Category Archives: Capital Flows

The Retreat of Financial Globalization?

Eight years after the global crisis of 2008-09, its reverberations are still being felt. These include a slowdown in world trade and a reassessment of the advantages of globalization. Several recent papers deal with a decline in international capital flows, and suggest some reasons for why this may be occurring.

Matthieu Bussière and Julia Schmidt of the Banque de France and Natacha Valla of CEPII (Centre d’Etudes Prospectives et d’Informations Internationales) compare the record of the period since 2012 with the pre-crisis period and highlight four conclusions. First, the retrenchment of global capital flows that began during the crisis has persisted, with gross financial flows falling from about 10-15% of global GDP to approximately 5%. Second, this retrenchment has occurred primarily in the advanced economies. particularly in Europe. Third, net flows have fallen significantly, which is consistent with the fall in “global imbalances.” Fourth, there are striking differences in the adjustment of the various types of capital flows. Foreign direct investment has been very resilient, while capital flows in the category of “other investment”—mainly bank loans—have contracted substantially. Portfolio flows fall in between these two extremes, with portfolio equity recovering much more quickly than portfolio debt.

Similarly, Peter McQuade and Martin Schmitz of the European Central Bank investigate the decline in capital flows between the pre-crisis period of 2005-06 and the post-crisis period of 2013-14. They report that total inflows in the post-crisis period reached about 50% of their pre-crisis levels in the advanced economies and about 80% in emerging market economies. The decline is particularly notable in the EU countries, where inflows fell to only about 25% of their previous level. The steepest declines occurred in the capital flows gathered in the “other investment” category.

McQuade and Schmitz also investigate the characteristics of the countries that experienced larger contractions in capital flows in the post-crisis period. They report that inflows fell more in those countries with higher initial levels of private sector credit, public debt and net foreign liabilities. On the other hand, countries with lower GDP per capita experienced smaller declines, consistent with the observation that inflows have been curtailed more in the advanced economies. In the case of outflows, countries with higher GDP growth during the crisis and greater capital account openness were more likely to increase their holdings of foreign assets.

Both studies see an improvement in financial stability due to the larger role of FDI in capital flows. Changes in bank regulation may have contributed to the smaller role of bank loans in capital flows, as has the diminished economic performance of many advanced economies, particularly in the Eurozone. On the other hand, smaller capital flows may restrain economic growth.

While capital flows to emerging markets rebounded more quickly after the crisis than those to advanced economies, a closer examination by the IMF in its April 2016 World Economic Outlook of the period of 2010-2015 indicate signs of a slowdown towards the end of that period. Net flows in a sample of 45 emerging market economies fell from a weighted mean inflow of 3.7% of GDP in 2010 to an outflow of 1.2% during the period of 2014:IV – 2015:III. Net inflows were particularly weak in the third quarter of 2015. The slowdown reflected a combination of a decline in inflows and a rise in outflows across all categories of capital, with the decline in inflows more pronounced for debt-generating inflows than equity-like inflows. However, there was an increase in portfolio debt inflows in 2010-2012, which then declined.

The IMF’s economists sought to identify the drivers of the slowdown in capital flows to these countries. They identified a shrinking differential in real GDP growth between the emerging market economies and advanced economies as an important contributory factor to the decline. Country-specific factors influenced the change in inflows for individual countries, as economies with more flexible exchange rates recorded smaller declines.

In retrospect, the period of 1990-2007 represented an extraordinarily rapid rise in financial globalization, particularly in the advanced economies. The capital flows led to increased credit flows and asset bubbles in many countries, and culminated in an economic collapse of historic dimensions. The subsequent retrenchment of capital flows may be seen as a return to normalcy, and the financial and banking regulations–including capital account controls–enacted since the crisis as an attempt to provide stronger defenses against a recurrence of financial volatility. But the history of finance shows that new financial innovations are always on the horizon, and their risks only become apparent in hindsight.

Capital Flows and Financial Crises

Leave a reply

The impact of capital flows on the incidence of financial crises has been recognized since the Asian crisis of 1997-98. Inflows before the crisis contributed to the expansion of domestic credit and asset booms, while the liabilities they created escalated in value once central banks abandoned their exchange rate pegs and their currencies depreciated. More recently, evidence that foreign direct investment lowers the probability of financial crises has been reported. A new paper by Atish R. Ghosh and Mahvash S. Qureshi of the IMF investigates how the different types of capital flows affect financial stability.

The authors point out that capital inflows can be problematic when they lead to appreciations of real exchange rates and increases in domestic spending. The empirical evidence they report from a sample of 53 emerging market economies over the period of 1980-2013 does show linkages between capital inflows on the one hand and both GDP growth and overvaluation of the real exchange rate. But when the authors distinguish among the different types of capital inflows, they find that FDI, which has the largest impact on GDP growth and the output gap, is not significantly associated with overvaluation. Net portfolio and other investment flows, on the other hand, do lead to currency overvaluation as well as output expansion.

Ghosh and Qureshi investigated next the impact of capital flows on financial stability. Capital inflows are associated with higher domestic credit growth, bank leverage and foreign currency-denominated lending. When they looked at the composition of these capital flows, however, FDI flows were not linked to any of these vulnerabilities, whereas portfolio—and in particular debt—flows were.

Ghosh and Quershi also assessed the impact of capital flows on the probability of financial crises, and their results indicate that net financial flows raise the probability of both banking and currency crises. When real exchange rate overvaluation and domestic credit growth are included in the estimation equations, the significance of the capital flow variable falls, indicating that these are the principal transmission mechanisms. But when the capital flows are disaggregated, the “other investment” component of the inflows are significantly linked to the increased probabilities of both forms of financial crises, whereas FDI flows decrease banking crises.

The role of FDI in actually reducing the probability of a crisis (a result also found here and here) merits further investigation. The stability of FDI as opposed to other, more liquid forms of capital is relevant, but most likely not the only factor. Part of the explanation may lie in the inherent risk-sharing nature of FDI; a local firm with a foreign partner may be able to withstand financial volatility better than a firm without any external resources. Mihir Desai and C. Fritz Foley of Harvard and Kristin J. Forbes of MIT (working paper here), for example, compared the response of affiliates of U.S. multinationals and local firms in the tradable sectors of emerging market countries to currency depreciations, and found that the affiliates increased their sales, assets and investments more than local firms did. As a result, they pointed out, multinational affiliations might mitigate some of the effects of currency crises.

The increased vulnerability of countries to financial crises due to debt inflows makes recent developments in the emerging markets worrisome. Michael Chui, Emese Kuruc and Philip Turner of the Bank for International Settlements have pointed to the increase in the debt of emerging market companies, much of which is denominated in foreign currencies. Aggregate currency mismatches are not a cause for concern due to the large foreign exchange holdings of the central banks of many of these countries, but the currency mismatches of the private sector are much larger. Whether or not governments will use their foreign exchange holdings to bail out over-extended private firms is very much an open issue.

Philip Coggan of the Buttonwood column in The Economist has looked at the foreign demand for the burgeoning corporate debt of emerging markets, and warned investors that “Just as they are piling into this asset class, its credit fundamentals are deteriorating.” The relatively weak prospects of these firms are attributed to the slow growth of international trade and the weakening of global value chains. Corporate defaults have risen in recent years, and Coggan warns that “More defaults are probably on the way.”

The IMF’s latest World Economic Outlook forecasts increased growth in the emerging market economies in 2016. But the IMF adds: “However, the outlook for these economies is uneven and generally weaker than in the past.” The increase in debt offerings by firms in emerging market economies will bear negative consequences for the issuing firms and their home governments in those emerging market economies that do not fare as well as others. Coggan in his Buttonwood column also claimed that “When things do go wrong for emerging-market borrowers, it seems to happen faster.” Just how fast we may be about to learn. Market conditions can deteriorate quickly and when they do, no one knows how and when they will stabilize.

The Repercussions of Financial Booms and Crises

Leave a reply

Financial booms have become a chronic feature of the global financial system. When these booms end in crises, the impact on economic conditions can be severe. Carmen M. Reinhart and Kenneth S. Rogoff of Harvard pointed out that banking crises have been associated with deep downturns in output and employment, which is certainly consistent with the experience of the advanced economies in the aftermath of the global crisis. But the aftereffects of the booms may be even deeper and more long-lasting than thought.

Gary Gorton of Yale and Guillermo Ordoñez of the University of Pennsylvania have released a study of “good booms” and “bad booms,” where the latter end in a crisis and the former do not. In their model, all credit booms start with an increase in productivity that allows firms to finance projects using collateralized debt. During this initial period, lenders can assess the quality of the collateral, but are not likely to do so as the projects are productive. Over time, however, as more and more projects are financed, productivity falls as does the quality of the investment projects. Once the incentive to acquire information about the projects rises, lenders begin to examine the collateral that has been posted. Firms with inadequate collateral can no longer obtain financing, and the result is a crisis. But if new technology continues to improve, then there need not be a cutoff of credit, and the boom will end without a crisis. Their empirical analysis shows that credit booms are not uncommon, last ten years on average, and are less likely to end in a crisis when there is larger productivity growth during the boom.

Claudio Borio, Enisse Kharroubi, Christian Upper and Fabrizio Zampolli of the Bank for International Settlements also look at the dynamics of credit booms and productivity, with data from advanced economies over the period of 1979-2009. They find that credit booms induce a reallocation of labor towards sectors with lower productivity growth, particularly the construction sector. A financial crisis amplifies the negative impact of the previous misallocation on productivity. They conclude that the slow recovery from the global crisis may be due to the misallocation of resources that occurred before the crisis.

How do international capital flows fit into these accounts? Gianluca Benigno of the London School of Economics, Nathan Converse of the Federal Reserve Board and Luca Forno of Universitat Pompeu Fabra write about capital inflows and economic performance. They identify 155 episodes of exceptionally large capital inflows in middle- and high-income countries over the last 35 years. They report that larger inflows are associated with economic booms. The expansions are accompanied by rises in total factor productivity (TFP) and an increase in employment, which end when the inflows cease.

Moreover, during the boom there is also a reallocation of resources. The sectoral share of tradable goods in advanced economies, particularly manufacturing, falls during the periods of capital inflows. A reallocation of investment out of manufacturing occurs, including a reallocation of employment if a government refrains from accumulating foreign assets during the episodes of large capital inflows, as well as during periods of abundant international liquidity. The capital inflows also raise the probability of a sudden stop. Economic performance after the crisis is adversely affected by the pre-crisis capital inflows, as well as the reallocation of employment away from manufacturing that took place in the earlier period.

Alessandra Bonfiglioli of Universitat Pompeu Fabra looked at the issue of financial integration and productivity (working paper here). In a sample of 70 countries between 1975 and 1999, she found that de jure measures of financial integration, such as that provided by the IMF, have a positive relationship with total factor productivity (TFP). This occurred despite the post-financial liberalization increase in the probability of banking crises in developed countries that adversely affects productivity. De facto liberalization, as measured by the sum of external assets and liabilities scaled by GDP, was productivity enhancing in developed countries but not in developing countries.

Ayhan Kose of the World Bank, Eswar S. Prasad of Cornell and Marco E. Terrones of the IMF also investigated this issue (working paper here) using data from the period of 1966-2005 for 67industrial and developing countries. Like Bonfiglioli, they reported that de jure capital openness has a positive effect on growth in total factor productivity (TFP). But when they looked at the composition of the actual flows and stocks, they found that while equity liabilities (foreign direct investment and portfolio equity) boost TFP growth, debt liabilities have the opposite impact.

The relationship of capital flows on economic activity, therefore, is complex. Capital inflows contribute to economic booms and may increase TFP, but can end in crises that include “sudden stops” and banking failures. They can also distort the allocation of resources, which affects performance after the crisis. These effects can depend on the types of external liabilities that countries incur. Debt, which exacerbates a crisis, may also adversely divert resources away from sectors with high productivity. Policymakers in emerging markets who think about the long-term consequences of current activities need to look carefully at the debt that private firms in their countries have been incurring.

Dilemmas, Trilemmas and Difficult Choices

Leave a reply

In 2013 Hélène Rey of the London Business School presented a paper at the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City’s annual policy symposium. Her address dealt with the policy choices available to a central bank in an open economy, which she claimed are more limited than most economists believe. The subsequent debate reveals the shifting landscape of national policymaking when global capital markets become more synchronized.

The classic monetary trilemma (or “impossible trinity”) is based on the work of Robert Mundell and Marcus Fleming. The model demonstrates that in an open economy, central bankers can have two and only two of the following: a fixed foreign exchange rate, an independent monetary policy, and unregulated capital flows. A central bank that tries to achieve all three will be frustrated by the capital flows that respond to interest rate differentials, which in turn trigger a response in the foreign exchange markets. Different countries make different choices. The U.S. allows capital to cross its borders and uses the Federal Funds Rate as its monetary policy target, but refrains from intervening in the currency markets. Hong Kong, on the other hand, permits capital flows while pegging the value of its currency (the Hong Kong dollar) to the U.S. dollar, but forgoes implementing its own monetary policy. Finally, China until recently maintained control of both its exchange rate and monetary conditions by regulating capital flows.

Rey showed that capital flows, domestic credit and asset prices respond to changes in the VIX, a measure of U.S. stock market volatility. The VIX, in turn, is driven in part by U.S. monetary policies. Consequently, she argued, there is a global financial cycle that domestic policymakers can not resist. A central bank has one, and only one, fundamental choice to make (the “dilemma”): does it regulate the capital account to control the amount and composition of capital flows? If it does, then it has latitude to exercise an independent monetary policy; otherwise, it does not possess monetary autonomy.

Is Rey’s conclusion correct? Michael Klein of the Fletcher School at Tufts and Jay Shambaugh of George Washington University have provided a thorough analysis of the trilemma (working paper here; see also here). Their paper focuses on whether the use of partial capital controls is sufficient to provide monetary policy autonomy with a pegged exchange rate. They find that temporary, narrowly-targeted controls–“gates”– are not sufficient to allow a central bank to both fix its exchange rate and conduct an independent policy. A central bank that wants to control the exchange rate and monetary conditions must impose wide and continuous capital controls–“walls.” But they also find that a central bank that forgoes fixed exchange rates can conduct its own policy while allowing capital flows to cross its borders, a confirmation of the trilemma tradeoff.

Helen Popper of Santa Clara University, Alex Mandilaras of the University of Surrey and Graham Bird of the University of Surrey, Claremont McKenna College and Claremont Graduate University (working paper here; see also here) provide a new empirical measure of the trilemma that allows them to distinguish among the choices that governments make over time. Their results confirm, for example, that Hong Kong has surrendered monetary sovereignty in exchange for its exchange rate peg and open capital markets. Canada’s flexible rate, on the other hand, allows it to retain a large degree of monetary sovereignty despite the presence of an unregulated capital market with the U.S.

The choices of the canonical trilemma, therefore, seem to hold. What, then, of Rey’s challenge? Her evidence points to another phenomenon: the globalization of financial markets. This congruence has been documented in many studies and reports (see, for example, here). The IMF’s Financial Stability Report last October noted that asset prices have become more correlated since the global financial crisis. Jhuvesh Sobrun and Philip Turner of the Bank for International Settlements found that financial conditions in the emerging markets have become more dependent on the “world” long-term interest rate, which has been driven by monetary policies in the advanced economies.

Can flexible exchange rate provide any protection against these comovements? Joshua Aizenman of the University of Southern California, Menzie D. Chinn of the University of Wisconsin and Hiro Ito of Portland State University (see also here) looked at the impact of “center economies,” i.e., the U.S., Japan, the Eurozone and China, on financial variables in emerging and developing market economies. They find that for most financial variables linkages with the center economies have been dominant over the last two decades. However, they also found that the degree of sensitivity to changes emanating from the center economies are affected by the nature of the exchange rate regime. Countries with more exchange rate stability are more sensitive to changes in the center economies’ monetary policies. Consequently, a country could lower its vulnerability by relaxing exchange rate stability.

Rey’s dismissal of the trilemma, therefore, may be overstated. Flexible exchange rates allow central banks to retain control of policy interest rates, and provide some buffer to domestic financial markets. But her wider point about the linkages of asset prices driven by capital flows and their impact on domestic credit is surely correct. The relevant trilemma may not be the international monetary one but the financial trilemma proposed by Dirk Schoenmaker of VU University Amsterdam. In this model, financial policy makers must choose two of the following aspects of a financial system: national policies, financial stability and international banking. National policies over international bankers will not be compatible with financial stability when capital can flow in and out of countries.

But abandonment of national regulations by itself is not sufficient: International banking is only compatible with stability if international financial governance is enacted. Is the administration of regulatory authority on an international basis feasible? The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision seeks to coordinate the efforts of national supervisory authorities and propose common regulations. Its Basel III standards set net capital and liquidity requirements, but whether these are sufficient to deter risky behavior is unclear. Those who deal in cross-border financial flows are quite adept in running rings around rules and regulations.

The international monetary trilemma, therefore, still offers policymakers scope for implementing monetary policies. The financial trilemma, however, shows that the challenges of global financial integration are daunting. Macro prudential policies with flexible exchange rates provide some protection, but can not insulate an economy from the global cycle. In 1776, Benjamin Franklin urged the members of the Second Continental Congress to join together to sign the Declaration of Independence by pointing out: “We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately.” Perhaps that is the dilemma that national policymakers face today.

Capital Flows, Credit Booms and Bank Crises

Leave a reply

Studies of the impact of capital inflows have established that debt inflows can lead to bank crises (see here and here). Unlike equity, payments on debt are contractual and can not be cancelled if there is an economic downturn, which intensifies any shocks to the financial system. In the case of short-term debt, a foreign lender may decide not to roll over credit at the time when it is most needed. But recent papers have shown that foreign debt can also be a determinant of the credit booms that lead to the bank crises.

Philip Lane of Trinity College and Peter McQuade of the European Central Bank (working paper version here) looked at the relationship of domestic credit growth and capital flows in Europe during the period of 1993-2008. They suggest that financial flows can encourage more rapid credit growth by increasing the ability of domestic banks to extend loans, while also contributing to a rise in asset prices that encouraged financial activity. They found that debt flows contributed to domestic credit growth but equity flows did not. Moreover, the linkage of debt and domestic credit was strongest during the 2003-08 pre-crisis period.

Similarly, Julián Caballero of the Inter-American Development Bank (working paper here) investigated capital inflow booms, known as “bonanzas,” in emerging economies between 1973 and 2008. He reported that capital inflow bonanzas increased the incidence of bank crises. When he distinguished among foreign direct investment, portfolio equity and debt bonanzas, the results indicated that only the portfolio equity and debt bonanzas were associated with an increased likelihood of crises. More analysis revealed that the impact of increased debt was due in part to a lending boom. Caballero suggested that the capital inflows could also have increased asset prices, generating an asset bubble and an eventual collapse.

Deniz Iagan and Zhibo Tan of the IMF used both macroeconomic and micro-level firm data to examine the relationship of capital inflows and credit growth. They first examined the impact of capital inflows on aggregate credit to households and non-financial corporations in advanced and emerging market economies during the period of 1980-2011. They distinguished among FDI, portfolio and other inflows. They reported that portfolio and other inflows contributed to rises in household credit, and only the other inflows were significant for corporate credit.

Iagan and Tan also had data on firms in these countries, and sought to identify the determinants of leverage in these firms. They calculated an index, based on work done by Raghuram Rajan and Luigi Zingales (RZ), of a firm’s dependence on external financing. When they interacted the RZ indicator with the different types of capital inflows, the interactive term was always significant in the case of the other inflows, significant with portfolio flows in some specifications, and never significant in the case of FDI flows. The authors concluded that the results of the macro and firm level analyses were consistent: the composition of capital matters. In additional analysis, they found evidence consistent with the hypothesis that the capital inflows led to higher asset prices.

What can be done to insulate an economy from lending booms that may lead to bank crises? Nicolas E. Magud and Esteban R. Versperoni of the IMF and Carmen R. Reinhart of Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government (working paper here) examined whether the nature of the exchange rate regime was relevant. They found that less flexible exchange rate regimes are associated with increases in bank credit and a higher share of foreign currency in bank credit. On the other hand, the exchange rate regime had no impact of the size of the capital inflows. The authors of the Bank for International Settlements 85^th Annual Report 2014/15, however, wrote that the insulation property of flexible exchange rates is “overstated.” An exchange rate appreciation can raise the value of firms with debt denominated in foreign currency, which increases the availability of credit.

How can regulators lower the danger of more bank crises due to debt inflows? Magud, Reinhart and Vesperoni suggest the use of macroprudential measures that affect the incentives to borrow in a foreign currency, such as currency-dependent liquidity requirements. But Caballero warns that capital controls on debt inflows may be insufficient if portfolio equity flows also contribute to lending booms that result in banking crises.

These research papers find that domestic asset prices respond to international financial flows. This makes it harder to insulate the domestic financial markets from foreign markets, and leaves these markets vulnerable to spillovers from changes in foreign conditions. The emerging markets already face downturns in their markets, and the combination of increased global volatility with a rise in the costs of servicing the dollar-denominated debt of corporations in emerging markets if the Federal Reserve raises interest rates will only add to their burdens.

Global Liquidity and U.S. Monetary Policy

Leave a reply

The events in Greece and the Ukraine have only partially drawn attention away from the financial markets’ focus on changes in U.S. monetary policy. Federal Reserve officials seem to be split over when they will raise their Federal Funds rate target, and by how much. But while U.S. policymakers are closely monitoring domestic labor developments, the impact of their actions will have repercussions for foreign markets.

The growth of cross-border financial flows has led to research on global liquidity. Jean-Pierre Landau of SciencesPo (Paris) defines global private liquidity as the international components of liquidity, i.e., “cross-border credit and portfolio flows or lending in foreign currencies to domestic residents,” while official global liquidity is the funding available to settle claims on monetary authorities. Before the global financial crisis, global banking flows were instrumental in extending private credit across borders, while more recently portfolio flows have been important.

Eugenio Cerutti, Stijn Claessens, and Lev Ratnovski of the IMF examined the determinants of global liquidity using data on cross-border bank flows for 77 countries over the period of 1990-2012. They identified four financial centers: the U.S., the Eurozone, the U.K. and Japan. The drivers of global liquidity included factors such as the TED spread (3 month LIBOR minus 3 month government bond yield), an indicator of uncertainty that affects bank behavior. They also included measures related to monetary policy, including the real interest rate and term premium, i.e., the slope of the yield curve, defined as the difference between 10 year and 3 month government securities.

The authors first used U.S. global liquidity factors in their empirical analysis. When the U.S. term premium fell, there was a rise in international lending as banks sought higher returns. The U.S. real interest rate had a positive coefficient, which the authors saw as a sign that global banks lent less when there were favorable domestic conditions. The authors then introduced the same variables for the three other financial centers, and found that term premiums from the U.K. and the Eurozone have the same effect on cross border bank lending as did the U.S. measure. The Japanese term premium, on the other hand, had a positive coefficient, which may reflect the record of Japan’s interest rate.

When cross-border claims were broken out by lending to Asian and the Western Hemisphere countries, the TED spreads for British and European banks were significant determinants for lending to both areas. The U.S. term premium was the only term premium variable with explanatory power in lending to bank and non-banks in the two regions. The authors interpret these results as an indication that the global financial cycle is driven in part by U.S. monetary policy and British and European bank conditions. The authors also find that a borrower country can reduce its exposure to global liquidity drivers through flexible exchange rates, capital controls and stringent bank supervision.

The latest Annual Report of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) also looks at financial flows across borders in its chapter on the international monetary and financial system. The authors of the chapter detail the growth in dollar- and euro-denominated credit through bank loans and debt securities, which can go to domestic residents in the U.S. or Eurozone, or non-residents. They point out that while U.S. households, corporations and its government account for 80% of global non-financial dollar debt at the end of 2014, the remaining one-fifth—about $9.5 trillion—of dollar credit was held outside the U.S.

These loans and securities have been growing rapidly since the global financial crisis. In particular, non-U.S. borrowers issued $1.8 trillion in bonds between 2009 and 2014. The authors of this chapter of the BIS Report attribute this growth to low lending rates and the reduction of the term premium for U.S. Treasury securities, which reflects the large scale purchase of these securities by the Federal Reserve in its Quantitative Easing (QE) programs. The European Central Bank’s bond purchases and the resulting compression of term premiums on euro-denominated bonds may lead to a similar phenomenon.

Changes in U.S. monetary policy, therefore, will influence global financial flows in both bank lending and bond issuance. If the end of QE results in higher term premiums in the U.S. as the rates on long-term securities rise, then cross-border flows could be negatively impacted. A rise in the Federal Fund Rate, on the other hand, could initially decrease the term premia, although other interest rates would likely follow. These changes take place, moreover, while the Eurozone and Japan are moving in opposite directions, which may intensify their effect. Mark Carney, Governor of the Bank of England, warned last January that the resiliency of the financial system will be tested by Federal Reserve tightening. Once again, policymakers may be forced to respond to fast-breaking developments as they occur. But this time they may not have as much flexibility to maneuver as they need. We may not know the consequences for financial stability until it is too late to avoid them.

On the Road…to Brussels

Leave a reply

I will be traveling this week to the European Economics and Finance Society Annual Conference, which takes place on Friday, June 12 and Saturday, June 13 at the Center for European Policy Studies in Brussels. There will be many interesting papers, and you can find the program here:

http://www.eefs-eu.org/conference-programme-brussels.html

I would be happy to meet any readers of “Capital Ebbs and Flows.” However, you should check the schedule at the conference if you come, as there have been a few changes. The original schedule lists me as speaking during the 10:30 – 12:15 time slot in Room D at the session on “Monetary Unions.” I actually will be presenting a paper at that same time at the session in Room B on “Net Foreign Asset Positions and Portfolio Flows.”

Morality Tales and Capital Flows

Leave a reply

When the Federal Reserve finally raises its interest rate target, it will be one of the most widely anticipated policy moves since the Fed responded to the global financial crisis. The impact on emerging markets, which have already begun to see reversals of the inflows of capital they received when yields in the U.S. were depressed, has been discussed and analyzed in depth. But the morality tale of errant policymakers being punished for their transgressions may place too much responsibility for downturns on the emerging markets and not enough on the volatile capital flows that can overwhelm their financial markets.

Capital outflows—particularly those large outflows known as “sudden stops”—are often attributed to weak economic “fundamentals,” such as rising fiscal deficits and public debt, and anemic growth rates. Concerns about such flows resulted in the “taper tantrums” of 2013 when then-Federal Reserve Chair Ben Bernanke stated that the Fed would reduce its purchases of assets through its Quantitative Easing program once the domestic employment situation improved. The “fragile five” of Brazil, India, Indonesia, South Africa and Turkey suffered large declines in currency values and domestic asset prices. Their current account deficits and low growth rates were blamed for their vulnerability to capital outflows. There have been subsequent updates of conditions in these countries, with India now seen as in stronger shape because of a declining current account deficit and lower inflation rate, whereas Brazil’s situation has deteriorated for the opposite reasons.

But this assignment of blame is too simplistic. Barry Eichengreen of UC-Berkeley and Poonam Gupta of the World Bank investigated conditions in the emerging markets after Bernanke’s announcement. The countries with largest current account deficits also recorded the largest combination of currency depreciations, reserve losses, and stock market declines. But Eichengreen and Gupta found little evidence that countries with stronger policy fundamentals escaped foreign sector instability. On the other hand, the size of their financial markets as measured by capital inflows in the period before 2013 did contribute to the adverse response to Bernanke’s statement. The co-authors interpreted this result as showing that foreign investors withdrew funds from the financial markets where they could most easily sell assets.

These results are consistent with work done by Manuel R. Agosin of the University of Chile and Franklin Huaita of Peru’s Ministry of Economics and Finance. They reported that the best predictor of a “sudden stop” was a previous capital inflow, or “surge.” Sudden stops are more likely to occur when the capital inflow had consisted largely of portfolio investments and cross-border lending. Moreover, they claimed, capital surges worsen the current account deficits that precede sudden stops (see also here).

Stijn Claessens of the IMF and Swait Ghosh of the World Bank also looked at the impact of capital flows on emerging markets. They found that capital flows to these countries are usually large relative to their domestic financial systems. Capital inflows contribute to the pro-cyclicality of their business cycles by providing funding for increased bank lending, which are dominant in the financial systems of emerging markets. The foreign money also puts pressures on exchange rates and asset prices, and can lead to higher debt ratios. All these lead to buildups in macroeconomic and financial vulnerabilities, which are manifested when there is negative shock, either in the form of a domestic cyclical downturn or a global shock.

What can the emerging market counties do to protect themselves from the effects of volatile capital inflows? Claessens and Ghosh recommend a combination of macroeconomic measures, such as monetary and fiscal tightening; macro prudential policies that include limits on bank credit; and capital flow management measures, i.e., capital controls. However, they point out that the best combination of these policy tools has yet to be ascertained.

Hélène Rey of the London Business School has written about the global financial cycle, which can lead to excessive credit growth that is not aligned with a country’s economic conditions, and subsequent financial booms and busts. The lesson she draws is that in today’s world Mundell’s “trilemma” has become a “dilemma”: “independent monetary policies are possible if and only if the capital account is managed, directly or indirectly, regardless of the exchange-rate regime.” Joshua Aizenman of the University of Southern California, Menzie Chinn of the La Folette School of Public Affairs at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and Hiro Ito of Portland State University, however, report evidence that exchange rate regimes do matter in the international transmission of monetary policies.

Whether or not flexible exchange rates can provide some protection from foreign shocks, the capital controls that have been implemented in recent years will receive a “stress test” once the Federal Reserve does raise its interest rate target. Policymakers will be forced to make difficult decisions regarding exchange rates and monetary policies. Moreover, this tale of financial volatility may have a different moral than the usual one: bad things can happen even to those who follow the rules.

The Shifting Consensus on Capital Controls: Gallagher’s “Ruling Capital”

Leave a reply

Among the many consequences of the global financial crisis of 2007-09 was a shift in the IMF’s stance on capital controls. The IMF, which once urged developing economies to emulate the advanced economies in deregulating the capital account, now acknowledges the need to include controls in the tool kit of policymakers. Kevin Gallagher of Boston University explains how this transformation was achieved in his new book, Ruling Capital: Emerging Markets and the Reregulation of Cross-Border Finance.

By the 1990s the Fund had long abandoned the Bretton Woods solution to the trilemma: fixed exchange rates and the use of capital controls to allow monetary autonomy. Instead, the IMF encouraged developing economies to open their borders to capital flows that would increase investment and achieve a more efficient allocation of savings (see Chapter 5 here). IMF officials proposed an amendment to its Articles of Agreement that would establish capital account liberalization as a goal for its members, but the amendment was shelved after the Asian financial crisis of 1997-98. The IMF subsequently continued to recommend capital account liberalization as a suitable long-term goal, but acknowledged the need to implement deregulation sequentially, beginning with long-term foreign direct investment before opening up to portfolio flows and bank loans.

The IMF’s position evolved further, however, as the full scale of the global crisis became apparent. First, the IMF allowed Iceland to use controls as part of its financial stabilization program. Then, in the aftermath of the crisis, Fund economists reported in a Staff Position Note that there was “…a negative association between capital controls that were in place prior to the global financial crisis and the output declines suffered during the crisis…” The next stage came in 2012 when the IMF announced a new view–named the institutional view–of capital flows. This doctrine acknowledged that capital flows can be volatile and pose a threat to financial stability. Under these circumstances, controls, now named “capital flow management measures” (CFMs), can be used with other macroeconomic policies to minimize the effects of the capital volatility. Moreover, the responses to disruptive flows should include actions by the countries where the capital flows originate as well as the recipients.

Gallagher explains that these changes were due to both intellectual and political currents. IMF economists had been among those researchers who found little empirical evidence supporting the proposition that capital flows contributed to increased growth rates. This was not a surprise to those influenced by the work of economists such as Ragnar Nurske or Hyman Minsky, who were outside the mainstream. But new theoretical advances by Anton Korinek and Fund economists, including Olivier Jeanne and Jonathan Ostry, showed that the costs of volatile capital flows could be analyzed using the accepted tools of welfare economics. The adverse impact on financial stability of capital outflows can be considered as an externality that private agents ignore in their decision-making. Prudential controls seek to correct these market distortions.

Gallagher points out that at the same time as this new theoretical work was being disseminated, representatives of the emerging markets were lobbying the IMF to allow their governments the freedom to implement measures that they found necessary to offset destabilizing capital flows. The BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) coalition, which had worked together to promote reform of the IMF’s governance procedures, joined their efforts to resist any position on capital flows that could restrict their flexibility to limit them. They used the new theoretical perspectives to buttress their arguments in favor of the use of controls, and made similar arguments in other forums such as the meetings of the Group of 20. The BRICS representatives also urged the IMF to pay equal attention to the policies of the upper-income nations where capital flows originated.

The IMF’s Independent Evaluation Office has issued a report updating its 2005 evaluation of the Fund’s approach to capital account liberalization. The IEO describes the discussions leading up to the adoption of the institutional view as “contentious,” and the final document as reflecting a “fragile consensus” among the Executive Directors regarding the merits of full capital account liberalization and the proper use of CFMs. The IEO also reports that the new view seems to have influenced the IMF’s policy advice on capital account liberalization as well as its bilateral surveillance. However, the report cautioned that it is too early to tell whether the adoption of the institutional view will lead to greater consistency in the IMF’s advice on the use of CFMs.

Gallagher shows, moreover, that the battle over the use of capital controls has not ended, but shifted to new arenas. Free-trade agreements (FTAs) and bilateral investment treaties (BITs) signed with the U.S., for example, generally allow governments much less freedom to regulate financial flows. Similarly, the IEO report finds that there is “…a patchwork of bilateral, regional and international agreements regulating cross-border capital flows…” Moreover, the IMF’s attempts to promote international cooperation to reduce volatility due to capital flows have been unsuccessful.

There will be more developments in the story of the (re)regulation of capital. There are still disagreements on the side-effects of capital controls, and a rise in interest rates in the U.S. will test the effectiveness of controls on outflows. Until then, Gallagher’s book serves as a valuable account and analysis of the most recent changes.

Global Stability, National Responsibilities

Leave a reply

The global financial crisis demonstrated clearly how the flow of money across borders could deepen and widen a financial crisis. A decline in U.S. housing prices led to a re-examination of the safety of financial securities based on them and an implosion in credit markets as financial institutions sought to re-establish their soundness by shedding the securities that were now seen as toxic. These institutions included European banks that had purchased mortgage-backed securities and other collateralized debt obligations. Eventually the emerging markets were brought into the vortex by capital outflows that disrupted their own financial markets. But are we ready to change the rules governing global finance if they impinge on national sovereignty?

Andrew Haldane, chief economist of the Bank of England, spoke last October about the need to manage global finance as a system. He identified four areas that require strengthening: global surveillance, improvements to national debt structures, the establishment of macro-prudential and capital flow management policies, and improved international liquidity assistance. Advances have been made in all these areas since the crisis.

The IMF, for example, has expanded the scope of its surveillance activities to focus more on the spillovers of national policies on other countries and regions. The latest Pilot External Sector Report, for example, examines global imbalances and finds that

“…disorderly external adjustment in some deficit economies remains a risk, particularly in an environment of tightening external financial conditions, and if the policy/institutional environment were to deteriorate or other idiosyncratic shocks materialize. Moreover, country-level risks would have spillovers and carry the potential of becoming systemic, e.g., if a group of EMs (Emerging Markets) with excess deficits were simultaneously affected by negative shocks.”

But is calling attention to possible adverse shocks sufficient? Biagio Bossone and Roberta Marra (see also here) of The Group of Lecce have called for a new commitment by the members of the IMF to be “Global Good Citizens.” This would entail amending the IMF’s Articles of Governance to include ‘global systemic stability’ as a mission of the Fund and its members. This new goal would be defined to include sustainable equilibria in the members’ balance of payments, high levels of domestic employment and income and reasonable price stability, and management of the cross-border transmission of shocks. To achieve these goals, all members would be responsible for implementing external adjustment programs as well as ensuring domestic employment and low inflation, and cooperating with other members to minimize the international transmission of shocks. Moreover, the IMF would be granted the authority to assess whether the policies of its members were consistent with global stability. The Fund could use multilateral consultations to address systemic issues and to call on policymakers to take the cross-national effects of their actions into account.

How good is the IMF’s record on calling out members who have violated existing obligations? Not so good. There were consultations with Sweden and Korea in the 1980s regarding their exchange rates, and discussions in 2006 with China, the U.S., Japan, Saudi Arabia and the Eurozone regarding global imbalances. But the latter were unsuccessful in changing the national policies that led to the imbalances. Large nations traditionally place little weight on the welfare of other countries when formulating policies, and, if pressed, will claim that their actions benefit the global economy.

But it would be short-sighted to dismiss Bossone and Marra’s innovative proposal to expand the responsibilities of national policymakers to include spillovers. Ignoring cross-border effects is at best myopic and possibly self-defeating. Charles Engel of the University of Wisconsin in a survey of research on spillovers concludes that:

“An optimal policy aimed at inflation and employment will increasingly need to take into account the impact of events in other countries, including the effects of foreign monetary policy. It may ultimately be the case that greater stability and growth at home depends on international coordination.”

Financial markets will continue to grow in the emerging markets as well as frontier markets, and financial flows across national borders will continue to rise. These flows may bring benefits but they also increase financial and economic linkages. Soon the question may be not whether to coordinate, but how and when.