annual ITSS and FDI. The assessment covers data 
transmitted by EU Member States as well as Iceland and Norway according to Article 2(1), Regulation (EC) No 
184/2005. 

This is the first round of quality reporting since the update of the data requirements by Commission Regulation 
(EU)  No  555/2012  of  22  June  2012  amending  Regulation  (EC)  No  184/2005  and  the  introduction  of  the 
methodology outlined in the 6th edition of Balance of Payments and International Investment Position Manual of 
the International Monetary Fund. Therefore, the report has been adapted to the changes. It also accommodates 
needs related to the Macroeconomic Imbalances Procedure Scoreboard exercise. 

The  quality  report  has  been  produced  on  the  basis  of  national  quality  reports  pre-filled  by  Eurostat  and 
completed by Member States. Certain chapters are complemented by information published as metadata or in 
relevant articles of Statistics Explained(2). Eurostat is grateful to the many experts who contributed to the quality 
exercise and the members of the Balance of Payments Committee who assisted in the review process. 

This  report  is  the  first  intended  for  public  dissemination.  Eurostat  commits  to  follow  this  practice  of 
transparency in the coming quality assessment rounds. 

(2) http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Main_Page 

4 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
2.  Overview of Balance of Payments, International 
Trade in Services and Foreign Direct Investment 
Statistics 

2.1. Legal basis 

Regulation (EC) No 184/2005 establishes the common framework for the systematic production of Community 
statistics on BOP, ITSS and FDI. It has been amended several times since its adoption to accommodate to the 
economic changes and the technical progress. Most recently, Commission Regulation (EU) No 555/2012 of 22 
June 2012 amending Regulation (EC) No 184/2005 updated the data requirements and definitions, aligning them 
to  those  of  BPM6.  A  new  amendment  of  Regulation  (EC)  No  184/2005  is  being  discussed  by  the  European 
Parliament  and  the  Council.  In  2012,  the  Commission  made  a  legislative  proposal  as  regards  conferring  of 
delegated  and  implementing  powers  upon  the  Commission  for  the  adoption  of  certain  measures  to  align  the 
existing Regulation with the institutional context after the Lisbon Treaty. 

2.2. Balance of payments and the related statistics 

BOP as produced by Eurostat records all economic transactions between resident and non-resident entities of the 
EU  or  individual  Member  States  during  a  given  period.  The  Balance  of  payments  provides  harmonized 
information  on  international  transactions  which  are  part  of  the  current  account  (goods,  services,  primary  and 
secondary income), as well as on transactions which fall in the capital account and the financial account. The 
balance of payments is based on a double entry system, therefore the sum of the balances of the current account, 
the capital account and the financial account is in principle equal to zero, any discrepancy being due to statistical 
errors. International investment position presents the value of financial assets owned outside the economy and 
indebtedness of the economy to the rest of the world. 

BOP is an important macro-economic indicator used to assess the position of an economy (of credit or debit for 
current and capital account, net acquisition of financial assets or net incurrence of liabilities for BOP financial 
account and international investment position) towards the external world. 

The compilation of BOP relies on data provided by primary statistics, i.e. ITGS, ITSS and FDI. ITGS measure 
the value and quantity of goods traded between the Member States and goods traded by the Member States of 
the EU with third countries. ITSS record the international transactions of services between the EU and its main 
trading partners. FDI record the direct investment financial flows and income of the EU resident entities as well 
as  the  foreign  direct  investment  positions.  Securities  statistics  is  used  as  input  for  the  financial  account  of 
balance of payments. Items compiled specifically for balance of payments include compensation of employees, 
investment income, current transfers and the capital account. 

All these statistics are needed for the implementation of the economic and trade policies of the EU. BOP data 
are used in the compilation of national accounts as well as for producing various indicators. 

In  the  EU,  the  compilation  of  BOP  at  European  level  is  a  shared  responsibility  between  the  Commission 
(Eurostat) and the European Central Bank (ECB). While Eurostat is focusing on the BOP current account, the 
ECB  looks  closer  into  the  BOP  financial  account.  Annex  1  contains  a  list  of  national  institutions  compiling 
BOP. 

2.3. Quality assessment and reports 

Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 184/2005 provides the requirements for the quality reporting and assessment of 
BOP, ITSS and FDI. Commission Regulation (EU) No 1227/2010 of 20 December 2010 amending Regulation 
(EC) No 1055/2008 defines the quality criteria, as well as the content and periodicity of the quality reports. 

2 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Every year, Member States are obliged to send to Eurostat quality reports on the transmitted data. These reports, 
called  national  reports,  are  pre-filled  by  Eurostat  with  information  on  indicators,  reconciliation  tables 
BOP/ITGS,  bilateral  asymmetries  and  values  for  national  data.  The  Member  States  review  and  send  back  the 
completed  national  quality  reports  with  comments  and  filled-in  parts  on  plausibility,  accessibility,  clarity  and 
comparability. On the basis of the collected information, Eurostat completes the quality assessment and consults 
the  Balance  of  Payments  Committee  on  the  summary  quality  report.  Eurostat  also  prepares  a  more  concise 
version of the report which is sent to the European Parliament for information. 

The quality report encompasses all quality criteria defined in the Regulation on European Statistics Regulation 
(EC) No 223/2009 of 11 March 2009 and is implemented by Commission Regulation (EU) No 1227/2010 of 20 
December 2010.  

The  quality  assessment  is  conducted  according  to  Regulation  (EU)  2015/759  of  29  April  2015  amending 
Regulation (EC) No 223/2009(3) and the quality criteria defined in Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 223/2009. 
These  quality  criteria  are:  relevance,  accuracy,  timeliness  and  punctuality,  comparability,  and  coherence.  The 
results of the assessment are presented in the quality report prepared in line with the Handbook of the European 
Statistical System for Quality Reports(4). 

Eurostat publishes separate quality reports for ITGS(5). 

(3) OJ L123, 19.5.2015, p. 90. 

(4) http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/64157/4373903/01-ESS-Handbook-for-Quality-Reports-2014.pdf/d6152567-a007-4949-a169-251e0ac7c655 

(5) http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-statistical-working-papers/-/KS-TC-15-002 

2 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
3.  Relevance 

Relevance refers to the degree to which statistics meet current and potential users' needs. In the BOP, ITSS and 
FDI quality report this component of quality is measured in terms of the availability of the data required by the 
Commission  Regulation  (EU)  No  555/2012  of  22  June  2012  amending  Regulation  (EC)  No  184/2005  and 
disseminated to the final users. 

3.1.  Data availability 

3.1.1.  Completeness 

For all BOP domains the method of calculating the availability for all requests considers the number of reported 
cells divided by the total number of requested cells according to the Commission Regulation (EU) No 555/2012 
of 22 June 2012 amending Regulation (EC) No 184/2005.  

Monthly BOP, Quarterly BOP and Quarterly IIP 

For  monthly  BOP  request  27  Member  States  were  compliant  with  the  requirements  of  the  Commission 
Regulation (EU) No 555/2012 of 22 June 2012 amending Regulation (EC) No 184/2005 for reference months in 
2014, while Croatia has not transmitted any monthly data and Iceland and Norway were granted derogation. 

Figure  1:  Quarterly  BOP  average  data  availability 
(as reported end of December 2014) compared to the EU average 

for  2013Q4 

-  2014Q3  

EU average   
96% 

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

For quarterly BOP, data availability was stable throughout the reference quarters of 2013 and 2014, reaching 
on average, for the EU Member States, 96% for the four quarters from 2013Q4 until 2014Q3 (see Figure 1). In 
most  cases,  the  missing  items  concerned  the  manufacturing  services  on  physical  inputs  owned  by  others, 
maintenance and repair services, portfolio investment income on investment fund shares and sector breakdown 
for the financial account and related income. Completeness was 100% for 20 Member States (Bulgaria, Czech 
Republic, Denmark, Germany, Estonia, Spain, France, Italy, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Hungary, 
Malta, Netherlands, Austria, Poland, Portugal, Romania and Sweden) and over 90% for all remaining countries, 
except Croatia, Iceland and Norway. 

3 

7 

 
 
 
 
The completeness indicators for monthly BOP and quarterly BOP by country are shown in Table 1. 

For quarterly IIP mandatory data requirements of the Commission Regulation (EU) No 555/2012 of 22 June 
2012 amending Regulation (EC) No 184/2005 differentiated between Euro Area and non-Euro Area countries, 
for the latter they were much less detailed. The completeness reached on average 98% for the four quarters from 
2013Q4  until  2014Q3  for  the  EU  Member  States.  21  Member  States  (Belgium,  Bulgaria,  Czech  Republic, 
Denmark,  Germany,  Estonia,  Spain,  Croatia,  Italy,  Cyprus,  Latvia,  Lithuania,  Luxembourg,  Hungary,  Malta, 
Netherlands, Austria, Poland, Romania, Sweden and the United Kingdom) as well as for Norway submitted all 
requested data, while the remaining countries - over 90%. Transmission of data on Revaluations was mandatory 
only  for  Euro  Area  Member  States.  15  out  of  18  EA  Member  States  provided  fully  complete  data.  Two  EA 
Member  States  (Belgium  and  Austria)  transmitted  revaluations  after  completing  of  the  quality  reports’  pre-
filling. 

Table 2 presents the data availability for quarterly IIP and revaluations by country. 

Table 1: Data availability for monthly bop for 2014M07-2014M10 and for quarterly BOP for 
2013Q4-2014Q3 (%)

3 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Data 
2: 
Table 
2013Q4-2014Q3 (%) 

availability 

for 

quarterly 

IIP 

and 

revaluations 

for  

3 

9 

 
 
 
 
 
International Trade in Services Statistics (ITSS) 

Completeness  of  data  related  to  ITSS  was  95%  in  average.  Croatian  data  were  reported  according  to  the 
previous methodological standard BPM5; thus, since Croatia did not report any data according to the BPM6 for 
reference  year  2013,  its  percentage  of  completeness  is  considered  to  be  0%6.  Figure  2  and  Table  3  show  the 
percentages of data provided by the individual Member States for reference year 2013. Eleven Member States, 
namely  Czech  Republic,  Estonia,  Greece,  Ireland,  France,  Lithuania,  Luxembourg,  Hungary,  Netherlands, 
Poland and Slovenia, sent all data for services items and partners required by the Commission Regulation (EU) 
No  555/2012  of  22  June  2012  amending  Regulation  (EC)  No  184/2005.  Seven  of  the  remaining  countries 
reached  a  99%  of  completeness  rate  and  merely  3  countries  were  below  the  EU  average.  France,  Lithuania, 
Malta  and  Poland  attended  this  percentage  of  completeness  after  Eurostat's  requests  for  complementary 
transmissions. 

Figure 2:  Data availability for ITSS items, per country, for reference year 2013 compared to 
the EU average 

EU average 2013  
95% 

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

The most common omissions concerned the counterpart area D09 (extra EU not allocated) and R12 (Offshore 
financial centers). Moreover, there were cases where apparently zero values were reported as empty. Under the 
same perspective many countries reported empty the cells where the reference area equals the counterpart area. 
Although these cases were not taken into account for the calculation of the completeness percentages, Eurostat 
strongly encourages countries to fill in the relevant cells with zero instead of leaving them empty.  

(6) The BPM5 data reported by Croatia were converted by Eurostat into BPM6 in order to calculate the relevant EU aggregates. These converted data do not 

appear in the Eurostat reference database.  

3 

10 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
 
Table  3:  Data  availability 
year 2013 (%) 

for 

ITSS,  FDI 

flows  and 

stocks 

for 

reference  

3 

(*) Norway sent annual ITSS data merely according to the BPM5 methodology and thus its percentage of completeness is considered as 0%. 

11 

 
 
 
 
Foreign Direct Investment 

For reference period 2013 (due at t+9 months, end of September 2014), the EU average data availability was 
91% both for FDI flows and stocks. The completeness of the first delivery according to the BPM6 was lower 
than before when the data were reported according to the BPM5. 

The  activity  breakdown,  with  the  deadline  of  t+21  months,  was  only  requested  according  to  the  BPM5 
methodology, and is not considered in the current quality assessment. 

None of  the Member  State provided 100%  coverage  for  FDI flows. This was  mainly because of  the relatively 
lower completeness for FDI income (89%), and despite the complete data reported by 7 Member States for FDI 
transactions (other than income). 

Nine  Member  States  (Germany,  Estonia,  Greece,  Italy,  Lithuania,  the  Netherlands,  Slovenia,  Slovakia  and 
Sweden) reported full datasets for FDI stocks. 

Half of the Member Stats reported values different from zero for resident special purpose entities (SPEs), which 
indicates  that  defining  separately  the  SPEs  in  the  Data  Structure  Definition  may  have  encouraged  the  national 
compilers  to  identify  and  report  FDI  activities  by  such  entities.  For  comparison  in  the  past  only  6  countries 
submitted two parallel datasets (Community concept, incl. SPEs, and national concept, excl. SPEs). 

2013 Flows (t+9) 

The average availability for EU-28 stood at 91% (see Figure 3). Croatia did not transmit data according to the 
new  BPM6-based  data  structure.  France's  low  completeness  was  mainly  because  data  were  not  reported  for 
reverse  investment  for  equity  flows.  In  addition,  the  directional  principle  was  not  yet  applied  on  income 
components. Net inward flows data were missing for Bulgaria and Slovakia. 

Figure 3: Completeness - FDI flows for 2013 (t+9) 

EU average 2013  
91% 

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

3 

12 

 
 
 
 
 
 
A general problematic issue was the allocation of inward income on debt between fellows by residency of the 
UCP, where only 6 Member States reported figures. 

2013 Stocks (t+9) 

The  EU  overall  availability  was  91%  (see  Figure  4).  Similar  to  flows,  Croatia  did  not  transmit  stocks  data 
according to the new data structure. 

Belgium did not report outward equity stocks and inward equity stocks between fellows (UCP is resident), as 
well as aggregate partners in general. Similar to flows, France did not report data for reverse equity positions. 

Belgium and Malta did not allocate the inward stocks between fellows by residency of the UCP. 

Member  States  claiming  not being  concerned by  resident  SPEs  applied different  practices  –  some  transmitted 
zero  (0)  values  while  the  others  did  not  include  any  SPE  related  codes  in  their  data  transmission,  the  latter 
contributing further to incompleteness. 

Figure 4: Completeness - FDI stocks data availability – 2013 (t+9) 

EU average 2013  
91% 

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

3.1.2.  Confidentiality 

Due  to  national  dissemination  policies,  full  monthly  BOP  datasets  were  flagged  as  “non-publishable”  or 
“confidential”  by  7  Member  States.  For  Monthly  BOP  14  Member  States,  for  Quarterly  BOP  10  Member 
States, for Quarterly IIP eleven Member States, for ITSS nine Member States, and for FDI 10 Member States 
have made all their data available to users.  

For  Quarterly  BOP  for  17  EU  Member  States  the  share  of  free  cells  is  higher  than  90%  and  for  3  Member 
States higher than 80%, while for IIP for 18 EU Member States the share of free cells is higher than 90% and for 
2 Member States higher than 80%. On the other hand, following national confidentiality rules, Iceland flagged 
all BPM6 data  as  “confidential”,  while Spain  and  Italy extensively used "N" flags  (for non-publishable  data). 
For Spain the share of publishable cells extended in the first half of 2015.  The period covered by this quality 
report was characterized by its transitory nature due to the significant changes on methodological and sources 
issues, which had impact on confidentiality policy of some Member States. 

Table 4 provides information on the levels of disseminated data (all items) for monthly and quarterly BOP and 
IIP by country. 

For ITSS reference year 2013, for 12 Member States this share is higher than 90% and for 7 higher than 80%. 
For  6  Member  States,  namely  Spain,  Malta,  Netherlands,  Portugal,  Slovakia  and  the  United  Kingdom,  the 
number of annual data made available to the users is particularly low (below or equal to 7%). More specifically 

3 

13 

 
 
 
 
the  Netherlands,  Spain,  Portugal  and  Slovakia  extensively  flag  the  data  as  non-publishable  while  the  United 
Kingdom  and  Malta  as  confidential.  Finally,  it  is  worth  mentioning  that  some  countries  (Italy,  Sweden, 
Luxembourg and Portugal) that had originally flagged their data as non-publishable, agreed to remove (entirely 
or partially) their flags after the national publication of their data. 

Ten  Member  States  did  not  apply  any  confidentiality  flags  to  their  national  Foreign  Direct  Investment  data 
transmitted to Eurostat – Belgium, Bulgaria, Greece, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, the Netherlands, Poland 
and Slovenia. 

As expected, the new, more detailed data structure imposed, in general, more extensive confidentiality flagging 
of national data for 2013 than in previous years. 

With a few exceptions, the remaining Member States have flagged relatively small figures, and this is confirmed 
by the higher share of the free-for-publication data in the total value than in the total number of cells. 

For  flows  for  reference  year  2013,  the  above  listed  10  Member  States  made  all  figures  available  for 
dissemination, and twelve Member States reached 100% in value terms.  

Despite the larger scale, stocks data for 2013 were also flagged extensively, partially due to the newly requested 
data  for  resident  SPEs.  Whereas  eleven  Member  States  released  100%  of  their  2013  (t+9)  stocks  figures,  the 
number  is  bigger  (15  Member  States)  in  value  terms,  confirming  the  tendency  of  suppressing  the  smaller 
figures. 

The implementation of the new data standards also led to the extensive number of cells to be flagged as “non-
publishable”.  Two  Member  States  (Austria  and  Slovakia)  flagged  all  data  (as  required  by  the  Regulation)  as 
"non-publishable".  In  addition,  Spain,  Luxembourg  and  Portugal  made  less  than  30%  of  their  FDI  figures 
publicly available. Anyhow, the situation improves, more visibly for Spain, considering the value of the flagged 
cells. 

Data availability generally, although not in all cases, improves taking into account the values of the flagged cells 
in the total value of provided cells. Substantial differences can be observed between the share of flagged cells on 
total cells reported and the share of flagged values on the total value reported. For Quarterly BOP it was most 
visible for Spain, Luxembourg, Malta and the United Kingdom. This can be explained by the fact that countries 
generally flag cells with smaller values for more detailed breakdowns. Table 5 shows the confidentiality levels 
of disseminated data for ITSS and FDI for all items. 

3 

14 

 
 
 
Table 4: Share of unflagged cells (available to final users), all items 

3 

15 

 
 
 
 
 
Table 5: Share of unflagged cells (available to final users), all items for ITSS, FDI flows and 
stocks 

3 

A distinction is also made between flagging of main items and total flagging. Main items for monthly BOP 
include  goods,  services,  primary  income,  secondary  income,  capital  account  and  financial  account,  and  for 
quarterly  BOP  they  include  goods,  services,  compensation  of  employees,  direct  and  portfolio  investment 
income  on  equity  and  debt,  other  investment  income,  secondary  income,  capital  account,  direct  investment, 
portfolio investment and other investment (assets and liabilities), with partners Total World, EU 28, Extra-EU 
28,  Euro  Area  18  and  Extra-Euro  Area  18.  For  annual  ITSS,  the  main  items  are  total  services  (S), 
manufacturing services on physical inputs owned by others (SA), maintenance and repair services n.i.e. (SB), 
transport (SC), travel (SD), construction services (SE), insurance and pension services (SF), financial services 
(SG),  charges  for  the  use  of  intellectual  property  n.i.e.  (SH),  telecommunications,  computer  and  information 
services  (SI),  other  business  services  (SJ),  personal,  cultural  and  recreational  services  (SK),  and  government 
goods  and  services n.i.e.  (SL) with partners  Total World  (W1),  EU28 (B5),  Extra-EU  28 (D5),  Euro  Area 18 
(I7),  Extra-Euro  Area  18  (J7),  Switzerland,  Russia,  the  USA,  Canada,  Brazil,  Japan,  India,  China  and  Hong 
Kong.  For  FDI,  main  items  are  net  outward/inward  flows,  positions  and  direct  investment  income,  with  the 
same geographical breakdown as for ITSS. 

Looking only at main items (Tables 6 and 7), the availability of Quarterly BOP and ITSS data to the final users 
is, as could be expected, higher than for all items. For Quarterly BOP and Quarterly IIP improvement was most 
significant for Ireland, France, Luxembourg, Malta, Austria, Portugal and the United Kingdom. For ITSS, the 
availability of the main items reached 100% for 12 EU Member States, remaining low for the same countries 
that  exhibited  low  percentages  of  availability  in  all  service  items  as  well.  For  FDI,  calculating  the  share  of 
unflagged  data  for  the  main  items  does  not  generally  show  better  results  neither  in  number  nor  value  terms. 
Indeed, for many Member States the share of publicly available figures for main items is lower than the share 
for all items. 

16 

 
 
 
 
Table 6: Share of unflagged cells (available to final users), main items 

3 

Table 7: Share of unflagged cells (available to final users), Main items for ITSS, FDI flows and 
stocks

17 

 
 
 
 
 
4.  Accuracy 

Accuracy  refers  to  the  closeness  of  estimates  to  the  unknown  true  values.  In  the  BOP,  ITSS  and  FDI  quality 
report this component of quality is measured looking at the stability of the data that can be assessed looking at 
the size of the revisions. 

4.1.  Stability 

For Monthly and Quarterly BOP Table 8, Table 9 and Table 10 present values for mean revisions in the last 36 
months  (October  2011  –  September  2014)  and  14  quarters  (2011Q2-2014Q3)  and  Table  11  mean  values  for 
main  items  of  IIP.  Due  to  the  short  available  vintages  of  BPM6  data,  with  only  one  data  transmission  of 
quarterly  data,  the  analysis  provided  in  this  report  must  be  considered  as  very  preliminary.  Due  to  lack  of 
available vintages of annual ITSS and FDI, an analysis of revisions of annual data has not been included in the 
document. 

Mean values of revisions should be interpreted with caution as values might be abnormally high when the initial 
estimates are low. In particular, indicators of small economies are very sensitive due to the latter factor and in 
some cases show extreme values despite the fact that the absolute amounts of both first estimates and revisions 
are small.  

In the goods, services and secondary income accounts very small revisions were recorded on credit and debit 
side, for both Monthly and Quarterly BOP. The few exceptions in monthly BOP included Malta and Slovakia 
for  services,  and  Hungary,  Slovakia  and  Finland  for  secondary  income  where  revised  values  were,  however, 
quite low. 

The primary income account was more affected by revisions, especially due to direct investment income. For 
monthly  BOP  higher  values  were  recorded  for  income  on  equity  for  Belgium,  Estonia  (credits)  and  Malta 
(debits), while for income on debt instruments for Belgium, Czech Republic (credits) and Malta (credits). 

Mean values of revisions are generally higher for financial account items than for current account items, being 
significant for direct investment assets and liabilities (Belgium, Ireland, France, Lithuania, Austria, Sweden and 
the  United  Kingdom),  portfolio  investment  liabilities  (Malta  and  the  United  Kingdom)  and  other  investments 
liabilities  (Belgium,  Estonia  and  the  United  Kingdom).  As  could  be  expected,  the  size  of  revisions  for  main 
international  investment  position  items  is  much  less  significant  than  in  BOP,  with  the  most  substantial  mean 
values of revisions recorded for Malta for direct investment and financial derivatives.  

The  indicator  on  directional  reliability  was  introduced  for  the  first  time  in  this  round  of  quality  reporting.  It 
measures the reliability of Monthly BOP statistics analysing how often the first assessments correctly predicted 
an increase or decrease in the final value in comparison with the previous observation. The indicator represents 
the  percentage  of  cases  where  the  initial  series  correctly  predicts  the  month-to-month  changes  of  the  latest 
figures and equals 100% when the first and subsequent estimates of monthly BOP items have always the same 
sign. As shown in Table 12, the directional reliability was 100% for almost all Member States, except, for some 
items, for Estonia and the Netherlands, which revised their data more often than most of the other countries but 
still kept high values of directional reliability. 

18 

 
 
 
 
Table 8: Mean values of revisions for monthly bop (C: credits, D: debits) 

4 

19 

 
 
 
 
Table 9: Mean values of revisions for main items of current account (C: credits, D: debits) 

4 

20 

 
 
 
Table 10: Mean values of revisions for main items of financial account 

21 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 11: Mean values of revisions for main items of IIP 

22 

 
 
 
 
 
Table 12: Directional reliability 

23 

 
 
 
 
5.  Timeliness and punctuality 

The  Commission  Regulation  (EU)  No  555/2012  of  22  June  2012  amending  Regulation  (EC)  No  184/2005 
defines the timeliness and sets the deadlines for the data transmission to Eurostat. Punctuality is calculated as 
the  actual  date  of  data  delivery  minus  the  scheduled  date  of  transmission  to  Eurostat.  It  shows  how  many 
calendar  days  the  first  data  transmission  was  behind  (positive  value)  or  ahead  (negative  value)  of  the  legal 
deadline. 

5.1.  Punctuality 

Timeliness  of  Monthly  BOP,  Quarterly  BOP  and  Quarterly  IIP  kept  gradually  improving  from  the  first 
preliminary  BPM6  transmission  in  June  2014  to  the  last  analysed  datasets  with  deadlines  on  15  and  23 
December  2014.  Eurostat  would  like  to  thank  all  Member  States  for  sending  the  data  on  the  deadline  and  in 
many cases even before. Especially for monthly data and for reference periods that include quarterly revisions 
for longer periods and imply a longer time for processing, it is helpful and very much appreciated to receive the 
data before the deadline.  

For  International  Trade  in  Services  punctuality  of  data  transmission  sustained  a  satisfactory  level.  More 
specifically,  24  Member  States  sent  data  before  or  on  the  deadline  of  30  September  2014  (7  of  them  on  the 
deadline) while merely 3 countries sent data shortly after the deadline. Eurostat would like to thank the countries 
for  their  efforts  to  report  their  data  on  time,  taking  into  account  the  challenges  introduced  by  the  new 
methodology. Croatia did not send any data according to the BPM6. Nevertheless, it should also be mentioned 
that  additional  (corrected,  revised  or  previously  missing)  data  were  sent,  after  the  deadline  by  8  countries 
(Bulgaria, Finland, France, Ireland, Lithuania, Malta, Poland and Portugal). As each new set of data multiplies 
the  checks  that  Eurostat  has  to  perform  and  makes  the  process  of  calculating  the  EU  aggregates  lengthier, 
Eurostat  hopes  that,  in  the  future,  countries  will  intensify  their  efforts  to  send  complete  data  in  their  first 
transmissions in order to avoid complementary transmissions after the deadline. 

Finally,  Eurostat  would  like  to  thank  the  countries  that  sent  "test"  or  "pilot"  BPM6  datasets  early  before  the 
deadline (Austria, Belgium, Estonia, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Slovenia and Turkey). These datasets and 
the exchanges helped to test and improve the entire production system (from transmission to dissemination); and 
to anticipate some of the technical challenges imposed by the introduction of the new methodology. 

With  the  implementation  of  the  new  data  standards  for  reporting  annual  FDI,  the  punctuality  expectedly 
deteriorated  as  compared  to  previous  reporting  cycles.  15  Member  States  transmitted  data  according  to  the 
deadline, 30 September 2014, while 8 others did so within 3 days after it. The 4 remaining countries had a delay 
longer than a half-month. Croatia did not send any data according to the BPM6. 

The challenges related to the new, BPM6-based reporting were even more evident considering the large number 
of re-submissions deemed necessary due to the insufficient quality of the first transmission. In fact, more than 
one third of the countries were asked to do additional transmissions with corrected data due to inconsistencies 
irresolvable by Eurostat, which finally caused a delay in the EU aggregates compilation and publication. 

5 

24 

 
 
 
Table 13: Overview of punctuality for monthly BOP, quarterly BOP and Quarterly IIP  
(sum of 4 months/3 quarters) 

5 

Table 14: Overview of punctuality for annual ITSS and FDI data transmission 

Table 15: Punctuality of monthly BOP, Quarterly BOP and quarterly IIP 

25 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 16: Punctuality of annual ITSS and FDI  

5 

26 

 
 
 
 
 
6.  Comparability 

Comparability  refers  to  the  differences  that  can  be  observed  when  statistics  related  to  the  same  domain  are 
compared between geographical areas or over time. In the BOP, ITSS and FDI quality report this component of 
quality is measured by looking at asymmetries and the use of the FDI network aiming to reduce asymmetries in 
FDI. 

6.1  Asymmetries 

The  Figure  5  below  shows  total  Intra-EU  asymmetries,  based  on  Quarterly  BOP  figures  for  periods  from 
2007Q1 until 2015Q1. Asymmetries for total current account mainly reflect fluctuations in asymmetries in trade 
in  goods  having  both  positive  imbalances  (excess  of  recorded  credits  over  debits).  Asymmetries  for  services 
have been stable, also positive and relatively higher than for goods. For primary and secondary income signs of 
imbalances  have  been  changing;  being  quite  low  and  without  clear  pattern  for  primary  income  and  relatively 
higher and usually negative for secondary income. Current account asymmetries recorded a maximum value in 
2008Q1 (1.9% of the sum of credits and debits) and since then kept decreasing (with the lowest value in 2008Q4 
- 0.2% of sum of credits and debits). Starting from 2011 asymmetries were around 1% of sum of credits and 
debits,  with  some  growth  in  three  last  quarters  of  2014,  for  which  data  can  be  still,  however,  considered  as 
preliminary. Due to shorter available time series for the EU aggregates, it was not possible to prepare yet the 
similar analysis of the financial account data.  

The individual quality reports include tables dedicated to bilateral asymmetries, which are object of a separate 
analysis. 

6.2  FDI Network 

The BOP, ITSS and FDI quality report monitors the number of transactions and positions exchanged within the 
FDI  Network.  During  the  period  1  October  2013  -  30  September  2014  the  Member  States  exchanged 
information on a total of 105 FDI transactions, of which not even the half were already reconciled. However the 
number  of  reconciled  transactions  is  just  a  provisional  estimation  as  more  exact  figures  on  the  reconciliation 
process will be reported by the Member States at a later stage. 

The total value of the 105 transactions observed within the reference period of this Quality Reporting Exercise 
sums  up  to  about  EUR  430  billion.  The  total  number  of  exchanged  transactions  since  the  start  of  the  FDI 
Network in June 2009 until 30 September 2013 adds up to 596 transactions, representing a total amount of EUR 
2,224  billion.  Without  the  FDI  Network,  parts  of  these  transactions  could  have  been  recorded  in  one  country 
only, which could have affected the bilateral asymmetries in FDI significantly. 

The  Netherlands  and  Luxemburg  were  the  initiators  of  about  76%  of  the  total  number  of  FDI  Network 
exchanged transactions. These 2 countries plus Italy accounted for about 85% of all of the initiated transactions 
within  the  reference  period.  The  Netherlands,  Luxembourg,  the  United  Kingdom  and  Germany  were  also  the 
counterparts  for  almost  55%  of  the  exchanges  initiated  by  other  Member  States;  with  these  4  countries  plus 
Belgium, and Ireland representing almost 75% of the counterparts. 

27 

 
 
 
 
Figure 5: EU28 total asymmetries for main current and capital account items – quarterly balances in millions of euro 

60 000

50 000

40 000

30 000

20 000

10 000

-10 000

-20 000

-30 000

-40 000

-50 000

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

I
I
I
1
1
0
2

V

I
1
1
0
2

I
2
1
0
2

I
I
2
1
0
2

I
I
I
2
1
0
2

V

I
2
1
0
2

I
3
1
0
2

I
I
3
1
0
2

I
I
I
3
1
0
2

V

I
3
1
0
2

I
4
1
0
2

I
I
4
1
0
2

I
I
I
4
1
0
2

V

I
4
1
0
2

I
5
1
0
2

Current account

Goods

Services

Primary income

Secondary income

Capital account

6 

28 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
While  the  Netherlands,  Luxembourg  and  Belgium  were  main  users  of  the  FDI  Network  from  the  beginning, 
much  more  countries  now  are  actively  involved  in  the  FDI  Network.  Looking  at  both,  the  initiator  and 
counterpart role, apart from the 3 above mentioned countries now also the United Kingdom, Italy, Germany and 
Ireland play an important role within this bilateral exchange. 

Table 17: Number of transactions exchanged through the FDI Network, 
1 October 2013 – 30 September 2014 

6 

29 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
7.  Coherence 

Coherence  focuses  on  consistency  of  statistics  produced  for  different  purposes.  In  the  BOP,  ITSS  and  FDI 
quality  report  this  component  of  quality  is  measured  looking  at  the  internal  consistency  (respect  of  integrity 
rules, coherence between the quarterly and annual data, size of Errors and Omissions), and external consistency 
(coherence between BOP data and similar statistics belonging to different statistical frameworks); only external 
consistency related to BOP goods and international trade in goods statistics (ITGS) data (Intrastat and Extrastat) 
is monitored. 

7.1 

Internal consistency 

7.1.1.  Consistency with integrity rules 

Integrity rules state that the sum of the components should be equal to the aggregates. The integrity rules are 
defined  by  a  set  of  equations  included  in  the  BOP  Vademecum,  which  should  be  respected  in  the  datasets 
transmitted to Eurostat.  

Consistency is assessed as ‘excellent’ if no or one inconsistency was detected, and ‘good’ if from 2 to 5 small 
inconsistencies solvable by Eurostat were noticed. In case of resending of data (marked with an asterisk in the 
table) due to irresolvable inconsistencies, the last sending has been considered for assessment. 

The  overall  internal  consistency  improved  slightly.  Although  the  need  for  second  delivery  diminished  in 
comparison to the last reporting cycle, there were still cases where Eurostat was not able to fix the problems, so 
the national compilers were asked to resend corrected datasets. 

It is reminded that the existence of serious inconsistencies or missing data in the datasets have consequences on 
the  timeliness  of  Eurostat’s  data  treatment  and  dissemination.  Therefore,  Member  States  are  again  strongly 
encouraged to check the datasets against the integrity rules before transmission. IT tools were already developed 
in  Eurostat  and  have  been  made  available  to  the  FDI  and  ITSS  national  compilers  since  mid-2012  to  further 
facilitate these checks, such as the EDIT tool available according to the BPM6 methodology as of September 
2014. Eurostat strongly encourages Member States to use this tool which can help to significantly improve the 
quality of their annual ITSS and FDI datasets. 

Table 18: Consistency with integrity rules 

* resent data 

30 

 
 
 
 
7.1.2.  Consistency between quarterly and annual data 

In  principle,  when  annual  data  are  published,  quarterly  data  should  be  adjusted  accordingly.  Each  subsequent 
quarterly publication, which includes revisions of previous years, may introduce temporary discrepancies until 
the next delivery of annual data. Tables 19 and 20 monitor the progress made in aligning quarterly and annual 
data. 

International Trade in Services Statistics 

In  the  datasets  delivered  at  the  end  of  September  2014,  there  are  almost  no  discrepancies  for  quarterly  and 
annual ITSS data, except for the Netherlands. 

Table 19: Consistency between ITSS quarterly and annual data 

Foreign direct investment 

The situation remains similar to the previous quality assessment round. Almost all Member States register zero 
or  negligible  discrepancies  between  the  two  datasets.  For  the  presented  reference  periods,  some  higher  single 
discrepancies are observed for FDI flows assets for Estonia, Finland and Poland (both assets and liabilities). For 
FDI income, credits, discrepancies (with low absolute values) could be observed for Latvia and Slovakia. 

31 

 
 
 
 
Table 20: Consistency between FDI flows quarterly and annual for reference year 2013 

A possible reason for these inconsistencies is the delay in the update of the quarterly series following the annual 
surveys.  Therefore,  Member  States  are  strongly  encouraged  to  regularly  check  the  consistency  between  the 
quarterly and annual datasets, and to provide any revisions to the BOP team in Eurostat on a timely basis. 

7.1.3.  Consistency between monthly and quarterly data 

The monthly BOP is the initial assessment of the BOP figures. Therefore, full consistency between monthly and 
quarterly data is not required, as while quarterly data are requested on a full accruals basis, best estimates (e.g. 
partly  on  a  cash  basis)  are  accepted  for  the  monthly  BOP.  Table  21  and  Table  22  show  that,  with  only  few 
exceptions, consistency between monthly and quarterly figures was ensured by the Member States. 

32 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 21: Consistency between monthly and quarterly data – goods and services 

33 

 
 
 
 
Table 22: Consistency between monthly and quarterly data – primary and secondary income 

7.1.4.  Consistency between BOP and IIP data 

Table  23  presents  an  analysis  of  consistency between  BOP  financial  account transactions  and  IIP, which  was 
introduced for the first time in the 2015 quality report. Consistency was to be ensured on voluntary basis, as data 
for  other  changes  in  the  volume  of  assets/liabilities  are  not  required  by  the  Commission  Regulation  (EU)  No 
555/2012 of 22 June 2012 amending Regulation (EC) No 184/2005, and for non-Euro Area countries also data 
for revaluations due to exchange rate changes and other price changes are to be provided on a voluntary basis. 
Revaluations were provided by 21 Member States, while 2 countries (Belgium and Austria) sent these data only 
after pre-filling of the quality reports. For assets, consistent data were transmitted for Czech Republic, Germany, 
Estonia, Latvia and Hungary while for liabilities for the Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Estonia, Greece, 
Latvia,  Hungary  and Portugal.  Data  for  financial  derivatives  are requested  for  BOP  only  on net  basis and  for 
assets and liabilities only for IIP; therefore full reconciliation of this item was not possible. 

34 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 23: Consistency between BOP and IIP data unexplained changes  
(in millions of national currency) 

35 

 
 
 
 
7.1.5.  Errors and omissions 

Errors and Omissions (E&O) is the residual BOP item, which in principle should be equal to zero. Thus, E&O is 
expected to be relatively small and not persistently positive or negative in the long run. E&O tend to be very 
volatile, in order to get an idea about its tendency, the Average Relative Error, ARE(EO) is calculated for each 
country. Errors and omissions can be caused by entries in current, capital and, increasingly frequently, financial 
account. Due to the lack of available data on gross financial flows the analysis below has been limited to the 
relation to the current account transactions, despite that financial flows are generally bigger in most EU Member 
States  than  current account  transactions.  It  is important  to note  also  that  errors  and omissions  in  the  financial 
account of the balance of payments do not imply necessarily errors and omissions in international investment 
position statistics. Table 24 shows ARE(EO) in three different periods: 2009-2011, 2010-2012 and 2011-2013. 

The indicator ARE (EO) is defined as follows:  

Where  EOt  are  errors  and  omissions  in  reference  quarter  t,  N  =  is  the  number  of  the  periods  analyzed  -  12 

quarterly observations during 3 years), 

is the current account (BOP item CA) in reference quarter t, 

accounting  entry  -  credit,  partner  World,  and 
entry debit, partner World. 

  =  current  account  in  reference  quarter  t,  accounting 

Significant  efforts  have  been  made  in  recent  years  by  EU  Member  States  to  reduce  the  size  of  error  and 
omissions  and,  as  values  of  the  median  and  of  quartiles  show,  the  situation  improved  compared  with  the  last 
quality report according to the BPM5. Finland, Sweden and the United Kingdom have been EU Member States 
with  the  highest  values  of  the  ARE(EO)  indicator.  While  Finland  and  Sweden  recorded  values  lower  than 
calculated under the BPM5, the figures increase for the United Kingdom. The indicator had results above the 
median also for Denmark, Spain, Italy, Cyprus, Poland and Romania, as well as Iceland and Norway. On the 
other  hand  the  Average  Relative  Error  indicator  recorded  values  of  0%  or  1%  for  all  analyzed  periods  for 
Belgium, Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Hungary, Portugal and Slovenia. 

An  additional  indicator  shows  the  cumulated  relative  sum  of  E&O  and  is  computed  for  each  year  as  the 
cumulated sum of errors and omissions in this reference year divided by the total current account (sum of credit 
and debit). This indicator assesses the persistency of the sign of errors and omissions, showing lower values for 
Member States for which E&O are changing signs, which was the case for all countries with higher values of 
errors and omissions. Table 25 present values of the indicator for years 2011 - 2013. 

36 

1,WCtCA1,WDtCANtWDWCttCAtCAEONEOARE1112/,,.1)( 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 24: Average Relative Error 

37 

 
 
 
 
Table 25: Cumulative relative errors and omissions 

7.2.  External consistency 

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

Only external consistency related to BOP goods and ITGS data (Intrastat and Extrastat) is monitored as part of 
the BOP, ITSS and FDI quality report. 

7.2.1.  Overall consistency between ITGS and BOP 

Overall consistency between ITGS and BOP can be quickly assessed looking at the time series of differences 
between the values of Exports/Credits and Imports/Debits as available from the two statistical frameworks. The 
national BOP, ITSS and FDI quality reports included a graph and tables for each country. Compilers were asked 
to  provide  explanations  in  case  of  unstable  or  increasing  divergences.  When  comparing  the  two  datasets, 
differences  between  the  BOP  and  ITGS  should  be  taken  into  account,  which  can  be  classified  into  three 
categories. Differences in concepts and definitions are generated by the fact that the BOP requires a 'change of 
ownership'  in  order  to  record  a  transaction,  whereas  ITGS  record  physical  cross-border  movements  of  goods. 
Differing  treatment  of  specific  transactions  concern  e.g.  non-monetary  gold  that  changes  ownership  without 
being physically transported to the country of the new owner; this gold is not included in ITGS but is included 
in  the  BOP.  Transactions  linked  to  merchanting  are  included  only  in  BOP  goods,  as  goods  involved  in 

38 

 
 
 
 
transactions are not being present in the compiling economy and transactions linked to goods send abroad for 
processing  are  recorded  in  BOP  as  service  and  in  ITGS  as  goods.  Differences  in  valuation  occur  because 
imports/debits are valued free on board (f.o.b.) in the BOP, but are valued cost, insurance and freight (c.i.f.) in 
ITGS. 

While increasing divergences could be detected in a few countries, these divergences do not necessarily imply 
increasing quality problems since there may be valid methodological causes. The overall EU situation is similar 
compared with the last quality report according to the BPM5 and remains good, as can be seen from graph 6. 
Discrepancies remain higher for imports/debits than exports/credits mainly due to the difference in valuation – 
free  on board (f.o.b.)  in  the BOP  and  cost,  insurance and  freight  (c.i.f.)  for goods  imports  in ITGS.  Member 
States  provide  reconciliation  tables  between  BOP  and  ITGS  as  part  of  national  quality  reports,  where  all 
adjustments for transition from ITGS to BOP figures are explained in detail. 

Figure 6: Goods – difference between ITGS and BOP, EU28, partner Extra-EU28 

Exports minus
Credits
Imports minus
Debits

30 000

25 000

20 000

15 000

10 000

5 000

 0

-5 000

-10 000

1
Q
9
0
0
2

2
Q
9
0
0
2

3
Q
9
0
0
2

4
Q
9
0
0
2

1
Q
0
1
0
2

2
Q
0
1
0
2

3
Q
0
1
0
2

4
Q
0
1
0
2

1
Q
1
1
0
2

2
Q
1
1
0
2

3
Q
1
1
0
2

4
Q
1
1
0
2

1
Q
2
1
0
2

2
Q
2
1
0
2

3
Q
2
1
0
2

4
Q
2
1
0
2

1
Q
3
1
0
2

2
Q
3
1
0
2

3
Q
3
1
0
2

4
Q
3
1
0
2

1
Q
4
1
0
2

2
Q
4
1
0
2

3
Q
4
1
0
2

4
Q
4
1
0
2

1
Q
5
1
0
2

Exports and Imports (ITGS), Credits and Debits (BOP) – Source: Eurostat 

7.2.2.  Directional consistency  

The Directional Consistency indicator (Qc) assessing consistency between BOP and ITGS is defined 
as follows:  

Where, n11 is the number of cases where the positive trend indicated by the foreign trade statistics is confirmed 
by a positive trend in the BOP statistics, n22 is the number of cases where the negative trend indicated by the 
foreign  trade  statistics  is  confirmed  by  a  negative  trend  in  the  BOP  statistics  and  N  is the  number  of  periods 
analysed, that is 12 (quarterly data for 3 years). 

This coefficient (Qc), when multiplied by 100, equals 100% when the changes in the BOP series and the changes 
in  the  external  trade  statistics  follow  the  same  pattern;  it  is  equal  to  0%  when  there  is  a  total  dissociation  
(

). 

39 

02211nnNnnQC2211 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 26 illustrates Qc for three different periods: 2009-2011, 2010-2012 and 2011-2013. In some cases, there is 
a  perfect  consistency  (Qc  =100%)  between  ITGS  and  BOP.  Directional  consistency  slightly  deteriorated 
compared with the last quality report according to the BPM5. For exports 4 and for imports  3 Member States 
have 100% consistency for all three periods. Additionally, 7 countries have 100% consistency for at least one 
period for exports and 8 for imports. On average, consistency for exports and for imports is on the similar level. 

A limited number of countries show a weaker degree of consistency: the Netherlands, Hungary and Poland show 
low consistency for exports, while Greece, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom for imports. 

Table 26: BOP/ITGS directional consistency 

40 

 
 
 
 
 
8.  Conclusions 

The results of the first quality assessment after the introduction of the BPM6 meet the expectations. All Member 
States except for Croatia coped with the changed data requirements and methodology. As shown in Annex 2, the 
situation regarding BOP data is the most satisfactory from a quality point of view while improvements are most 
often needed in the area of FDI statistics. In terms of quality criteria, the overall results are as follows: 

Relevance 

Accuracy 

Timeliness and punctuality 

Comparability 

Coherence 

Data  completeness was  on  average 96% for  monthly  and quarterly  BOP, 
98% for quarterly IIP, 83% for quarterly revaluations, 95% for ITSS and 
91%  for  FDI  flows  and  stocks.  27  Member  States  satisfied  fully  the 
requirements for monthly BOP, while 1 country has not provided monthly 
BOP  datasets,  while  completeness  was  equal  to  or  over  95%  for  26  EU 
Member  States  for  quarterly  BOP  and  for  27  EU  Member  States  and  1 
EEA  country  for  quarterly  IIP  data.  Completeness  was  equal  to  or  over 
95% for 24 Member States for ITTS, for 23 Member States for FDI stocks 
and for 19 Member States for FDI flows. 

Data  availability  to  the  final  users  was  satisfactory,  with  95%  of  main 
items  publishable,  for  18  Member  States  for  monthly  BOP,  20  Member 
States for quarterly BOP, 22 Member States for quarterly IIP, 14 Member 
States for ITSS, 12 Member States and 2 EEA countries for FDI flows and 
14  Member  States  and  2  EEA  countries  for  FDI  stocks.  Some  Member 
States exceedingly flag their data as 'non-publishable' or as 'confidential'. 

In sharp contrast to the overall good results is the case of Croatia and, to a 
certain extent, of Iceland and Norway. 

The  analysis  of  revisions  in  this  report  must  be  considered  as  very 
preliminary in view of the short availability of BPM6 data vintages, with 
only one data transmission of quarterly data. 

For  monthly  and  quarterly  current  account  items,  small  revisions  were 
observed,  indicating  stable  estimates.  The  relative  magnitude  of  the 
revisions was larger for primary income and financial accounts items. The 
lower stability is mainly due to the difficulty, among others, in estimating 
reinvested earnings. The indicator on directional reliability shows a good 
predictability of the first assessments for monthly BOP. Due to a lack of 
available vintages of annual ITSS and FDI, revisions of annual data were 
not analysed in this quality assessment. 

The  timeliness  of  monthly  BOP,  quarterly  BOP  and  quarterly  IIP  kept 
gradually improving from the first preliminary BPM6 transmission in June 
2014 to the last analysed datasets with deadlines on 15 and 23 December 
2014.  For  International  Trade  in  Services,  24  Member  States  sent  data 
before  or  on  the  deadline  of  30  September  2014,  while  for  FDI,  23 
Member  States  and  Iceland  made  their  first  transmission  before/on  or 
within 3 days after the official deadline. 

The  asymmetries  for  the  current  account  components  have  improved 
during  the  reference  periods.  Due  to  shorter  available  time  series  for  the 
EU  aggregates,  it  was  not  possible  to  analyse  the  financial  account. 
Experience  in  the  European  FDI  Network  shows  that  data  exchange  can 
actually help to solve asymmetries, but several preconditions must be met 
first. 

The  overall  consistency  with  integrity  rules  improved  slightly.  However, 
there  were  still  cases  where  Eurostat  was  not  able  to  fix  the  detected 
problems, and national compilers had to resend corrected datasets. There 

41 

 
 
 
have been almost no discrepancies between the quarterly and annual ITSS 
data,  while  there  have  been  some  differences  for  FDI  flows  and  income. 
These inconsistencies can be normally explained by delays in the revision 
of quarterly series following the annual surveys. 

Significant  efforts  have  been  made  by  the  Member  States  to  reduce  the 
size  of  errors  and  omissions.  Average  Relative  Error  of  errors  and 
omissions (E&O) indicator recorded values equal to or higher than 5% for 
6 EU Member States and two EEA countries, while was 0% or 1% for all 
analysed periods for 8 Member States. The indicator on cumulated relative 
sum of E&O showed lower values of errors and omissions for all countries 
with higher values of errors and omissions. 

The  BOP/ITGS  directional  consistency  remains  high.  However,  few 
Members States have lower than the expected degree of consistency. 

The overall quality of data transmitted according to Regulation (EC) No 184/2005 and Commission Regulation 
(EU) 555/2012 is good. However, all Member States as well as Iceland and Norway need to address the existing 
deficiencies  while  bearing  in  mind  that  this  first  assessment  could  not  explore  all  the  dimensions  of  the  data 
quality.  Moreover,  the  sound  implementation  of  the  new  methodology  is  yet  to  be  analysed  and  assessed. 
Eurostat  in  cooperation  with  the  Member  States  has  already  started  such  an  analysis  within  the  remits  of  the 
Balance  of  Payments  Working  Group.  The  practices  for  recording  of  illegal  economic  activities,  goods  sent 
abroad  for  processing  and  non-monetary  gold  have  been  identified  so  far  as  areas  for  harmonisation  and 
improvement. Eurostat and the ECB are also conducting missions to Member States to address, where relevant, 
country-specific issues. Particular attention and support will be provided to Croatia.  

On  the  basis  of  the  current  quality  assessment,  Eurostat  recommends  to  the  Member  States  to  address  with 
priority the following areas: 

  Data  completeness  for  the  countries  where  progress  remains  to  be  made  in  order  to  achieve 

compliance with the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 184/2005, 

  The  application  of  the  confidentiality  rules  as  defined  in  Regulation  (EC)  No  223/2009  for  the 
countries which continue to flag the substantial share of the provided data as “confidential” or “non-
publishable”. This decreases the value of statistical information that is provided to users and does not 
allow an appropriate policy analysis based on European statistics, 

  Reduction  of  asymmetries  where  they  continue  to  persists.  Asymmetries  remain  the  issue  on  the 
European and global levels. Eurostat would like to encourage the increased use of FDI Network and the 
bilateral exercises to reconcile other BOP items, 

  Reduction of the size of errors and omissions. This size remains a substantial challenge for number of 
countries.  Eurostat  would  like  to  encourage  the  investigations  of  the  reasons  for  high  error  and 
omissions and efforts to eliminate them. 

42 

 
 
 
 
 
Annex 1: List of national institutions compiling BOP 

43 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 2: Overall quality assessment results 

 
 
 
 
 
 
(1) Considered as 'partially satisfied' when completeness < 95%. 
(2) Main items. Considered as 'partially satisfied' in cases when share of unflagged cells < 95%. 
(3) Considered as 'partially satisfied' in cases when the average relative error > 5% in all reference periods or average relative error > median in all reference periods. 
(4) Considered as 'partially satisfied' in cases when directional consistency indicator < EU-median in all reference periods either for exports/goods credits or for imports/goods debits. 
(5) Considered as 'partially satisfied' when completeness < 95%. 
(6) Main Items. Considered as 'partially satisfied' in cases when share of unflagged cells < 95%. 
(7) Member States of the Euro Area only. 

Legend: 
‘S’ – ’satisfied’ - quality criteria have been met within specified threshold, some minor improvements may still be needed in specific cases. 
‘PS’ - ’partially satisfied’ - quality criteria have not been fully met and substantial improvement is needed. 
‘NS’ – ‘not satisfied’ - quality criteria have not been met since no data have been available for the evaluation. 
‘n.a.’ – evaluation of the indicator has been not applicable for the specific country. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 3: List of abbreviations and codes 

Abbreviations 

BOP  
BPM 
FDI  
ITGS  
IIP 
ITSS  
MBOP 
QBOP 
SPE 
UCP 

Balance of Payments 
 Balance of Payments Manual of the International Monetary Fund 
Foreign Direct Investment 
International Trade in Goods Statistics 
International Investment Position 
International Trade in Services Statistics 
Monthly BOP 
Quarterly BOP 
Special Purpose Entity 
Ultimate Controlling Parent 

Geographical aggregates and country codes 

EEA 
EU28  
EU  
EA  
BE  
BG  
CZ  
DK  
DE  
EE  
IE  
EL  
ES  
FR  
HR  
IT  
CY  
LV  
LT  
LU  
HU  
MT  
NL  
AT  
PL  
PT  
RO  
SI  
SK  
FI  
SE  
UK  
IS  
NO  

European Economic Area 
European Union of 28 Member States 
European Union 
Euro Area 
Belgium 
Bulgaria 
Czech Republic 
Denmark 
Germany 
Estonia 
Ireland 
Greece 
Spain 
France 
Croatia 
Italy 
Cyprus 
Latvia 
Lithuania 
Luxembourg 
Hungary 
Malta 
Netherlands 
Austria 
Poland 
Portugal 
Romania 
Slovenia 
Slovakia 
Finland 
Sweden 
United Kingdom 
Iceland 
Norway 

46 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 4: Glossary 

Current account 

Goods 

Services 

Primary income 

The  current  account  shows  flows  of  goods,  services,  primary  and  secondary 
income between residents and non-residents. 
The goods component of BOP covers moveable goods for which a change of 
ownership occurs between residents and non-residents. 
Services are the result of a production activity that changes the conditions of 
the consuming units, or facilitates the exchange of products or financial assets. 
Services are not generally separate items over which ownership rights can be 
established and cannot generally be separated from their production. 
Primary  income  represents  the  return  that  accrues  to  institutional  units  for 
their  contribution  to  the production process,  or for  the  provision  of  financial 
assets  or  from  renting  natural  resources  to  other  institutional  units.  It 
comprises Compensation of employees, Investment income and Other primary 
income. 

Compensation of employees  Compensation  of  employees  is  recorded  when  the  employer  (the  producing 

Investment income 

Secondary income 

Capital account 

Financial account 

Direct investment 

Portfolio investment 

unit) and the employee are resident in different economies. 
Investment  income  is  derived  from  a  resident’s  ownership  of  an  external 
financial  asset  (credit)  and  symmetrically,  income  derived  from  a  non-
resident’s ownership of a domestic financial asset (debit). Investment income 
includes  income  on  equity  (dividends,  withdrawals  from  income  of  quasi-
corporations,  reinvested  earnings)  and  on  debt  (interest),  and  investment 
income  attributable  to  policyholders  in  insurance,  pension  schemes,  and 
standardised guarantee schemes. 
The secondary income account shows current transfers between residents and 
non-residents.  A  transfer  is  an  entry  that  corresponds  to  the  provision  of  a 
good, service, financial asset, or other non-produced asset by an institutional 
unit to another institutional unit where there is no corresponding return of an 
item of economic value. Current transfers consist of all transfers that are not 
capital transfers. 
The  capital  account  covers  the  acquisition/disposal  of  non-produced  non-
financial  assets  (natural  resources;  contracts,  leases  and  licenses;  marketing 
assets, e.g. brand names, trademark; goodwill) and capital transfers (transfers 
of ownership of fixed assets; transfers of funds linked to, or conditional upon, 
the  acquisition  or  disposal  of  fixed  assets;  the  cancellation,  without  any 
consideration being received in return, of liabilities by creditors). 
Financial  account  records  transactions  that  involve  financial  assets  and 
liabilities  that  have  taken  place  between  residents  and  non-residents.  The 
financial account shows transactions in net terms: net acquisitions of financial 
assets correspond to acquisitions of assets less reductions in assets. 
Direct  investment  is  associated  with  a  resident  in  one  economy  (direct 
investor)  having  control  or  a  significant  degree  of  influence  on  the 
management  of  an  enterprise  that  is  resident  in  another  economy  (direct 
investment  enterprise).  Following  the  international  standards,  the  direct  or 
indirect  ownership  of  10  %  or  more  of  the  voting  power  of  an  enterprise 
resident  in  one  economy  by  an  investor  resident  in  another  economy  is 
evidence of such a relationship. 
Portfolio  investment  includes  transactions  and  positions  involving  debt  or 
equity  securities,  other  than  those  included  in  direct  investment  or  reserve 
assets. Portfolio investment includes equity securities, investment fund shares 
and debt securities, unless they are categorised either as direct investment or 
as  reserve  assets.  Transactions  as  repurchase  agreements  and  securities 
lending are excluded from portfolio investment. 

47 

 
 
 
 
Financial derivatives and 
employee stock options 

Other investment 

International investment 
position 

Revaluations 

A  financial  derivative  contract  is  a  financial  instrument  that  is  linked  to 
another  specific  financial  instrument  or  indicator  or  commodity  and  through 
which specific financial risks (such as interest rate risk, foreign exchange risk, 
equity and commodity price risks, credit risk, and so on) can be traded in their 
own right in financial markets. Employee stock options are options to buy the 
equity  of  a  company  offered  to  employees  of  the  company  as  a  form  of 
remuneration. 
Other  investment  is  a  residual  category  that  includes  positions  and 
transactions  other  than  those  included  in  direct  investment,  portfolio 
investment, financial derivatives and employee stock options or reserve assets. 
To  the  extent  that  the  following  classes  of  financial  assets  and  liabilities  are 
not  included  under  direct  investment  or  reserve  assets,  other  investment 
includes:  (a)  Other  equity;  (b)  Currency  and  deposits;  (c)  Loans  (including 
use  of  IMF  credit  and  loans  from  the  IMF);  (d)  Insurance,  pension  and 
standardised  guarantee  schemes;  (e)  Trade  credit  and  advances;  (f)  Other 
accounts  receivable/payable;  and  (g)  SDR  allocations  (SDR  holdings  are 
included in reserve assets). 
International investment position shows, at the end of each quarter, the value 
of financial assets of residents of an economy that are claims on non-residents, 
and  the  liabilities  of  residents  of  an  economy  to  non-residents,  plus  gold 
bullion held as reserve assets. 
Revaluations  (holding  gains  or  losses)  on  an  asset  or  liability  arise  from 
changes  in  their  prices  and/or  exchange  rates.  Revaluations  are  further 
classified into those that are due to exchange rate changes and those that are 
due to other price changes. 

48