1. 22-Feb-19
Expert meeting on revisions policy for EDP/GFS Item 2 - Rationale for GFS/EDP expert meeting on revisions
Laura Wahrig – D4 Philippe de Rougemont – D1
3 March 2016

2. Purpose of the document
22-Feb-19
Purpose of the document
Recall the context CMFB and DMES task forces on revision
Recall existing ESS guidelines
Discuss the main issues to address
Basic issue
Draft questionnaire (question 1-5)
Broad results on these questions
3 March 2016

3. CMFB and DMES task forces on revision
22-Feb-19
CMFB and DMES task forces on revision
CMFB
"routine revisions"
Updated source data, maximum four years and current quarters
DMES
"benchmark revisions"
See next slide – every 5-7 years
Expert group: serve to prepare/consolidate a GFS/EDP input to these
Other revisions?
Errors?
3 March 2016

4. Benchmark revisions (1) All ESA tables are aligned in principle
22-Feb-19
Benchmark revisions
(1) All ESA tables are aligned in principle
although in practice this may not be fully achieved due to various deadlines for reporting ESA tables
(2) They cover a large time span
since 1995 obviously (+ from before although not necessarily since the first year of publication);
(3) All pending classification issues that have been resolved have been implemented; and
(4) Major changes in sources data or in compilation methods have been implemented and errors identified have been corrected.
Generally all simultaneously
3 March 2016

5. Existing ESS guidelines
22-Feb-19
Existing ESS guidelines
Discussed in NAWG in 2001/ 2003
In CMFB since 2009.
Benchmark revisions – every 5-7 years
Routine revisions – 4 years and current quarters, due to data sources
Errors?
New attempts at harmonisation?
Incomplete application of legislation?
Other revisions?
Consistency of time series?
3 March 2016

6. Fiscal data specificity
22-Feb-19
Fiscal data specificity
Key priority sector in NA balancing
High visibility
Enhanced EDP/GFS scrutiny
Request for clarifications
GFS reports
EDP mission
Reservation powers
Accounting to precise figures (million)
Bottom line: importance of "other revisions"
Routine revisions
Benchmark revisions
Other revisions
3 March 2016

7. 22-Feb-19
Main issues to discuss
3 March 2016

8. Main issue to discuss – ideal world
22-Feb-19
Main issue to discuss – ideal world
3 March 2016

9. Main issues to discuss - priorities
22-Feb-19
Main issues to discuss - priorities
Priority 1. Identified EDP modifications should be implemented without delay
(with flexibility agreed with Eurostat)
Priority 2. EDP and GFS should align
(with temporary simplification measures agreed with Eurostat)
Priority 3. Time series should be consistent
(with temporary break in time series agreed with Eurostat)
Consequence:
Either NA can update quickly
Or a difference between GFS/NA can arise
3 March 2016

10. In case a difference arises
22-Feb-19
In case a difference arises
We need a monitoring device
3 March 2016

11. Main results of the questionnaire Q1-Q5 – 25 answers
22-Feb-19
Main results of the questionnaire Q1-Q5 – 25 answers
EDP and GFS should align
3 March 2016

12. Main results of the questionnaire Q1-Q5
22-Feb-19
Main results of the questionnaire Q1-Q5
GFS time series should be consistent
3 March 2016

13. Main results of the questionnaire Q1-Q5
22-Feb-19
Main results of the questionnaire Q1-Q5
Can NA and GFS temporarily deviate?
3 March 2016

14. Main results of the questionnaire Q1-Q5
22-Feb-19
Main results of the questionnaire Q1-Q5
Can NA and GFS temporarily deviate?
3 March 2016

15. Main results of the questionnaire Q1-Q5
22-Feb-19
Main results of the questionnaire Q1-Q5
Monitoring table?
3 March 2016

16. Main results of the questionnaire Q1-Q5
22-Feb-19
Main results of the questionnaire Q1-Q5
Consistency with NA or accuracy of EDP/GFS?
3 March 2016

17. Some reflexions from Q1 answers
22-Feb-19
BE mostly (+SI) disagrees on EDP/GFS to be aligned – it would reduce the technical burden, but required by EU legislation
NL: GFS can deviate for large revisions (?)/0.1%
EE: deviations arises from requests for clarification
IE: deviations for years prior 1995.
FR: no answer to Q1/Q2 "we do use a GFS presentation"
Point of terminology:
GFS = table 2/9/11/25/27/28
UK: Need to give time for new rules MGDD. October only for implementation?
ES: harmonization of timetable; importance of taking into account the EDP request for clarification [(+GFS report request for change)].
LT: vintages
"Consistency": not merely B9 consistency (+ artificial D7 entry)
3 March 2016

18. Some reflexions from Q2 answers
22-Feb-19
BE: see Q1
NL: priority for past 4 years for substantial corrections
PT: GFS should be consistent with NA [which should be time consistent]
FR: (no answer) traditionally backcasting "very time consuming", carried on aggregates (=> problem of info).
IT: Difficult to retropolate; "motivated inconsistency can be managed"
Perhaps the issue differs between nonfinancial and financial accounts: other changes in volume of assets
3 March 2016

19. Some reflexions from Q3 answers
22-Feb-19
BE: GFS can deviate from NA "only if EDP and GFS cannot deviate"
CZ: costs and risks of maintaining two time series. Have 7 years of notification (?/"t+15 instead t+9")?; reputation risk
ES/FR: deviations permit adhering to code of practice on revisions for NA
UK: NA is more complex, less reactive
IE: updates NA once a year, in June, where GFS will agree
MT: vintage deviations GFS t+50 days, NA t+70 days
NL: EDP will deviate from GFS/NA for "substantial corrections"
AT: ESA table 2 delivery T+3
FI: GFS and NA integrated; but NA can be revised ad-hoc for errors
3 March 2016

20. Some reflexions from Q4 answers
22-Feb-19
ES: Impact in NA might not be directly measurable
IE: lots of work for 3 quarters of deviations; "national accounts produced independently to GFS"
FR: More aggregated table (e.g. "reclassification" preferred to "unit B")
AT: Cost/benefit
FI: Would need to be a lot bigger ("possible effect on GDP")
UK: Annual reconciliation on a few concepts only
Need for reassurance, checking mechanism
3 March 2016

21. Some reflexions from Q5 answers
22-Feb-19
BE: Prefer EDP to deviate from GFS, with a bridge table
CZ: Macroeconomic statistics should give a unique measure
EE: Consistency is ensured unless for urgent EDP changes
ES: Stability and growth pact
FR: Attached to time consistency of NA. Prefer less accuracy; although mostly an issue of harmonisation "within a set of plausible measurements"
IE: NA annual revisions in June
PL: Threshold effect (e.g. very small units)
FI: large impact on B9/debt, accuracy first
SE: One version of B9
3 March 2016