Conversation with Frans Ronsholt, Head of PEFA Secretariat

[Napodano]

Dear PFMBoarders,

it is a great honour for the Board to start up this section of online interviews with leading PFM practitioners by having a chat with Frans Ronsholt, Head of PEFA Secretariat.

I met Frans twice during his regular PEFA presentation rounds and I was always inspired by his dedication to perfecting this assessment tool. PEFA  has helped us practitioners in our assessment works of public finances, while in the process enhancing our dialogue with MoF partners in developing and transition countries.

If you are a registered member of the Board, you have the possibility to pose a question to Frans by making a post (REPLY button) to this topic. The time allotted for questions is  Monday 1st to Sunday 7th November 2010. After this period the interview will be closed and remain in the archive for future reference.

Dear Frans,

welcome to the board fire place. Let me start by asking you a general question for the (very) few of us PFMBoarders who are not yet familiar with PEFA

Q1: What does PEFA stand for and what is its purpose?

[Frans]

Dear Mauro and PFM Boarders.

Let me first congratulate you with the establishment of the PFM Board. It is a real pleasure to be able to communicate with you this way. The group of PFM experts that work internationally is always spread all over the globe and difficult to reach through one medium, so the Board has an important function in that respect. But to get back to your question:

PEFA is an abbreviation of Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability. The motivation behind the PEFA Program, which was established in 2001, was to strengthen the ability of aid recipients and donors to assess and improve country public expenditure, procurement and financial accountability systems. PEFA was, thus, born out of a partnership between the World Bank, the European Commission, UK's Department for International Development (DFID), the Swiss State Secretariat for Economic Affairs, the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Royal Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). A Steering Committee, comprising members of these agencies, manages the Program and a Secretariat, located in Washington DC, implements the PEFA program activities.

The PEFA Program goal is to help improve government financial management systems. The Program has approached this goal by developing a tool to measure the strengths and weaknesses of a country’s public financial management (PFM) systems, and by promoting processes that enhance government ownership of PFM reforms and lead to stronger collaboration and coordination among the donor agencies that support the formulation and implementation of the reform programs. This is also known as the 'Strengthened Approach to Supporting PFM Reform'.

This entails, in the first stage, the undertaking of a detailed examination of the status of a country’s PFM systems. In line with the Strengthened Approach  this shoud be done as a joint effort using a commonly agreed assessment tool. For that purpose PEFA developed the PFM Performance Measurement Framework, known as the PEFA Framework. The initial assessment helps establish performance baselines while repeat assessments help in monitoring performance progress over time, all of which have the potential for making a significant positive impact on the formulation of reform programs as well as monitor the effectiveness of those reforms. The Secretariat provides objective guidance and expert advice on the application of the Framework to any interested party.

[Napodano]

Frans,

Thank you for the kind words on the Board. Dialogue is what we always say being important in our profession and this board can support it in a community-like manner, away from pressure and formality of assignments.

Q2: Since its first application in 2005 I believe, in how many countries the PEFA tool has been applied? From these assessments can we draw lessons/trends on the status of Public Financial Management in developing and transition countries?

[Osa]

Dear Frans,
I would like to introduce myself, I am Public Finance management Specialist at Aid Effectiveness Secretariat in Jakarta, Indonesia to support the Government of Indonesia which is The National Development Planning Agency ( Bappenas). Our objective is to make all grants received from Development Partners by the Indonesian Government more effective and efficient. This has been stipulated by The Paris Declaration and The Jakarta Commitment.

Question 3 : Last year  around 17 Line Ministries has been audited by the National Audit Board as receiving grants from the Development partners with "off treasury". This means that the line ministries directly receive grants without conducting registration and administration to the Ministry of Finance, as stated in the Guidelines on Accounting System on Foreign Grant, by MoF. What kind of chart do you think is necessary to smoothen this administration ? Usually we have to register all grants as "on budget - on treasury" in our state budget

Question 4 : How do you approach Development Partners to really conduct the process of aid as 'government driven', and not "donor driven" ? How do you separate this difference and what way should the government proceed to resolve this ? As you may know, many countries have different fiscal years ( such as JICA - Japan, or GTZ - Germany) which have sequences April-March or July-June, while the Indonesian Govt's fiscal year is January-December.

Thank you for attention.

Best regards,
Osa Hartoyo/ Mr.

[Napodano]

This is clarification for future questions to Frans by PFM Boarders.

Questions should be related to the PEFA program and assessment tools for PFM.
That said, I trust that Frans will answer to the two questions already made by Osa

[John Short]

Question 5: The PEFA scoring guidelines are evidence based and clear as are the differences between the scores of A, B, C and D.  However, sometimes I get the feeling that some of the users of PEFA have preconceived views on what the score should be based on their own sector work and as a result do not find the PEFA results  to be as acceptable as they should be.  This may be due to a lack of “drilling down” which reflects the high level nature of PEFA indicators as much as a lack of appreciation of what PEFA is trying to achieve.  Is this a common perception that you and the PEFA Secretariat may have had feedback on?

[Frans]

Reply to question #2

We have just finished the semi-annual stocktaking of PEFA assessments in October. It shows that the PEFA Framework has been applied in 119 countries - in some cases for multiple entities in one country when you include assessments done for sub-national government PFM systems. Some 45 assessments were 'repeat' assessments i.e. they assess the same level of government in a country for the second or third time. You can find the full list of country details on the PEFA website www.pefa.org.

So do these repeat assessments indicate improvements in the performance of PFM systems? We are not yet sure what they show. Before we are able to pronounce anything firm on that subject, it is necessary to look at how robust the tracking of change is between the initial (or baseline) assessment and the subsequent (repeat assessment). Are the ratings comparable in the sense that they are adequately evidenced, and are changes in ratings accompanied by explanations of what has happened between the two assessment years, so you are confident that the changes in indicator scores reflect actual changes in how a particularly aspect of the PFM system is managed - as opposed to being subject to differences in interprepation by different assessors.

Another important issue for gauging the usefulness of the data set is to understand the drivers of repeat assessments. Why do some countries have frequent repeat assessments, whereas others have none (within the recommended 3-5 year interval)? And how does that affect the overall conclusions from the dataset (e.g. are repeat assessments undertaken mainly in countries that can show improvement and not in those that experience backsliding?) These issues are currently under investigation by a team at the PEFA Secretariat. So conclusions about trends in PFM system performance on a global scale will not be attempted until we have some firm conclusions on those two issues.

[Napodano]

I can see that you are cautious on drawing quick lessons on trends shown by the repeat assessment. I share your view  that this is correct approach as a 'nitty gritty' judgment could be detrimental to the future of PFM reform in some countries and in general for the credibility of the PEFA tool.

For more stats on the geograpichal distribution of PEFA assessments in the last year, PFM Boarders can read the PEFA October 10 Newsletter (attached here)

[Frans]

Let me try today to answer the questions by Osa (#3 and 4) and John (#5).
Osa asks how the government ensures that external funding are registered as 'on budget /on treasury'. Let me first emphasize that this is not a subject the PEFA program directly addresses, so it is my personal opinions expressed here rather than an institutional position. In my opinion it is largely for the government itself to ensure that this happens. Line agencies invariably like to receive external funds outside the centralized budget allocation and control systems (i.e. funds not counted as part of overall sector allocations) and donors like to have direct interaction with line agencies, rather than having to go through the ministry of finance, as they may be able to demonstrate direct contact with (and implicitly, influence on) sector decision makers and program managers. The central finance agencies may gain control of such arrangements if they control the negotiations and final approval of agreements with external funding agencies and if they control the opening of project bank accounts. So the government will need to ask itself if the ministry of finance has got the legal powers to exercise this control and if so, whether the ministry of finance effectively enforces those provisions.

On your other question, 'government driven' or 'donor driven' aid processes are two sides of the same coin. The government can only drive the aid process if it is willing to assign the required resources (staff time) to take the lead and if it is willing to forfeit certain aid allocations if the relevant donor(s) is unwilling to fit in with the government's agenda. If the government fails on those two counts, the aid processes easily become donor driven. Donors, on the other hand, may help the process by providing sufficient time at different stages of the process for the government to consider work done and take its decisions on priorities and allocations on that basis, often with political considerations as an important input. This is one reason why PEFA assessments do not include recommendations or action plans. Action plans (including revision of existing ones) are clearly expected to emerge from a PEFA based PFM assessment, but if they are already included in the assessment report, they have a tendency to be based only on technical considerations, and to address all areas where weaknesses are found. That approach to action plans often leads to too many recommendations/actions with insufficient consideration of the polital realities of reform - with the effect that the reform do not get implemented. It is important that the government has enough time to digest the description of current strengths and weaknesses and decide for itself what reform priorities it wants to set - based on what is seen by the government as the most urgent improvement needs, and what vested interests the government is willing and capable to confront at any one time.

And then to John's question (#5). Users' impression of PFM performance from the sectors they are familiar with, is a fact of life. One reason why this may affect the acceptability of the indicator ratings is that sector variance for a particular indicator rarely is described in the PEFA assessment report. This is clearly a weakness, because many of the PEFA indicators require that system performance is assessed at sector level (in a sample of sectors) before these performance assessments are combined into an overall indicator rating across government ministries and agencies. In some cases, PFM system are fragmented and each major component needs to be assessment separately e.g. (for PI-18) there may be different payroll systems in operation for education, health, security services and the remainder of public servants respectively. In other cases, user opinions on general PFM performance may be influenced by the sector's input mix e.g. the education sector performance becomes associated with how personnel is managed, whereas the transport sector may be associated with how large public works contracts are managed - even if the same type of system performs uniformly across government entities. The PEFA program is working on guidelines for how to strengthen the sampling of sectors as a basis for arriving at overall rating for the relevant indicators, and how to present the results as evidence for the ratings in the report, without significantly expanding the work of an assessment and the length of the report.

[petagny]

Question 6
How do you see PEFA assessments as informing the design of PFM reform programmes?

I had always thought that the assessment should be used to identify the important areas of concern. This would then be followed by more in-depth, 'drill-down' work in order to develop a coherent set of country-specific reforms. I was horrified recently to see an attempt to go straight from PEFA scores to reform design in a very mechanistic way. Admittedly this was only a prototype and I have not seen this approach put into practice.

It would be interesting to hear how the PEFA Secretariat sees the PEFA assessments being used in assisting the design of PFM reforms.

[Frans]

Response to question 6 from 'petagny'.

Going from the PEFA assessment to a new reform program/action plan (or revision of a existing one) is a complex business. Surely you do not want to see a simplistic use of PEFA indicators in that respect for many reasons. Let's take an example of a poor, fragile state coming out of civil war with practically no systems working. All indicators may score D, so a simplistic use of them would mean a reform program that addresses all parts of the system more or less simultaneously. At the same time, this is probably a government with the lowest capacity to implement reforms and with potentially limited political capital and important vested interest by different factions of the government, in other words a government that can only hope to make improvements in a few areas at a time, to be carefully selected, based on their crucial importance to the government's grip on public finances. 

There is a lot of work going on at the moment, trying to develop good practices/guidelines for that reform formulation process. It is an area in which many practitioners have experience, but where it is difficult to find elements of a common approach - and one that can be shown to have positive impact on reform implementation.

In my opinion, such an approach needs to include
- the relative importance of each of the areas covered by individual PEFA indicators (e.g. is oversight of risk from public corporations of importance?)
- technical  links between individual parts of the system (some things need to work before others can meaningfully be embarked on - 'get the basics right first')
- political priorities and opportunities (e.g. what are the government's most pressing problems relating to PFM systems; is there a new government with a new agenda?)
- political capital (how many vested interest is the government prepared to take on at any one time?)
- capacity to implement (what is the capacity at entry to implement reforms in a certain area, including the existence of individual politicians or managers who can drive the change?)
- a drill-down (as you mention) into the underlying causes for poor performance of systems in those (presumably few) major areas where reform is a priority
- organizing selected reform elements into stages (or platforms)
Adding an assessment of the socio-economic impact of reforming different parts of the system would be helpful, but I have not yet come across any workable way of doing such an analysis (e.g. what is the impact of reforming the procurement system compared to a reform of the external audit function)

Whilst some of the technical features of this list should be possible to develop into commonly accepted guidelines or tools, the political features will be much harder to address, as they do not easily lend themselves to joint work among stakeholders.

The summary assesment chapter of a PEFA assessment is meant to help provide a first input to such a process of identifying reforms. It should highlight linkages between indicators, relative importance of some PFM features depending on the structure of the public sector, the links of indicators to achieving the three main budgetary outcomes (which may themselves to subject to prioritization) and institutional constraints to reform planning and implementation. Those are important elements to start with, but far from enough to facilitate the completion of the reform formulation process.

As further development is work in progress, we will have to be patient for a while until a general set of guidelines emerge on how to conduct the process of moving from the diagnostic to the reform.

[Napodano]

Question no. 7

Your responses to questions no.2 and 6 about the impact of PEFA assessments (and specifically the repeat ones) on the PFM reform in a particular country are very interesting.

Could you mention two cases of PEFA assessement in two different countries that have produced different results (naming the countries would not be necessary).

[John Short]

Question no. 8

It would be interesting to carry out a historical PEFA for the two countries in These Isles to see whether the fault lines that have emerged in the PFM systems and processes would have been shown up by the assessment methodology.  The fiscal risk from regulation (or lack of it) may not be covered and given its significant impact on public finances, particularly on Ireland, may suggest that somehow the coverage of fiscal risk and its impact on PFM may need to be revisited in the methodology.

Are there any plans for OECD countries to carry out a PEFA Assessment in the future?  While I realise that the various countries’ Aid Agencies are the link with PEFA and the Department responsible for Finance would be the instigator of a PEFA in an OECD country, there may be a danger of “do as I say, rather than do as I do” accusation levelled at them.  Certainly, if one looks at the DFID website on its procurement, PI-10 (v) would not get a tick, and, as is discussed in the PFMBoard post Re PEFA Comments on PI-19 ( http://pfmboard.com/index.php?topic=113.0 ), overall UK Government procurement systems and processes may not score well.

[harnett]

Question 9

My recent work with 5 local councils in Sierra Leone has thrown up a few issues.

First of all, it appears that the more sophistacated PFM systems are not always appropriate at SN level, and although the SN government in question has a perfectly good system for the size of operation, it ends up with a low score.  As an example we could look at PI-18 Payroll Controls, dimension iv. Payroll Audits.  A SN entity with 12 staff does not actually need an audit as such.  The Chief Administrator simply calls all staff to the office on a regular basis.  To me this is an effective payroll control but only merits a C score, as it is not a formal audit.

Another issue concerns PI-12, dimension i, multi-year fiscal forecasts and is probably also an issue for many CGs.  It is often the case that the forecasts exist for 3 years (to satisfy MTEF demands) but often they are simply an empty shell, bearing no relation to a functioning MTEF - nevertheless, as the forecasts exist it is possible to score an A, even though they are not constructed or used in a robust manner.

Finally - and i'm sure this issue will be dealt with in greater detail when I submit the Sierra Leone SN PEFAs for your review - I feel there should be more guidance when a "not applicable" should be used or a "no score" or even a "D".  As an example, PI-24 - In-Year Budget Reports.  If they don't exist then logically a n/a should be given (the information was given so it's not a No score, and to merit a "D" the reports - implicitly - should exist).  Or do you advise that a No score should be given in that case.

[Frans]

Reply to question no. 7

Let's look at two countries which have had repeat assessments and where the reports are available on the internet - so no need to keep them anonymous - Mozambique and Afghanistan (see attachments below).

The repeat assessment for Mozambique provides a compelling story about how the baseline assessment was used to adjust the existing PFM reform program and the impact of those reforms at the repeat assessment stage a few years later. The baseline assessment in 2005/06 identified a number of new measures with a potential for short-term impact ‘quick wins’ - e.g. improved dissemination of information; changes to report formats - as well as new structural reforms with a potential impact over the medium to long-term - e.g. payroll management and external audit capacity. These measures were then incorporated into the reform action plan. The repeat assessment noted a significant number of improvement in indicator ratings. Many of those related to completion of reforms that had been initiated long before the PEFA baseline assessment i.e. they had nothing to do with the use of the baseline assessment. But the 2008 report also showed improvements in the areas where quick-wins had been identified by the baseline asessment and progress in payroll control, leading to improved rating of some aspects of indicator PI-18. Future repeat assessments should show if further progress is being made in payroll control and performance of the external audit function.

Afghanistan's repeat assessment report also showed improvements in a significant number of indicator ratings compared to the 2005 baseline. The MOF realized, however, that these improvements largely were a result of the externally recruited and funded experts who - as technical assistance personnel - operated substantial parts of the government's PFM functions. The challenge for the government, therefore, was seen not to identify further technical reforms, but to try to keep systems performance at the reasonably healthy performance level it had reached, while the external personnel is being gradually replaced by local capacity.

[Note for the reader: the interview with Frans continues on page 2. Click on page 2 at the left bottom of your screen]

[Frans]

Reply to question no. 8

John raises two issues in his question. First the issue is of OECD countries being the least frequent users of the PEFA Framework for assessment. This is a fact, and one the PEFA Secretariat would like to change but it is not an easy one handle, since our primary entry point in most OECD countries is the aid agency rather than the ministry of finance. Nevertheless, the application of the PEFA Framework in Norway and Switzerland show that system weaknesses are identified even in these very high income countries which have had a long and steady development of systems and institutions. Similar results emerged from the the testing of the Framework's exposure draft in 2004, where it was applied to the UK and Germany. If we add the US - where the budget for the current year has not yet been approved, large chunks of expenditure are funded through supplementary appropriations and the GAO declares large portions of expenditure as not auditable - it is obvious that most the OECD countries would show a number of weaknesses if the PEFA Framework was applied. The main message to developing countries would be that no government scores straight 'A's and that they should not expect to do so either, but that this does not mean that the govenment shouldn't strive to improve its systems, where weaknesses are found.

The other issue is whether the coverage of fiscal risk is sufficiently covered by the PEFA Framework. Maybe it isn't. But the problem with a broad tools that attempts to cover all aspects of PFM, is that there is a trade-off between comprehensiveness of coverage on the one hand and the complexity and resource demand in applying it on the other hand. As PEFA has been limited to 31 indicators (with a total of 74 dimensions) there are limits to how detailed an assessment it can provide. At the same time, we continuously learn from the use of the Framework and try to address issues as they are identified and to the extent they are seen as essential for a well-functioning tool, ref. issues of 'clarifications' to the Framework and three indicators currently under revision. Perhaps the issue of the government fiscal risk from lack of regulation may be addressed by the Framework sometime in the future.

[petagny]

Question 10 (Follow-on to the reply to question 8 ).

There was a recent post on the IMF PFM Blog about Brazil gaining more 'A' scores than Norway in its PEFA assessment. I read this with a pinch of salt (and to be honest I think that this is the way it was probably meant to be taken).

The Norway PEFA seems to me to indicate that the basic PEFA framework needs always to be accompanied with country-specific insights. While acknowledging genuine weaknesses, the (self-) assessment suggests that some of the lower scores for certain dimensions, effectiveness of internal audit for example, may reflect reasonable national institutional arrangements rather than weaknesses that might need to be corrected.

Where would you be more comfortable paying your taxes, Brazil or Norway? Or does this example go to reconfirm the problems with making inter-country comparisons?

[marybetley]

Question no.11

What is the PEFA Secretariat’s view on the benefits and challenges of sector PEFA assessments?  To what extent is the PEFA tool relevant to what is essentially a subset of PFM?

[Napodano]

PFMBoarders,

time is over to pose questions.
After Frans replies to the three remaining questions, the interview will be archived.

[Frans]

Reply to question no. 9

This is essentially three different questions. So let's take one at a time.

Appropriate PFM systems for SN government.
What is an appropriate sophistication level of a PFM system depends to some extent on the size of the government irrespective of whether this is a national government or a sub-national government. One can discuss how to measure the size of government - monetary turnover or number of employees etc - but that probably does not make a big difference. We see many examples of sub-national governments (e.g. states in Brazil, India, Nigeria and Ethiopia) which are far bigger than some national governments being assessed (e.g. Caribbean or Pacific Island states). The size of the government - and therefore the seriousness of certain low indicator ratings - should be considered when the Summary Assessment section in the report is drafted and during the subsequent use of the assessment for reform dialogue and fiscal risk considerations. That the PEFA Framework refers to certain standards for A ratings does not mean that it is equally important for all governments to adopt those exact standards. So in relation to a local government with just 12 employees, the real question is whether it makes sense to use a comprehensive tool like the PEFA Framework for such a small entity. Nevertheless, if for some reason it is decided to do so, it should be simple to assess if a proper control system is in place. Calling the staff on a regular basis - and possibly recording attendance in some minutes so that the chief administrator can provide evidence to auditors and superiors - seems a strong control tool to me. This situation is not very different from the PEFA Secretariat (six regular staff and a few part time consultants) where we also have control tools in place so that our supervisors and funding agencies can be assured that staff payments are well justified.

Multi-year fiscal forecasts PI-12(i)
If three year fiscal forecasts exist only as an emply shell - and I fully agree that this is often the case - then the score of this indicator dimension is unlikely to be higher than 'C'. A higher rating requires a rather sophisticated system of using the fiscal forecasts both within the year they are made and as a basis for the following years' budget preparation. This means that the first year estimates are used to set the budget ceiling for the upcoming budget preparation process and that the following year's update of the three year fiscal forecasts is using the 2nd and 3rd year estimates from the previous exercise as a starting point (adding an further year) and explains why the estimates for those two years may have been adjusted, with reference to growth, inflation revenue forecasts, policy changes etc. If this actually happens, the fiscal forecasts are far more than just an empty shell.

Not applicable or no score PI-24(i)
'Not applicable' may be used for an indicator if there is no reason why the indicator should be assessed. This typically happens for indicators such as D-1 (if there has been no GBS during recent years), PI-8 and PI-9(ii) (if there is no sub-national government that may be assessed separately), PI-9(i) if there are no public corporations or autonomous government agencies or PI-3 (if this is a sub-national entity with no local revenue generation). But this situation is not the case for PI-24 and most other indicators at the indicator rating level. If budget execution reports are not prepared, the indicator drops to a D rating, because the PI-24(ii) requirement for a D rating is "quarterly reports are either not prepared or ...". You can say that dimensions (i) and (iii) become not applicable when there are no reports, which means skipping them in the assessment, but that means that PI-24 is rated only on the basis of PI-24(ii) and therefore results in an overall D rating for the indicator. I admit that this could be more clearly expressed in the Framework and should be subject to an official 'Clarification'.

[Frans]

Reply to question no. 10

I can only agree with Petagny that the IMF PFM Blog post about Brazil should be taken with a grain of salt. In fact I found the post rather counterproductive, because it implies that you can compare countries by counting their respective numbers of A, B  etc scores i.e. simplistic aggregation, which the Secretarait is constantly warning against. Norway and Brazil are two very different places, so only careful read of the details of the reports - including the country context chapters - will lead to any meaningful comparison. What is important is whether the two countries learned something from the assessments and helped them set their respective priorities for improvements. In the case of Norway, the reaction from the Ministry of Finance was that the findings on procurement practices and follow-up on the findings of the external audit reports were taken note of and would be areas where the government wants to make improvements, whereas other low scores were not seen as priorities for various reasons. The merits of a more uniform implementation of internal audit systems across Norwegian MDAs may be subject to debate - a debate which may be facilitated by the report being publicly available.

Reply to question no. 11

First of all, there is no such thing as a 'PEFA sector assessment'. The PEFA Framework is simply not geared to making assessments for a sector. We have seen several attempts by various donors to undertake sector PFM assessments using an indicator based approach similar to the PEFA Framework, but those are initiatives by individual study teams and have no endorsement by the PEFA Program. So calling them PEFA secotr assessments is totally misleading. There is not even a common approach to such sector assessments emerging, as every study appears to have its own take on what should be assessed and how. The same is the case with several other indicator based assessments of specific PFM topics. In only one case has such a tool been developed in close collaboration with the PEFA Secretariat - namely the DeMPA tool (Debt Management Performance Assessment) and nobody calls that a PEFA debt assessment.

Nevertheless, there are a number of the PEFA indicators that require information on the performance in the MDAs or sectors (based on a sample) as a necessary input to arrive at a rating of performance across government. One thing that is missing in many - if not most - PEFA assessment reports is explanation of what sectors were investigated, what were the findings in each sector and how the assessors have used those findings to arrive at an overall performance rating for the government. More details in that respect would substantially improve understanding of sectoral variance to the benefit of those who work with specific sectors and to improve general quality of and trust in the reports' findings. The PEFA program is working on guidelines on this topic.

As this was the last question, I will close by saying thank you very much to Napodano for inviting me to this conversation and to the PFM Boarders for your many, highly relevant questions. I hope you have found the answers clear and helpful to your daily work as PFM professionals.

[Napodano]

With the last post from Frans, we conclude our conversation (the topic is now locked and archived)
This was a first for the Board and it came out very well, considering that the inteview was viewed by 174 persons.

My personal thanks go to Frans and all the PFM Boarders who posted questions.

The transcript of the interview with replies and answers in a sequence can be downloaded below