You may have to Search all our reviewed books and magazines, click the sign up button below to create a free account.
For about three decades until the Global Financial Crisis (GFC), Covered Interest Parity (CIP) appeared to hold quite closely—even as a broad macroeconomic relationship applying to daily or weekly data. Not only have CIP deviations significantly increased since the GFC, but potential macrofinancial drivers of the variation in CIP deviations have also become significant. The variation in CIP deviations seems to be associated with multiple factors, not only regulatory changes. Most of these do not display a uniform importance across currency pairs and time, and some are associated with possible temporary considerations (such as asynchronous monetary policy cycles).
This paper documents the features of a new database that focuses on changes in the intensity in the usage of several widely used prudential tools, taking into account both macro-prudential and micro-prudential objectives. The database coverage is broad, spanning 64 countries, and with quarterly data for the period 2000Q1 through 2014Q4. The five types of prudential instruments in the database are: capital buffers, interbank exposure limits, concentration limits, loan to value (LTV) ratio limits, and reserve requirements. A total of nine prudential tools are constructed since some useful further decompositions are presented, with capital buffers divided into four subindices: general capital r...
Using a recent IMF survey and expanding on previous studies, we document the use of macroprudential policies for 119 countries over the 2000-13 period, covering many instruments. Emerging economies use macroprudential policies most frequently, especially foreign exchange related ones, while advanced countries use borrower-based policies more. Usage is generally associated with lower growth in credit, notably in household credit. Effects are less in financially more developed and open economies, however, and usage comes with greater cross-border borrowing, suggesting some avoidance. And while macroprudential policies can help manage financial cycles, they work less well in busts.
Using a sample that covers more than 100 countries over the 2000-2017 period, we assess the impact of macroprudential policies on financial stability. In particular, we examine whether the activation of macroprudential policies is conducive to a lower incidence of systemic banking crises. Our empirical setup is designed to account for the potential direct and indirect effects that macroprudential policies can have on banking crises. We find that while macro-prudential policies exert a direct stabilizing effect, they also have an indirect destabilizing effect, which works through the depressing of economic growth. A Generalized Impulse Response Function analysis of a dynamic system composed of the probability of a banking crisis and economic growth reveals, however, that macroprudential policies have a positive net effect on financial stability (lower likelihood of systemic banking crises).
We analyze the joint impact of macroprudential and capital control measures on cross-border banking flows, while controlling for multidimensional aspects in lender-and-borrower-relationships (e.g., distance, cultural proximity, microprudential regulations). We uncover interesting spillover effects from both types of measures when applied either by lender or borrowing countries, with many of them most likely associated with circumvention or arbitrage incentives. While lender countries’ macroprudential policies reduce direct cross-border banking outflows, they are associated with larger outflows through local affiliates. Direct cross-border inflows are higher in borrower countries with more usage of macroprudential policies, and are linked to circumvention motives. In the case of capital controls, most spillovers seem to be present through local affiliates. We do not find evidence to support the idea that additional capital inflow controls could interact with macro-prudential policies to mitigate cross-border spillovers.
While Chinese banks have become the top cross-border lender to EMDEs, their expansion has slowed recently, both in terms of volume and market share. Also, the strong correlation of China’s bilateral trade and its banks’ cross-border lending has weakened, while during 2020-22 lending became more positively correlated with FDI. In our paper, we analyse these patterns and we explore the role of borrower risk variables and foreign policies. Our findings show that, although the shifting correlation from trade to FDI is a general EMDE phenomenon, China’s Belt and Road Initiative reinforces it. By contrast, borrowers that potentially benefit from geoeconomic fragmentation do not display stronger FDI-lending relationships. We also find that Chinese banks exhibit different levels of risk tolerance relative to other bank nationalities as borrower country risk variables are positively correlated with Chinese banks’ market shares, but not with their amounts of cross-border lending.
Global trade growth has slowed since 2012 relative both to its strong historical performance and to overall economic growth. This paper aims to quantify the role of weak economic growth and changes in its decomposition in accounting for the slowdown in trade using a reduced form and a structural approach. Both analytical investigations suggest that the overall weakness in economic activity, particularly investment, has been the primary restraint on trade growth, accounting for over 80 percent of the decline in the growth of the volume of goods trade between 2012–16 and 2003–07. However, other factors are also weighing on trade in recent years, especially in emerging market and developing economies, as evidenced by the non-negligible role attributed to trade costs by the structural approach.
Post-crisis dynamics show a shrinkage in the overall amount of crossborder bank lending, which has been interpreted in the literature as a retreat in financial globalization. In this paper, we argue that aggregate figures are not sufficient to support such a claim in terms of the overall structure of the global banking network. Based on a systematic approach to measuring, mapping and analyzing financial interconnectedness among countries using network theory, we show that, despite the decline in aggregate lending volumes, the structure of the network has developed increased connections in some dimensions. Some parts of the network are currently more interlinked regionally than before the cri...
We analyze the joint impact of macroprudential and capital control measures on cross-border banking flows, while controlling for multidimensional aspects in lender-and-borrower-relationships (e.g., distance, cultural proximity, microprudential regulations). We uncover interesting spillover effects from both types of measures when applied either by lender or borrowing countries, with many of them most likely associated with circumvention or arbitrage incentives. While lender countries’ macroprudential policies reduce direct cross-border banking outflows, they are associated with larger outflows through local affiliates. Direct cross-border inflows are higher in borrower countries with more usage of macroprudential policies, and are linked to circumvention motives. In the case of capital controls, most spillovers seem to be present through local affiliates. We do not find evidence to support the idea that additional capital inflow controls could interact with macro-prudential policies to mitigate cross-border spillovers.
The rapid growth of crypto assets raises important questions about their cross-border usage. To gain a better understanding of cross-border Bitcoin flows, we use raw data covering both on-chain (on the Bitcoin blockchain) and off-chain (outside the Bitcoin blockchain) transactions globally. We provide a detailed description of available methodologies and datasets, and discuss the crucial assumptions behind the quantification of cross-border flows. We then present novel stylized facts about Bitcoin cross-border flows and study their global and domestic drivers. Bitcoin cross-border flows respond differently than capital flows to traditional drivers of capital flows, and differences appear between on-chain and off-chain Bitcoin cross-border flows. Off-chain cross-border flows seem correlated with incentives to avoid capital flow restrictions.