Tag Archives: capital controls

The IMF’s Proposed Policies on the Management of Capital Flows

Leave a reply

The IMF’s views on the advantages and drawbacks of capital flows have substantially evolved over time. The Fund reversed its opposition to capital controls in the wake of the global financial crisis of 2007-09, when it adopted the “Institutional View on the Liberalization and Management of Capital Flows.” That framework included capital flows measures (CFMs) as one of the policy measures available to a government facing surges of capital inflows, i.e., large inflows that could destabilize an economy. The Fund has now moved further in the direction of using CFMs, proposing that they can be used in a preemptive manner to avoid future instability.

The IMF had advocated the removal of capital controls before the Asian financial crisis of 1997-98, so that developing economies could benefit from capital flows. That crisis demonstrated the volatility of capital flows and the catastrophic impact of “sudden stops” on economic activity. Subsequently, the Fund refined its position on deregulation, advising governments to implement adequate supervisory and regulatory regimes before liberalizing their capital accounts, and to begin with opening to foreign direct investment before allowing short-term capital. The IMF moved further during the global financial crisis when it allowed Iceland to implement controls. The Institutional View was adopted in 2012, when countries such as Brazil used CFMs to manage the inflows of foreign capital seeking higher yields than those available in the U.S. The CFMs were part of a toolkit that also includes Macroprudential Prudential Measures (MPMs), which are designed to limit systemic risks. CFM/MPMs are measures designed to limit such risk by controlling capital flows.

The IMF’s new proposals are presented in an IMF Policy Paper, “Review of the Institutional View on the Liberalization and Management of Capital Flows.”  The first proposal extends the Institutional View by allowing the preemptive use of CFM/MPMs on foreign currency debt inflows in order to address the systemic risk that could result from foreign exchange mismatches on balance sheets. Such mismatches can occur slowly, and not just following surges. They increase the probability of capital flow reversals and exchange rate depreciations that disrupt economic activity and could not be adequately addressed with conventional policy tools.

The proposal would also allow CFM/MPMs in the case of high foreign investor participation in local-currency debt markets. In these cases, the danger is a “sudden stop” by foreign investors, which would have particularly adverse consequences if there were illiquid capital markets. Other domestic measures may be unavailable, and the CFM is a second-best solution.

The second proposed policy change exempts certain types of capital control measures that are enacted by governments for specific purposes from review. These include: first, measures adopted for national or international security; second, measures based on international prudential standards, such as those related to the Basel Framework on banking; third, measures designed to deal with money laundering and the combating of financial terrorism; and fourth, measures related to international cooperation standards related to the avoidance or evasion of taxes.

The usefulness of preemptive policies has been demonstrated in a new NBER working paper, “Preemptive Policies and Risk-Off Shocks in Emerging Markets” by Mitali Das and Gita Gopinath of the IMF and Sebnem Kalemli-Özcan of the University of Maryland. The authors investigate the impact of preemptive CFMs on the external finance premia in 56 emerging markets and developing economies during the Taper Tantrum and the COVID-19 shocks. The premia are measured by deviations from uncovered interest rate parity. They consider the impact of CFMs on inflows and outflows, as well as the effect of domestic MPMs.

The paper’s authors report that countries with preemptive CFMs on inflows in place during the five-year period preceding the shocks experienced lower premia and exchange rate volatility. They infer that use of the CFMs provide enhanced access to international capital markets during volatile periods. CFMs on outflows, on the other hand, had a positive effect on the UIP premiums, which may reflect the demand by foreign investors for higher returns to compensate for the CFMs in outflows.

The IMF’s capital flow policies under the Institutional View had been reviewed by the IMF’s Independent Evaluation Office (IEO) in its 2020 report , “IMF Advice on Capital Flows.” The report praised the IMF for the changes in its policy stance, and called the adoption of the Institutional View “a major step forward.” The IEO’s report, however, also called for further changes, including revisiting the Institutional View to take into account recent experience with capital flows, building up the monitoring, analysis and research of capital acccount issues, and strengthening multilateral cooperation on policy issues.

Anton Korinek of the University of Virginia, who wrote a briefing paper for the IEO report, Prakash Loungani, assistant director of the IEO and co-leader of the 2020 report, and Jonathan Ostry of Georgetown University, who was at the IMF when it issued the Institutional View, have written a review of the IMF’s latest policy proposals, “The IMF’s Updated View on Capital Controls: Welcome Fixes but Major Rethinking Is Still Needed.” While welcoming the new measures, they bring up several additional issues that should be addressed. These include the use of capital controls for domestic objectives, such as the impact of capital flows on income inequality and also real estate prices. Such a move would in many ways be consistent with the original aims of the Bretton Woods agreements.

The authors point out that the targets for the IMF’s capital policies are the host countries that receive capital inflows. But challenges associated with capital flows should also involve the countries that are the source of the capital flows. Since these are usually the advanced economies which have a major role in the IMF’s governance, such a move would require the cooperation of the IMF’s most influential members.

Korinek, Loungani and Ostry also urge the IMF to investigate the use of controls on capital outflows. The Fund’s current policy stance only approves the use of such measures during crises. Given the current economic and financial situation (see, for example, here), governments of developing countries are concerned about a repeat of the outflows of March and April 2020. The IMF should be working with these policymakers now to minimize the turbulence that large capital outflows would bring.

Capital Controls in Theory and Practice

1 Reply

It has been a decade since the global financial crisis effectively ended opposition to the use of capital controls. The IMF’s drive towards capital account deregulation had been blunted by the Asian financial crisis of 1997-98, but there was still a belief in some quarters that complete capital mobility was an appropriate long-run goal for emerging markets once their financial markets sufficiently matured. The meltdown in financial markets in advanced economies in 2008-09 ended that aspiration. Several recent papers have summarized subsequent research on the justification for capital controls and the evidence on their effectiveness.

Bilge Erten of Northeastern University, Anton Korinek of the University of Virginia and José Antonio Ocampo of Columbia University have a paper, “Capital Controls: Theory and Evidence,” that was prepared for the Journal of Economic Literature and summarizes recent work on this topic. In this literature, the micro-foundations for the use of capital controls to improve welfare are based on externalities that private agents do not internalize. The first type of externality is pecuniary, which can lead to a change in the value of collateral and a redistribution between agents. In such cases, private agents may borrow more than is optimal for society, which suffers the consequences in the event of a financial shock. Policymakers can restrict capital flows to limit financial fragility.

The second justification of capital controls is due to aggregate demand externalities, which are associated with unemployment. Private agents may borrow in international markets and fuel a domestic boom that leaves the domestic economy vulnerable to a downturn. If there are domestic frictions and constraints on the use of monetary policy that limit the response to an economic contraction, then capital controls may be useful in mitigating the downturn.

Alessandro Rebucci of Johns Hopkins and Chang Ma of Fudan University also summarize this literature in “Capital Controls: A Survey of the New Literature,” prepared for the Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Economics and Finance. They discuss the use capital controls in the case of both pecuniary and demand externalities, and capital controls in the context of the trilemma. In their review of the empirical literature on capital controls, they summarize two lines of research. The first deals with the actual use of capital controls, and the second their relative effectiveness.

Whether or not capital controls are used as a countercyclical instrument together with other macroprudential tools has been an issue of dispute.  Rebucci and Ma report there is recent evidence that indicates that such instruments have been utilized in this manner, as the recent theoretical literature proposes. There are also cross-country studies of capital control effectiveness that are consistent with the theoretical justification for the use of such measures. For example, capital controls can limit financial vulnerability by shifting the composition of a country’s external balance sheet away from debt.

Some recent papers from the IMF investigate the actual use of capital controls and other policy tools in emerging market economies. Atish R. Ghosh, Jonathan D. Ostry and Mahvash S. Qureshi of the IMF investigated the response of emerging markets to capital flows in a 2017 working paper, “Managing the Tide: How Do Emerging Markets Respond to Capital Flows?” They report that policymakers in a sample of 51 countries over the period of 2005-13 used a number of instruments to deal with capital flows. In addition to foreign exchange market intervention and central bank policy rates, capital controls were utilized, particularly when the inflows took the form of portfolio and other flows. Tightening of capital inflow controls was more likely during periods of credit growth and real exchange rate appreciation. The authors’ finding that several major emerging markets have used capital controls to deal with risks to financial and macroeconomic stability is consistent with the theoretical literature cited above. However, the authors caution that their results do not indicate whether managing capital flows actually prevents or dampens instability.

This subject has been addressed by Gaston Gelos, Lucyna Gornicka, Robin Koepke, Ratna Sahay and Silvia Sgherri  in their new IMF working paper, “Capital Flows at Risk: Taming the Ebbs and Flows.” They examine the policy responses to sharp portfolio flow movements in 35 emerging market and developing economies during the 1996-2018 period, using a rise in BBB-rated U.S. corporate bond yields as a global shock. The authors look at the structural characteristics and policy frameworks of the countries as well as their policy actions. Among their results they find that more open capital accounts at the time of the shock are associated with fewer large inflows after the shock. Moreover, a tightening of capital flow measures is linked to larger outflows in the short-run. They also find that monetary and macroprudential policies have limited effectiveness in shielding countries from the risks associated with global shocks.

Capital controls have become an important tool for many developing economies, and there are ample grounds to justify their implementation. Recent empirical literature seems to show that the actual implementation of such measures is undertaken in a manner that meets the criteria outlined in the theoretical literature. However, whether regulatory limits on capital mobility actually achieve their financial and macroeconomic goals is still not proven. The Federal Reserve has signaled its intention to maintain the Federal Funds Rate at its current level, but shocks can come from many sources. Policymakers may find themselves drawing upon all the tools available to them in the case of a new global disruption to capital flows.

A Guide to the (Financial) Universe: Part II

1 Reply

(Part I of this Guide appears here.)

3. Crisis and Response

The global crisis revealed that the pre-crisis financial universe was more fragile than realized at the time. Before the crisis, this fragility was masked by low interest rates, which were due in part to the buildup of foreign reserves in the form of U.S. securities by emerging market economies. The high ratings that mortgage backed securities (MBS) in the U.S. received from the rating agencies depended on these low interest rates and rising housing prices. Once interest rates increased, however, and housing values declined, mortgage borrowers—particularly those considered “subprime”—abandoned their properties. The value of the MBS fell, and financial institutions in the U.S. and Europe sought to remove them from their balance sheets, which reinforced the downward spiral in their values.

The global crisis was followed by a debt crisis in Europe. The governments of Ireland and Spain bolstered their financial institutions which had also lent extensively to the domestic housing sectors, but their support led to a deterioration in their own finances. Similarly, the safety of Greek government bonds was called into question as the scope of Greek deficit expenditures became clear, and there were concerns about Portugal’s finances.

Different systems of response and support emerged during the crises. In the case of the advanced economies, their central banks coordinated their domestic policy responses. In addition, the Federal Reserve organized currency swap networks with its counterparts in countries where domestic banks had participated in the MBS markets, as well as several emerging market economies (Brazil, Mexico, South Korea and Singapore) where dollars were also in demand. The central banks were then able to provide dollar liquidity to their banks. The European Central Bank provided similar currency arrangements for countries in that region, as did the Swiss National Bank and the corresponding Scandinavian institutions.

The emerging market countries that were not included in such arrangements had to rely on their own foreign exchange reserves to meet the demand for dollars as well as respond to exchange rate pressures. Subsequently, fourteen Asian economies formed the Chiang Mai Initiative Multilateralization, which allows them to draw upon swap arrangements. China has also signed currency swap agreements with fourteen other countries.

In addition, emerging market economies and developing economies received assistance from the International Monetary Fund, which organized arrangements with 17 countries from the outbreak of the crisis through the following summer. The Fund had been severely criticized for its policies during the Asian crisis of 1997-98, but its response to this crisis was very different. Credit was disbursed more quickly and in larger amounts than had occurred in past crises, and there were fewer conditions attached to the programs. Countries in Asia and Latin America with credible records of macroeconomic policies were able to boost domestic spending while drawing upon their reserve holdings to stabilize their exchange rates. The IMF’s actions contributed to the recovery of these countries from the external shock.

The IMF played a very different role in the European debt crisis. It joined the European Commission, which represented European governments, and the European Central Bank to form the “Troika.” These institutions made loans to Ireland in 2010 and Portugal in 2011 in return for deficit-reduction policies, while Spain received assistance in 2012 from the other Eurozone governments. In 2013 a banking crisis in Cyprus also required assistance from the Troika.These countries eventually recovered and exited the lending programs.

Greece’s crisis, however, has been more protracted and the provisions of its program are controversial. The IMF and the European governments have been criticized for delaying debt reduction while insisting on harsh budget austerity measures. The IMF also came under attack for suborning its independence by joining the Troika, and its own Independent Evaluation Office subsequently published a report that raised questions about its institutional autonomy and accountability.

In the aftermath of the crisis, new regulations—called “macroprudential policies”—have been implemented to reduce systemic risk within the financial system. The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, for example, has instituted higher bank capital and liquidity requirements. Other rules include restrictions on loan-to-value ratios. These measures are designed both to prevent the occurrence of credit bubbles and to make financial institutions more resilient. A European Banking Authority has been established to set uniform regulations on European banks and to assess risks. In the U.S., a Financial Stability Oversight Council was given the task of identifying threats to financial stability.

The crisis also caused a reassessment of capital account restrictions. The IMF, which had urged the deregulation of capital accounts before the Asian crisis of 1997-98, published in 2012 a new set of guidelines, named the “institutional view.” The Fund acknowledged that rapid capital flows surges or outflows could be disruptive, and that under some circumstances capital flow management measures could be useful. Capital account liberalization is appropriate only when countries reach threshold levels of institutional and financial development.

One legacy of the response to the crisis is the expansion of central bank balance sheets. The assets of the Bank of England, the Bank of Japan, the European Central Bank (ECB) and the Federal Reserve rose to $15 trillion as the central banks engaged in large-scale purchases of assets, called “quantitative easing”. The Federal Reserve ceased purchasing securities in 2014, and the ECB is expected to cut back its purchases later this year.  But the unwinding of these holdings is expected to take place gradually over many years, and monetary policymakers have signaled that their balance sheets are unlikely to return to their pre-crisis sizes.

(to be continued)

Trilemmas and Financial Instability

Leave a reply

Whether or not the international monetary trilemma (the choice facing policymakers among monetary autonomy, capital mobility and a fixed exchange rate) allows policymakers the scope for policy autonomy has been the subject of a number of recent analyses (see here for a summary). Hélène Rey of the London Business School has claimed that the global financial cycle constrains the ability of policymakers to affect domestic conditions regardless of the exchange rate regime. Michael Klein of the Fletcher School at Tufts and Jay Shambaugh of George Washington University, on the other hand, have found that exchange rate flexibility does provide a degree of monetary autonomy. But is monetary policy sufficient to avoid financial instability if accompanied by unregulated capital flows ?

A recent paper by Maurice Obstfeld, Jonathan D. Ostry and Mahvash S. Qureshi of the IMF’s Research Department examines the impact of the trilemma in 40 emerging market countries over the period of 1986-2013. They report that the choice of exchange rate regime does affect the sensitivity of domestic financial variables, such as domestic credit, house prices and bank leverage, to global conditions. Economies with fixed exchange rate regimes are more impacted by changes in global market volatility than those with flexible exchange rate regimes. They also find that capital inflows are sensitive to the choice of exchange rate regime.

However, the insulation properties of flexible exchange rates are not sufficient to protect a country from financial instability. Maurice Obstfeld of the IMF and Alan M. Taylor of UC-Davis in a new paper point out that while floating rates and capital mobility allow policy makers to focus on domestic objectives, “…monetary policy alone may be a relatively ineffective tool for addressing potential financial stability problems….exposure to global financial shocks and cycles, perhaps the result of monetary or other developments in industrial-country financial markets, may overwhelm countries even when their exchange rates are flexible.”

Global capital flows can adversely affect a country through multiple channels. The Asian financial crisis of 1998 demonstrated the impact of sudden stops, when inflows of foreign capital turn to outflows. The withdrawal forces adjustments in the current account and disrupts domestic financial markets, and can trigger a devaluation of the exchange rate. The fall in the value of the currency worsens a country’s situation when there are liabilities denominated in foreign currencies, and this balance sheet effect can overwhelm the expansionary impact of the devaluation on the trade balance.

The global financial crisis of 2008-09 showed that gross inflows and outflows as well as net flows can lead to increased financial risk. Before the crisis there was a tremendous buildup of external assets and liabilities in the advanced economies. Once the crisis began, the volatility in their financial markets was reinforced as residents liquidated their foreign assets in response to their need for liquidity (see Obstfeld here or here).

International financial integration can also raise financial fragility before a crisis emerges. Capital flows can be highly procyclical, fluctuating in response to business cycles (see here and here). Many studies have shown that the inflows result in increases in domestic credit that foster more economic activity (see here for a summary of recent papers). Moritz Schularick of the Free University of Berlin and Alan Taylor of UC-Davis (2012)  have demonstrated that these credit booms can result in financial crises.

What can governments do to forestall international financial instability?  Dirk Schoenmaker of VU University Amsterdam and the Duisenberg School of Finance has offered another trilemma, the financial trilemma, that addresses this question (see also here). In this framework, a government can choose two of the following three financial objectives: national financial regulatory policies, international banking with international regulation, and/or financial stability. For example, financial stability can occur when national financial systems are isolated, such as occurred under the Bretton Woods system. Governments imposed barriers on capital integration and effectively controlled their financial systems, and Obstfeld and Taylor point out that the Bretton Woods era was relatively free of financial crises. But once countries began to remove capital controls and deregulated their financial sectors in the post-Bretton Woods era, financial crises reappeared.

International financial integration combined with regulatory cooperation could lessen the consequences of regulation-shopping by global financial institutions seeking the lowest burden. But while the Financial Stability Board and other forums may help regulators monitor cross-border financial activities and design crisis resolution schemes, such coordination may be necessary but not sufficient to avoid volatility. Macroprudential policies to minimize systemic risk in the financial markets are a relatively new phenomenon, and largely planned and implemented on the national level. The global implications are still to be worked out, as Stephen G. Cecchetti of the Brandeis International Business School and Paul M. W. Tucker of the Systemic Risk Council and a Fellow at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government have shown. A truly stable global system requires a degree of financial regulation and coordination that current national governments are not willing to accept.

The People’s Verdict on Globalization

1 Reply

The similarities in the electoral appeals of businessman Donald Trump and Senator Bernie Sanders have been widely noted (see, for example, here, here and here). Both men attract voters who feel trapped in their economic status, unable to make progress either for themselves or their children. Moreover, both men have assigned the blame for the loss of manufacturing jobs in the U.S. on international trade agreements. Regardless of who wins the election, globalization, which was seen as a irresistible force in the 1990s after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the entry of China into the world economy, is now being reexamined and found to be detrimental in the eyes of many.

Trump and Sanders have been particularly vociferous about the North American Trade Agreement, which they hold responsible for the migration of U.S. jobs to Mexico. But those who blame the foreign sector for a loss of jobs should also finger capital flows. The investment of U.S. firms in overseas facilities that then ship their products back to the U.S. represents outward foreign direct investment (FDI), and thus in this story is also responsible for the disappearance of manufacturing jobs. Moreover, Lawrence Summers of Harvard has pointed out that firms that have the option to relocate will be less inclined to invest in new capital in their home country, which leads to lower productivity and wages for their workers.

Whether technology or trade is more responsible for the shrinkage in manufacturing jobs has been the subject of much study (see, for example, here). In the past, most studies assigned the primary role for labor force disruption to technology. David Autor of MIT, Lawrence F. Katz of Harvard and Melissa S. Kearney of the University of Maryland, for example, drew attention to technology that accomplishes routine tasks without human intervention and leads to a polarization of the labor force, as middle-skill level jobs are eliminated, leaving only low-skill and high-skill jobs. In addition, information technology that allows firms to coordinate their facilities in different countries allows more outsourcing and reallocation of plants.

Those who seek to defend global trade flows cite rises in employment due to exports and also gains due to increases in efficiency and economics of scale that accompany specialization. In addition, lower prices due to imports raise real incomes. No one denies that increased imports can disrupt labor markets, but this has viewed as a transitional cost that could be absorbed.

But recent economic studies by widely respected economists (including MIT’s Autor) have found that imports—and in particular, imports from China—are responsible for some of the loss of U.S. manufacturing jobs. Autor, David Dorn at the University of Zurich and Gordon Hanson at the University of California—San Diego view China’s entry into world markets as an epochal shock. Standard economic analysis would have predicted a shift within U.S. industries as workers in firms that lost their markets to Chinese imports migrated to other sectors, with no change in aggregate employment. But in reality the shift to new jobs by those workers exposed to import competition has not taken place and employment has fallen in those labor markets. In another study with MIT’s Daron Acemoglu and Brendan Price, these authors estimate U.S. job losses from Chinese import competition in the range of 2 – 2.4 million.

The relative effects of technology and international trade/finance on employment will undoubtedly be investigated, analyzed and debated for many years to come. But Steven R. Weisman of the Peterson Institute for International Economics makes an important point in his new book on globalization, The Great Tradeoff: Confronting Moral Conflicts in the Era of Globalization:

Facts, by themselves, will never definitely resolve the arguments over the effects of trade and investment on inequality or economic justice in general. Globalization, and indeed the full array of political conflicts in the modern era, must be resolved by men and women, not idealized concepts and truths.

A honest debate over the benefits and costs of globalization is overdue. To date, the U.S. has managed to avoid hard choices, but that will not continue, Dani Rodrik of Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government has examined the policy challenge In his book, The Globalization Paradox: Democracy and the Future of the World Economy. He makes the case for the existence of a policy “trilemma,” by which he means that a nation can not simultaneously have democracy, national sovereignty and “hyperglobalization,” i.e., the removal of all domestic barriers to trade and finance.

Rodrik examines the three possible national positions under his trilemma. If a nation totally embraces the global economy, then it can not allow domestic politics to enact rules and regulations that are not in alignment with international standards. He cites the era of the Gold Standard as a period when nations could not exercise discretionary policies. On the other hand, democratically elected global institutions could devise global regulations for the global markets. This would require a sort of global federalism, i.e., the U.S. model on a wider scale. Rodrik cites the European Union as a possible move in this direction, but was skeptical when he wrote his book of the feasibility of the EU expanding its scope. Recent events have certainly diminished any confidence in that model.

That leaves the “Bretton Woods compromise,” which is the use of national regulations by nations to choose their degree of integration with international markets. The restrictions on capital flows under the Bretton Woods international monetary system allowed governments to use macroeconomic policies to attain full employment (see Ch. 2 here). Similarly, Japan, Korea, China and other East Asian economies implemented measures to promote exports to accelerate growth. The global economy benefitted those who engaged in it, but each nation chose the scale of its involvement.

Rodrik raised a concern that the embrace of the global economy has engendered democratic oversight. In the case of the U.S., this may have been mitigated by the role of the U.S. as a global hegemon that set the pace for hyperglobalization. The U.S. was an active proponent of the World Trade Organization (WTO), which replaced the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) in 1995 and has sought to further trade integration. Financial deregulation began in the U.S. in the 1980s with the removal of regulations on thrifts, and continued in the 1990s with the elimination of restrictions on interstate banking and the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act that had separated commercial banking from other financial activities such as underwriting.

Both U.S. political parties embraced global economic integration. In the Republican party, the pro-business wing was allied with social conservatives and a group thaty advocated a strong military presence. The Democrats joined together unions with pro-business groups. But this year’s primaries are demonstrating that these coalitions are breaking down. Both Trump and Sanders are giving voice to those who feel that their support has been taken for granted and their concerns and interests ignored. There are projections of fundamental realignments on both sides of the political duopoly (see here and here), which may bring about a change in the U.S. position on globalization.

It is not clear what options are available. Despite the promises of Trump and other politicians, the jobs that have either been outmoded by technology or moved away will not be recreated. But it may be possible to devise stronger safety nets for those who do not share directly in the gains of more international trade and investment. President Obama went a long way in that direction through his achievement of expanded health care coverage. Rodrik believes that upper-income countries “…must address domestic concerns over inequality and distributive justice. This requires placing some sand in the wheels of globalization.” Summers has called for a shift in focus in negotiations from trade agreements to international harmonization agreements, that would include labor rights and environmental protection.

All this should be addressed, and quickly, since China’s impact on the global economy has not yet been fully felt. Arvind Subramanian and Martin Kessler of the Peterson Institute for International Economics claim that China’s effect on global trade makes it a “mega-trader.” A similar phenomenon may take place in the financial markets as China continues its relaxation of capital controls. The IMF has found that growth “surprises” in China already have a significant impact on equity markets in other economies. But the IMF expects that financial spillovers will become more significant in the future, particularly if Chinese residents are allowed to hold foreign equity and bonds. Martin Wolf points out that capital account liberalization may lead to a “large net capital outflow from China, a weaker exchange rate and a bigger current account surplus.” The international financial system is not robust enough to withstand another shock, which would only encourage more calls for nationalist measures. The costs of globalization must be explicitly addressed if we expect the public to ignore the siren song of politicians who would use protectionist measures to protect voters from the consequences of further globalization.

China’s Vulnerable External Balance Sheet

Leave a reply

China’s capital outflow last year is estimated to have totaled $1 trillion. Money has been channeled out of China in various ways, including individuals carrying cash, the purchase of foreign assets, the alteration of trade invoices and other more indirect ways. The monetary exodus has pushed the exchange rate down despite a trade surplus, and raised questions about public confidence in the government’s ability to manage the economy. Moreover, the changes in the composition of China’s external assets and liabilities in recent years will further weaken its economy.

Before the global financial crisis, China had an external balance sheet that, like many other emerging market economies, consisted largely of assets held in the form of foreign debt—including U.S. Treasury bonds—and liabilities issued in the form of equity, primarily foreign direct investment, and denominated in the domestic currency. This composition, known as “long debt, short equity,” was costly, as the payout on the equity liabilities exceeded the return on the foreign debt. But there was an offsetting factor: in the event of an external crisis, the decline in the market value of the equity liabilities strengthened the balance sheet. Moreover, if there were an accompanying depreciation of the domestic currency, then the rise in the value of the foreign assets would further increase the value of the external balance sheet. and help stabilize the economy.

After the crisis, however, there was a change in the nature of China’s assets and liabilities. Chinese firms acquired stakes in foreign firms, while also investing in natural resources. The former were often in upper-income countries, and were undertaken to establish a position in those markets as much as earn profits. Many of these acquisitions now look much less attractive as the world economy shows little sign of a robust recovery, particularly in Europe.

Moreover, many of these acquisitions were financed with debt, including funds from foreign lenders denominated in dollars. Robert N McCauley, Patrick McGuire and Vladyslav Sushko of the Bank for International Settlements estimated that Chinese borrowing in dollars, mostly in the form of bank loans, reached $1.1 trillion by 2014. The fall in the value of the renminbi raises the cost of this borrowing. Menzie Chinn points out that if the corporate sector’s foreign exchange assets are taken into account, then the net foreign exchange debt is a more manageable $793 billion. But not all the firms with dollar-denominated debt possess sufficient foreign assets to offset their liabilities.

Declines in the values of the foreign assets purchased through Chinese outward FDI combined with an increase in the currency value of foreign-held debt pushes down the value of the Chinese external balance sheet. This comes at a time when the Chinese central bank is using its foreign exchange assets to slow the decline of the renminbi. The fall in reserves last year has been estimated to have reached $500 billion. Moreover, foreign firms and investors are cutting back on their acquisition of Chinese assets while repatriating money from their existing investments. China’s external position, therefore, is deteriorating, albeit from a strong base position.

Policymakers have a limited range of responses. They are tightening controls on the ability of households and companies to send money abroad, as the head of the central bank of Japan has urged. But controls on capital outflows are often seen as a sign of weakness, and do not inspire confidence. Raising interest rates to deter capital outflows would only further weaken the domestic economy, and may not work. Such moves would be particularly awkward to defend in the wake of the IMF’s inclusion of the Chinese currency in the basket of currencies that the IMF’s Special Drawing Rights are based on.

China’s remaining foreign exchange reserves and trade surplus allow policymakers some breathing room, as Menzie Chinn points out. The Chinese authorities retain a great deal of administrative control over financial transactions.  As policy officials are shuffled around, those still in office seek to reassure investors that the economy remains in good shape. But injecting more credit into the economy does not alleviate concerns about mounting debt. The economic measures promised by the leadership are being judged in the financial markets, and the verdict to date seems to be one of little or no confidence.

Monetary Policy in an Open Economy

Leave a reply

The recent research related to the trilemma (see here) confirms that policymakers who are willing to sacrifice control of the exchange rate or capital flows can implement monetary policy. For most central banks, this means using a short-term interest rate, such as the Federal Funds rate in the case of the Federal Reserve in the U.S. or the Bank of England’s Bank Rate. But the record raises doubts about whether this is sufficient to achieve the policymakers’ ultimate economic goals.

The short-term interest rate does not directly affect investment and other expenditures. But it can lead to a rise in long-term rates, which will have an effect on spending by firms and households. The relationship of short-term and long-term rates appears in the yield curve. This usually has a positive slope to reflect expectations of future short-term real rates, future inflation and a term premium. Changes in short-term rates can lead to movements in long-term rates, but in recent years the long-term rates have not always responded as central bankers have wished. Former Federal Reserve Chair Alan Greenspan referred to the decline in U.S. long-term rates in 2005 as a “conundrum.” This problem is exacerbated in other countries’ financial markets, where long-term interest rates are affected by U.S. rates (see, for example, here and here) and global factors.

Central banks that sought to increase spending during the global financial crisis by lowering interest rates faced a new obstacle: the zero lower bound on interest rates. Policymakers who could not lower their nominal policy rates any further have sought to increase inflation in order to bring down real rates. To accomplish this, they devised a new policy tool, quantitative easing. Under these programs, central bankers purchased large amounts of bonds with longer maturities than they use for open market transactions and from a variety of issuers in order to bring down long-term rates. The U.S. engaged in such purchases between 2008 and 2014, while the European Central Bank and the Bank of Japan are still engaged in similar transactions. As a consequence of these purchases, the balance sheets of central banks swelled enormously.

In an open economy, there is another channel of transmission to the economy for monetary policy: the exchange rate. If a central bank can engineer a currency depreciation, an expansion in net exports could supplement or take the place of the desired change in domestic spending. A series of currency depreciations last summer led to concerns that some central banks were moving in that direction.

But there are many reasons why using exchange rate movements are not a solution to less effective domestic monetary policies. First, if a central bank wanted to use the exchange rate as a tool, it would have to fix it. But it then would have to surrender control of domestic money or block capital flows to satisfy the constraint of the trilemma. Second, there is no simple relationship between a central bank’s policy interest rate and the foreign exchange value of its currency. Exchange rates, like any asset price, exhibit a great deal of volatility. Third, the impact on an economy of a currency depreciation does not always work the way we might expect. Former Federal Reserve Chair Ben Bernanke has pointed out that the impact of a cheaper currency on relative prices is balanced by the stimulative effect of the easing of monetary policy on domestic income and imports.

Of course, this does not imply that central banks need not take notice of exchange rate movements. There are other channels of transmission besides trade flows. The Asian crisis showed that a depreciation raises the value of debt liabilities denominated in foreign currencies, which can lead to bankruptcies and banking crises. We may see this phenomenon again in emerging markets as those firms that borrowed in dollars when U.S. rates were cheap have difficulty in meeting their obligations as both interest rates and the value of the dollar rise (see here).

Georgios Georgiadis and Arnaud Mehl of the European Central Bank have investigated the impact of financial globalization on monetary policy effectiveness. They find that economies that are more susceptible to global financial cycles show a weaker response of output to monetary policy. But they also find that economies with larger net foreign currency exposures exhibit a stronger response of output to monetary policy shocks. They conclude: “Overall, we find that the net effect of financial globalization since the 1990s has been to amplify monetary policy effectiveness in the typical advanced and emerging markets economy.”

While their results demonstrate the importance of exchange rate in economic fluctuations, that need not mean that monetary policy is “effective” as a policy tool. As explained above, flexible (or loosely managed) exchange rates are unpredictable. They can change in response to capital flows that react to foreign variables as well as domestic factors. The trilemma may hold in the narrow sense that central banks maintain control of their own policy rates if exchange rates are flexible. But what the policymakers can achieve with this power is circumscribed in an open economy.

Can Systemic Financial Risk Be Contained?

1 Reply

Risk aversion is a basic human characteristic, and in response to it we seek to safeguard the world live in. We mandate airbags and safety belts for automobile driving, set standards for the handling and shipment of food, build levees and dams to control floods, and regulate financial transactions and institutions to avoid financial collapses. But Greg Ip in Foolproof shows that our best attempts at avoiding catastrophes can fail, and even bring about worse disasters than those that motivate our attempts to avoid them. Drivers who feel safer with antilock brakes drive more quickly and leave less space between cars, while government flood insurance encourages building houses on plains that are regularly flooded.

Is the financial sector different? The traditional measures implemented to avoid financial failures are based on attaining macroeconomic stability. Monetary policy was used to control inflation, and when necessary, respond to shocks that destabilized the economy. When a crisis did emerge, the primary responsibility of a central bank was to act as a lender of last resort, providing funds to institutions that were solvent but illiquid. There was a vigorous debate before the global crisis of 2008-09 over whether central banks should attempt to deflate asset bubbles, but most central bankers did not believe that this was an appropriate task.

Fiscal policy was seen as more limited in its ability to combat business downturns because of lags in its design, implementation and effect. A policy that established a balanced budget over the business cycle, thus limiting the buildup of public debt, was often considered the best that could be expected. Automatic stabilizers, therefore, were set up to respond to cyclical fluctuations.

In open economies, flexible exchange rates provided some insulation against foreign shocks, and avoided the dangers that a commitment to a fixed rate entailed. Countries that did fix, or at least manage, their exchange rates stockpiled foreign exchange reserves to forestall speculative attacks. IMF surveillance provided an external perspective on domestic policies, while IMF lending could supplement foreign exchange reserves.

The global financial crisis demonstrated that these measures were inadequate to provide financial stability. The Federal Reserve led the way in implementing new monetary policies—quantitative easing—to supplement lower policy rates that faced a zero lower bound. But policymakers also responded with a broad range of innovative financial regulations. A new type of regulation—macroprudential—was introduced to minimize systemic financial risk, i.e., the risk associated with the collapse of a financial system (as opposed to the microprudential risk of the failure of an individual institution). These measures seek to prevent speculative rises in asset prices and credit creation, and the establishment of risky balance sheet positions. They include limits on interest rate and foreign exchange mismatches on balance sheets, caps on bank loan to value ratios, and countercyclical capital requirements (see here for an overview of these measures).

In the international sector, the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision produced “Basel III,” a new set of regulations designed to strengthen the resilience of its members’  banking systems. Capital control measures, once viewed as hindrances to the efficient allocation of savings, are now seen as useful in limiting inflows of foreign funds that contribute to asset bubbles. Swap lines allow central banks to draw upon each other for foreign exchange to meet the demand from domestic institutions, while the IMF has sought to make borrowing more user-friendly. Meetings of the member governments of the newly-formed Group of 20 allow them to coordinate their policies, while the IMF’s surveillance purview has expanded to include regional and global developments.

Are these measures sufficient? The lack of another global crisis to date is too easy a criterion, given that the recovery is still underway. But there may be inherent problems in the behavior of financial market participants that could frustrate policies that seek to prevent or at least contain financial crises. Moral hazard is often blamed for shoddy decision-making by those who think they can dodge the consequences of their actions. Many who were involved in the creation and sale of collaterized securities may have thought that the government would step in if there were a danger of a breakdown in these markets. But many banks held onto these securities, indicating that they thought that the reward of owning the securities outweighed the risks. Bank officials who oversaw the expansion of mortgage lending generally lost their jobs (and reputations). It is difficult to believe after the crisis that anyone thought that they could manipulate the government into absorbing all the consequences of their actions.

But if moral hazard is not always at fault, there is ample evidence that asymmetric information and behavioral anomalies result in hazardous behavior. Will the regulatory provisions listed above minimize the incidence of risky financial practices? There is some evidence that the provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act are working. But the regulatory framework continues to be implemented, and bankers and other financial market participants will always seek to find loopholes that they can exploit.

Regulatory practices on the international level are also subject to manipulation. Roman Goldbach, a political economist at Deutsche Bundesbank, in his book Global Governance and Regulatory Failure: The Political Economy of Banking points out that the overlap of national and global standards in what he calls the “transnational regulatory regime” results in layering “gaps.” The resulting loopholes in the policymaking process allow private interest coalitions to have a disproportionate influence on policy formulation. Moreover, policy officials consider the competitiveness of domestic financial structures as a goal (at least) equal to financial stability in international negotiations over regulatory standards. While there have been substantial changes since the global crisis, including the formation of the Financial Stability Board, the incentives in the governance structure of global finance have not changed.

Even regulations that work as intended may have unintended and unwanted consequences due to externalities. Kristin Forbes of MIT and Marcel Fratzscher, Thomas Kostka and Roland Straub of the European Central Bank examined Brazil’s tax on capital inflows from 2006 to 2011. They found that the tax did cause investors to decrease their portfolio allocation to Brazilian securities, as planned. But other countries also felt the impact of the tax. Foreign investors increased their allocation to economies that had some similarities to Brazil, while cutting back on those countries that were likely to impose their own control measures. Capital control measures that are imposed unilaterally, therefore, may only divert risky funds elsewhere, and are not a tool for controlling global financial risk.

The flow of money looking for higher yields outside the U.S. may diminish in the wake of the rise in the Federal Funds rate in the U.S. But Lukasz Rachel and Thomas D. Smith of the Bank of England claim that long-term factors account for a decline in the global real interest rate that will not be soon reversed. This poses a challenge for policymakers, as measures implemented in one country to contain a domestic credit boom may be undermined by foreign inflows. Domestic actions, therefore, ideally would be matched by similar measures in other countries, which would require macroprudential policy coordination.

Barry Eichengreen of UC-Berkeley has studied the record of international policy coordination, and finds that it works best under four sets of circumstances: when the coordination is centered on technical issues, such as central bank swaps; when the process is institutionalized; when it is aimed at preserving an existing set of policies, i.e., regime preserving, rather than devising new procedures; and when there exists a sense of mutual interests on a broad set of issues among the participants. Are such conditions present today? At the time of the crisis, central bankers cooperated in setting up the currency swap agreements while discussing their monetary policies. The formation of the Group of 20 provided a new forum for regular consultation, and there was widespread agreement in preserving a regime that encouraged international trade while preventing competitive currency devaluations. But the passage of time has weakened many of the commitments made when the crisis threatened, and the uneven recovery has caused national interests to diverge.

Perhaps a more basic issue is whether it is possible to design a financial system free of volatility. A government that is willing to replace markets in directing financial flows and allocating financial returns can maintain stability, but at a price. Such a system is characterized as “financial repression,” and includes limits on interest rates received by savers, control of banks and their lending, and the use of regulations to prevent capital flows. These regulations penalize household savers, and allow the government and state-sponsored enterprises to receive credit at relatively low rates while blocking credit to firms that do not enjoy government backing.

China used these types of measures during the 1980s and 1990s to finance its investment- and export-led growth, and its self-imposed financial isolation allowed it to escape the effects of the Asian financial crisis. But more recently China has engaged in financial liberalization, removing controls on interest rates and bank activities while deregulating its capital account and allowing more exchange rate flexibility. The responses have included the emergence of a shadow banking system and a boom in private credit, which will require government actions to avoid a crisis.

Several years ago Romain Rancière of the Paris School of Economics, Aaron Tornell of the University of California-Los Angeles and Frank Westermann of Osnabrueck University coauthored a paper (here; working paper here) on the tradeoff between systemic financial crises and economic growth. They showed that financial liberalization leads to more growth and a higher incidence of crises. But their empirical estimates indicated that the direct effect on growth outweighed the negative impact of the crises. They contrasted the examples of Thailand, which had a history of lending booms and crises with that of India, which had a more controlled financial sector, and showed that Thailand had enjoyed higher growth in per capita GDP. In a subsequent paper (here; working paper here), they explored the relationship between crises that produced a negative skewness in the growth of real credit, which in turn had a negative link with growth.

If there is a tradeoff between the volatility associated with financial liberalization and economic growth, then each society must choose the optimal combination of the two. Financial innovations will change the terms of the tradeoff, and lead to movements back and forth as we learn more about the risks of new financial tools. The advantages of novel instruments at the time when they seem most productive must be weighed against the possible (but unknown) dangers they pose. Perhaps the greatest threat is that the decisions over how much control and regulation is needed will be made not by those public officials entrusted with preserving financial stability, but by those who will profit most from the changes.

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 85th 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.