## Impact of Fintech on Macroeconomic Statistics

## Source details

**Canonical URL:** [Impact of Fintech on Macroeconomic Statistics](https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/data/statistics/bpm6/approved-guidance-notes/f7-impact-of-fintech-on-macroeconomic-statistics.pdf)

## Other formats

- [Markdown version](/-/media/files/data/statistics/bpm6/approved-guidance-notes/f7-impact-of-fintech-on-macroeconomic-statistics.pdf.md)
- [Structured JSON version](/-/media/files/data/statistics/bpm6/approved-guidance-notes/f7-impact-of-fintech-on-macroeconomic-statistics.pdf.json)

---

### Background and definition
- The Guidance Note (GN) uses the Financial Stability Board (FSB) definition: “technology-enabled innovation in financial services that could result in new business models, applications, processes, or products with an associated material effect on the provision of financial services.”
- The GN frames fintech within existing conceptual frameworks: 2008 SNA and BPM6 implicitly cover many fintech innovations (new entities, instruments, technological processes) but do not explicitly reference the term “fintech”.
- The GN emphasizes that statistical classifications cannot be determined solely by current notions of innovation because technologies evolve rapidly.

### Need for updated guidance and coordination
- The GN calls for the international statistical framework to take fintech developments into account and stresses flexibility in methodological guidance given rapid change.
- Coordination is required among multiple workstreams updating the 2008 SNA and BPM6, including:
  - GN B.14 “Treatment of Digital Economy” (valuation of data and free products).
  - Financial and Payments Systems Task Team (FITT) work on subsector definitions (FITT GN F.1) and on non-bank financial intermediation (FITT GN F.6).
  - AEG Task Team on Digitalization (DZTT) work on digital supply and use tables, artificial intelligence, and recording/valuation of data and free products.
  - Joint FITT/DZTT GN F.18 “The Recording of Crypto Assets in Macroeconomic Statistics” for crypto assets and CBDCs.
- Fintech is identified as a key data gap to be addressed in the planned new G-20 Data Gaps Initiative.

### Institutional units, sectorization, and residence
- Characterization of fintech entities:
  - Fintech companies provide financial services/products enabled by technological innovations and include entities that provide underlying digital technology; they range from small start-ups to large technology firms (“big techs”).
  - Traditional depository corporations that deploy new technological solutions are generally not considered “fintech companies.”
- Sector classification principles:
  - Fintech activities cut across sectors/subsectors and should be classified within institutional sectors corresponding to economic activities.
  - 2008 SNA, BPM6, and MFSMCG classify financial institutions other than deposit-taking institutions in “other financial corporations” (OFCs), into which many fintech companies will fall.
  - Some fintech providers may be classified as nonfinancial corporations (NFCs) if provision of financial services is not their main function.
- Subsector treatment and feasibility:
  - Introducing a new subsector “Fintech” in updated manuals is considered not feasible.
  - An “of which” institutional subsector classification could be introduced to identify fintech companies where needed.
  - Separation of fintech institutions is challenging because fintech is often intertwined with traditional financial services and may become embedded.
  - The Task Team on International Standard Industrial Classification (TT-ISIC) is considering a proposal to classify fintech-related activities in Section K – Financial Services; institutional sector breakdowns could be revisited based on outcomes.
- Residence and cross-border compilation challenges:
  - The concept of residence remains: fintech entities are residents where they have their center of predominant economic interest.
  - New technologies create compilation challenges:
    - Large-scale use of electronic-money (e-money) for cross-border payments can challenge residency-based compilation when compilers lack access to issuers in other jurisdictions.
    - Smart contracts in decentralized finance (DeFi) transactions or crypto assets without a legal issuer can complicate identification of residency.
  - Where DeFi arrangements permit identification of the economic territory under whose laws an entity is incorporated or registered, existing residency concepts for corporations with little or no physical presence apply; where incorporation/registration or legal domicile is unknown or no legal issuer exists, attributing residency is challenging.
  - Compilation guides for the next editions of BPM and SNA should address these compilation issues.

### Examples of fintech services and statistical treatment
- Payments services and e-money:
  - Key fintech-enabled payment products: electronic money (e-money), digital currencies (e.g., CBDCs), and other crypto assets.
  - E-money (MFSMCG paragraphs 4.38–4.41) is a payment instrument with monetary value electronically stored on a physical device or remotely and represents a claim on the issuer.
    - To be classified as e-money, the instrument must represent general purchasing power (usable for direct payments to a variety of other entities).
    - E-money usable for direct payments to third parties is statistically treated as transferable deposits, consistent with MFSMCG recommendations (paragraph 4.38).
    - Examples: prepaid cards (stored value facilities, except those with limited-use design) and web-based e-money such as PayPal where monetary value is electronically stored.
  - Mobile money is considered a form of e-money accessible via a mobile phone or device to make direct payments to third parties (MFSMCG paragraph 4.93).
    - The IMF’s Financial Access Survey (FAS) defines mobile money as a pay-as-you-go digital medium of exchange and store of value using mobile money accounts, facilitated by a network of mobile money agents; it is offered by a mobile network operator (MNO) or an entity partnering with MNOs.
    - The GN references an IMF Working Paper (Shirono, et al. 2021) elaborating on statistical treatment of mobile money and implications for broad money under different mobile money business models using MFSMCG guidance.
  - GN recommendation: the next edition of the SNA and BPM should include explicit guidance on the treatment of “e-money” including “mobile money” consistent with the MFSMCG.
    - Per MFSMCG, e-money, including when used for cross-border payments, is classified as “deposits” rather than currency.
    - E-money that meets the definition of broad money should be included in broad money within transferable deposits.
- Deposits and lending:
  - Peer-to-Peer (P2P) lending companies and marketplace lending platforms (including DeFi) facilitate lending from individuals and other lenders, often unsecured, to unrelated individuals or small businesses, circumventing traditional intermediaries.
  - Under 2008 SNA and BPM6, all sectors can provide loans, including households.
  - Platforms that facilitate P2P lending but do not take ownership would, a priori, appear to be financial auxiliaries (BPM6, paragraph 4.79).
  - The GN notes that explicit reference to this activity in updated SNA and BPM would be useful, similar to MFS MCG paragraph 3.179.
- Insurance (InsurTech):
  - InsurTech refers to technologies and digital tools developed to optimize insurance companies’ performance and enables advanced analytics (e.g., better prediction of disasters or longevity using big-data).
  - “Smart contracts” can represent legal contracts in code executed on blockchains or distributed ledgers, complicating measurement of efficiency gains.
  - InsurTech activities are implicitly covered by existing statistical frameworks; the GN suggests including a brief section on “insurance-related fintech activities” in updated SNA and BPM without requiring new sectoral classification beyond existing insurance company classification under other financial corporations.
- Other financial services (capital raising, asset management, market provisioning):
  - Crowdfunding can be equity-based (recorded as investment in equity) or sponsorship/philanthropic (recorded as current transfers) under BPM6 and 2008 SNA methodology.
  - Platforms that facilitate crowdfunding would, a priori, appear to be financial auxiliaries, though classification depends on circumstances.
  - Asset management and market provisioning are covered in BPM6 and 2008 SNA without specific fintech references.
  - Big tech companies providing financial services remain classified as NFCs according to their main business characteristics; NFC parents with financial-subsidiary activities have subsidiaries classified according to main characteristics (e.g., OFCs).

### Main finding and recommended approach
- Main finding:
  - The GN finds that existing international statistical standards allow for proper treatment and recording of fintech companies and fintech-related activities (financial transactions and provision of services) in most cases.
- High-level recommendations (Core recommendations of the GN):
  - Recommendation 1: Classify fintech companies within existing institutional sectors/subsectors depending on economic objectives, functions, and behavior (see BPM6, paragraph 4.57 and subsection 3 in Chapter 4 of the 2008 SNA) without introducing a new sector “Fintech”. Depending on TT-ISIC outcomes, institutional sector breakdowns for fintech companies in the BPM and SNA could be revisited.
  - Recommendation 2: Countries with significant fintech activities could consider introducing an “of which” category from an institutional perspective to identify fintech companies; “of which” categories could be introduced at sector or sub-sector level reflecting country-specific needs. Compilers should be aware such categories could become irrelevant or change composition over time.
  - Recommendation 3: Financial instruments and services provided by fintech should be classified in existing categories of macroeconomic statistics (e.g., deposits, financial services) without introducing new financial instruments or services categories. New manuals/guides should elaborate on items requiring clarification (e.g., insurance-related fintech activities, peer-to-peer lending, crowdfunding).
  - Recommendation 4: The new edition of BPM and SNA should include explicit guidance on “e-money” including “mobile money” consistent with the MFSMCG, indicating that e-money usable for direct payments to third parties, including when used for cross-border payments, is to be classified as transferable deposits (for liabilities of deposit-taking corporations) and apply general rules for classification of liabilities of institutions other than deposit-taking corporations.
  - Recommendation 5: Compilation guides for the next edition of BPM and SNA should address compilation issues related to fintech and can use recommendations of other GNs (e.g., DZTT GNs on digital products/services) to provide guidance to compilers.
- Data collection and elaboration:
  - The GN does not recommend introducing separate sectors or instruments for fintech.
  - The GN proposes considering “of which” categories for fintech companies and potentially for instruments/services (e.g., CBDCs or crypto assets, financial services provided by fintech platforms) where countries need separate identification.
  - Targeted data collection, including surveys, should be conducted for specific fintech activities (e.g., credit extended by fintech companies, asset management by fintech) and designed flexibly to accommodate ongoing developments.
  - The GN recognizes the need to elaborate concepts to guide data compilers and users; in very specific cases (e.g., crypto assets), additional methodological guidance is required and is discussed in specific GNs such as F.18.

### Compilation challenges and practical guidance priorities
- Compilation challenges despite methodological adequacy:
  - Source data availability and practical issues, including:
    - Decomposing spending on fintech technologies between intermediate consumption, final consumption, and gross fixed capital formation.
    - Treating multifunctional applications (smartphone apps) that include fintech services.
  - Data compilers may require practical guidance on collecting data related to fintech services/products; compilation guides should address these issues.
- Example of targeted monitoring:
  - The FSB’s annual monitoring exercise on non-bank financial intermediation aims to collect data on fintech lending through additional questions if reported separately by relevant jurisdictions.
- Agreed priorities going forward:
  - Preserve existing institutional sector framework for classification; revisit sector breakdowns only as TT-ISIC discussion warrants.
  - Provide optional supplementary “of which” institutional categories for countries with significant fintech activity, with caution about temporal irrelevance and composition change.
  - Maintain existing financial instrument/service categories; develop manuals/guides to clarify statistical recording for specific fintech-enabled items.
  - Include explicit guidance on e-money/mobile money in new BPM/SNA editions consistent with MFSMCG, specifying classification as transferable deposits for liabilities of deposit-taking corporations and applying general liability classification rules for other institutions.
  - Ensure BPM7 Compilation Guide addresses fintech-related compilation issues and consider leveraging recommendations from other Guidance Notes and commercial data sources.

_ Guidance Note (GN) on the Impact of Fintech on Macroeconomic Statistics, IMF._

### SECTION I: THE ISSUE

### SECTION I: THE ISSUE

### Background and definition
- Fintech is defined by the Financial Stability Board (FSB) as “technology-enabled innovation in financial services that could result in new business models, applications, processes, or products with an associated material effect on the provision of financial services.”
- The guidance note (GN) discusses the impact of fintech on macroeconomic statistics based on the FSB definition.
- The conceptual frameworks of the System of National Accounts 2008 (2008 SNA) and the sixth edition of the Balance of Payments and International Investment Position Manual (BPM6) implicitly cover many fintech innovations (new entities, instruments, technological processes) but do not explicitly reference the term “fintech” or the relevant products and technologies.
- The GN acknowledges that statistical classifications cannot be determined solely by the concept of innovation today because technologies evolve rapidly and what is innovative now may be mainstream later.

### Need for updated international statistical guidance and coordination
- The international statistical framework needs to take fintech developments into account to properly capture them in financial and macroeconomic statistics.
- The GN aims to provide a holistic overview of fintech implications on macroeconomic statistics and stresses flexibility in methodological guidance given the rapidly changing fintech landscape.
- Coordination is needed among multiple workstreams in the update of the 2008 SNA and the BPM6:
  - GN B.14 “Treatment of Digital Economy” focuses on valuation of data and free products.
  - The Financial and Payments Systems Task Team (FITT) works on subsector definitions for financial corporations and financial instruments (FITT GN F.1) and on non-bank financial intermediation (FITT GN F.6).
  - The Advisory Expert Group (AEG) on National Accounts’ Task Team on Digitalization (DZTT) works on digital supply and use tables, artificial intelligence, and recording/valuation of data and free products.
  - Treatment of crypto assets and central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) is covered in a separate joint FITT/DZTT GN F.18 “The Recording of Crypto Assets in Macroeconomic Statistics”.
- Fintech is identified as a key data gap to be addressed in the planned new G-20 Data Gaps Initiative.

### Institutional units, sectorization, and residence
- Fintech companies:
  - Provide financial services/products enabled by technological innovations and entities that provide underlying digital technology.
  - Range from small start-ups to large technology firms (“big techs”).
  - Traditional depository corporations that deploy new technological solutions are generally not considered “fintech companies.”
- Sector classification principles:
  - Fintech activities cut across different sectors/subsectors and should be classified within institutional sectors corresponding to their economic activities.
  - The 2008 SNA, BPM6, and the Monetary and Financial Statistics Manual and Compilation Guide (MFSMCG) classify financial institutions other than deposit-taking institutions in the broad category of “other financial corporations” (OFCs), into which many fintech companies will fall.
  - Some fintech providers may be classified outside the financial sector (as nonfinancial corporations, NFCs) if provision of financial services is not their main function.
- Subsector treatment and feasibility:
  - Introducing an additional subsector for “fintech companies” in the updated manuals is considered not feasible.
  - An “of which” category could be introduced as an institutional subsector classification to identify fintech companies where needed.
  - Separation of fintech institutions may be challenging because fintech is often intertwined with traditional financial services and may become embedded, reducing usefulness of a separate subsector.
  - The Task Team on International Standard Industrial Classification (TT-ISIC) is considering a proposal to classify fintech-related activities in Section K – Financial Services; institutional sector breakdowns could be revisited depending on outcomes.
- Residence concept:
  - The concept of residence is in principle unaffected: fintech entities are residents where they have their center of predominant economic interest.
  - New technologies create additional compilation challenges for residency in cross-border contexts:
    - Large-scale use of electronic-money (e-money) for cross-border payments can challenge residency-based compilation because compilers may have limited access to issuers in other jurisdictions.
    - Smart contracts in decentralized finance (DeFi) transactions or crypto assets without a legal issuer can complicate identification of residency of entities involved.
  - Where DeFi arrangements allow identification of the economic territory under whose laws an entity is incorporated or registered, existing residency concepts for corporations with little or no physical presence apply; where incorporation/registration or legal domicile is unknown or no legal issuer exists, attributing residency is challenging.
  - Compilation guides for the next edition of BPM and SNA should address these compilation issues.

### Examples of fintech services and statistical treatment
- Payments services enabled by fintech:
  - Key fintech-enabled payment products: electronic money (e-money), digital currencies (e.g., CBDCs), and other crypto assets.
  - E-money (MFSMCG paragraphs 4.38–4.41) is a payment instrument with monetary value electronically stored on a physical device or remotely and represents a claim on the issuer.
    - To be classified as e-money, the instrument must represent general purchasing power (usable for direct payments to a variety of other entities).
    - E-money usable for direct payments to third parties is statistically treated as transferable deposits, consistent with MFSMCG recommendations (paragraph 4.38).
    - Examples include prepaid cards (stored value facilities, except those with limited-use design) and web-based e-money such as PayPal where monetary value is electronically stored.
  - Mobile money is considered a form of e-money accessible via a mobile phone or device to make direct payments to third parties (MFSMCG paragraph 4.93).
    - The IMF’s Financial Access Survey (FAS) defines mobile money as a pay-as-you-go digital medium of exchange and store of value using mobile money accounts, facilitated by a network of mobile money agents; it is offered by a mobile network operator (MNO) or an entity partnering with MNOs.
    - A recent IMF Working Paper (Shirono, et al. 2021) elaborates on statistical treatment of mobile money in monetary statistics and implications for broad money under different mobile money business models using MFSMCG guidance.
  - GN recommendation: the next edition of the SNA and BPM should include explicit guidance on the treatment of “e-money” including “mobile money” consistent with the MFSMCG.
    - Per MFSMCG, e-money, including when used for cross-border payments, is classified as “deposits” rather than currency.
    - E-money that meets the definition of broad money should be included in broad money within transferable deposits.
- Deposits and lending:
  - Peer-to-Peer (P2P) lending companies and marketplace lending platforms (including DeFi) facilitate lending from individuals and other lenders, often unsecured, to unrelated individuals or small businesses, circumventing traditional intermediaries.
  - Within 2008 SNA and BPM6, all sectors can provide loans, including households.
  - Platforms that facilitate P2P lending but do not take ownership would, a priori, appear to be financial auxiliaries (BPM6, paragraph 4.79).
  - The GN notes that explicit reference to this activity in updated SNA and BPM would be useful, similar to MFS MCG paragraph 3.179.
- Insurance (InsurTech):
  - InsurTech refers to technologies and digital tools developed to optimize insurance companies’ performance.
  - Fintech improves efficiency of (re)insurance business and enables advanced analytics (e.g., better prediction of disasters or longevity using big-data).
  - “Smart contracts” can represent legal contracts in code executed on blockchains or distributed ledgers, highlighting complexity of measuring efficiency gains.
  - InsurTech activities are implicitly covered by existing statistical frameworks; the GN suggests including a brief section on “insurance-related fintech activities” in updated SNA and BPM, without requiring new sectoral classification beyond existing insurance company classification under other financial corporations.
- Other financial services (capital raising, asset management, market provisioning):
  - Capital raising through crowdfunding may take equity-based forms (recorded as investment in equity) or sponsorship/philanthropic funding (recorded as current transfers) under BPM6 and 2008 SNA methodology.
  - Platforms that facilitate crowdfunding would, a priori, appear to be financial auxiliaries, though classification depends on circumstances.
  - Asset management and market provisioning are covered in BPM6 and 2008 SNA without specific fintech references.
  - Big tech companies providing financial services remain classified as NFCs according to their main business characteristics; NFC parents with financial-subsidiary activities have subsidiaries classified according to main characteristics (e.g., OFCs).

### Section II preview: outcomes summarized in the GN
- Main finding:
  - The GN finds that existing international statistical standards allow for proper treatment and recording of fintech companies and fintech-related activities (financial transactions and provision of services) in most cases.
- Recommendations and data collection:
  - The GN does not recommend introducing separate sectors or financial instruments for fintech.
  - The GN proposes considering an “of which” category for fintech companies within subsector classification if a country needs to separately identify them.
  - An “of which” category may also be considered for instruments or services classifications (e.g., for CBDCs or crypto assets, or financial services provided by fintech platforms) to separate fintech-related instruments and services.
  - Targeted data collection, including through surveys, should be conducted to meet data needs for specific fintech activities (e.g., credit extended by fintech companies, asset management by fintech).
    - Such targeted collections can be designed to meet specific policy and user needs and be modified flexibly to accommodate ongoing fintech developments.
  - The GN recognizes the need to elaborate on concepts to guide data compilers and users for appropriate classification; in very specific cases (e.g., crypto assets), additional methodological guidance is required and is discussed in specific GNs such as F.18 on recording of crypto assets.
- Compilation challenges and practical guidance:
  - Despite methodological adequacy, compilation challenges include source data availability and practical issues such as:
    - Decomposing spending on fintech technologies between intermediate consumption, final consumption, and gross fixed capital formation.
    - Treating applications (smartphone apps) with multiple uses that include fintech services.
  - Data compilers may require practical guidance on collecting data related to fintech services/products; compilation guides should address these practical issues.
  - Compilation guides could be prepared using outcomes of relevant GNs (e.g., F.18 on crypto assets, and DZTT GNs dealing with digital products/services).
- Example of targeted monitoring:
  - The FSB’s annual monitoring exercise on non-bank financial intermediation aims to collect data on fintech lending through additional questions if reported separately by relevant jurisdictions.

*Guidance note (GN) prepared for the update of the 2008 SNA and BPM6.*

### 21.      Based on the discussions above, this GN proposes the below recommendations for

### Impact of Fintech on Macroeconomic Statistics — Recommendations

### Core recommendations of the Guidance Note (GN)
- Recommendation 1: Fintech companies should be classified within the existing institutional sectors/subsectors depending on the economic objectives, functions, and behavior (see BPM6, paragraph 4.57 and subsection 3 in Chapter 4 of the 2008 SNA) without introducing a new sector “Fintech”. Depending on the results of the discussion by the TT-ISIC, institutional sector breakdowns for fintech companies in the BPM and SNA could be revisited.
- Recommendation 2: Depending on their statistical and analytical needs, countries with significant fintech activities could consider introducing an “of which” category from an institutional perspective (i.e., which institutions may be considered as fintech companies). “Of which” categories could be introduced at the sector level (e.g., other sectors in ESS) or the sub-sector level (e.g., other financial corporations) reflecting specific needs of the country. However, the compilers should be aware that such “of which” categories could become irrelevant in some years—or their composition could change over time—given the fast developments in technologies (e.g., fintech today could become a traditional way to provide services tomorrow).
- Recommendation 3: Financial instruments and services provided by fintech should be classified in the existing categories of macroeconomic statistics (e.g., deposits, financial services) without introducing new financial instruments or services categories. New manuals and guides should elaborate on the description and the statistical recording of items that require clarification (e.g., insurance-related fintech activities, peer-to-peer lending, other fintech enabled activities such as capital raising though crowdfunding).
- Recommendation 4: The new edition of BPM and SNA should include explicit guidance on “e-money” including “mobile money” consistent with the MFSMCG. to indicate that e-money that can be used for direct payments to third parties, including when used for cross-border payments, is to be classified as transferable deposits (for liabilities of deposit taking corporations) and apply the general rules for the classification of liabilities of institutions other than deposit taking corporations.
- Recommendation 5: Compilation guides for the next edition of BPM and SNA should address compilation issues related to fintech. Compilation guides can also use the recommendations of other GNs (e.g., the GNs by the DZTT on digital products/services) to provide guidance to compilers.

### Outcomes of discussions and member support
- FITT members’ support:
  - FITT members showed strong support to the recommendations of this GN, including classifying fintech companies within the existing institutional sectors without introducing a new “fintech sector”.
  - Members supported separate identification of fintech companies within supplementary “of which” categories for countries that have a strong need to identify them separately in the SNA and the BPM.
  - Members noted risks of fragmented data if “of which” categories are introduced at the subsector level, and underlined challenges in defining fintech in the statistical context because fintech today could become a traditional way of providing financial services tomorrow.
  - Members indicated compilation challenges because traditional surveys might not capture some fintech activities (e.g., those by households); these compilation challenges should be continuously discussed reflecting the latest developments in fintech.
  - One author suggested an international initiative to explore source data from commercial data providers; these issues could be further discussed and included in updated compilation guides.

- Joint Committee and AEG meeting outcomes:
  - Members of the IMF Committee on Balance of Payments Statistics and the Advisory Expert Group on National Accounts unanimously supported four recommendations of this GN, acknowledging that:
    - (i) fintech companies should be allocated within the existing institutional sectors/subsectors breakdown dependent on the economic objectives, functions, and behavior (Recommendation 1);
    - (ii) a supplementary “of which” categories be introduced from an institutional perspective, with a view to separately identifying fintech activities from a policy and financial stability perspective (Recommendation 2);
    - (iii) financial instruments and services provided by fintech should be classified in the existing categories of the macroeconomic statistics (e.g., deposits, financial services) without introducing new financial instruments or services categories (Recommendation 3);
    - (iv) BPM7 Compilation Guide should address compilation issues related to fintech (Recommendation 5).

- Treatment of e-money:
  - Members agreed with treating e-money used for direct payments to third parties—including for cross-border payments—as transferable deposits (Option 4) when they are liabilities of deposit-taking institutions.
  - For non-deposit taking institutions, there were mixed views and a consensus could not be reached; it was therefore decided to leave the current BPM6 and 2008 SNA general treatment (as either deposits or other instruments) unchanged.
  - Members noted overlaps/differences between digital money and electronic money, including different kinds of crypto assets, and observed that fintech innovations allow institutions other than traditional banks or other deposit taking institutions to issue money-like liabilities with a broader impact on money supply.

### Compilation and guidance priorities going forward
- Preserve existing institutional sector framework for classification, revisiting sector breakdowns only as TT-ISIC discussion results warrant.
- Provide optional supplementary “of which” institutional categories for countries with significant fintech activity, while cautioning compilers about potential temporal irrelevance and composition change.
- Maintain existing financial instrument/service categories; develop manuals/guides to clarify statistical recording for specific fintech-enabled items (e.g., insurance-related fintech, peer-to-peer lending, crowdfunding).
- Include explicit guidance on e-money/mobile money in the new BPM/SNA editions consistent with MFSMCG, specifying classification as transferable deposits for liabilities of deposit-taking corporations and applying general liability classification rules for other institutions.
- Ensure BPM7 Compilation Guide addresses fintech-related compilation issues and consider leveraging recommendations from other Guidance Notes for digital products/services and commercial data sources.

---


_Source: https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/data/statistics/bpm6/approved-guidance-notes/f7-impact-of-fintech-on-macroeconomic-statistics.pdf_