Tag Archives: monetary policies

The Global Financial Cycle and Emerging Market Economies

Leave a reply

The Federal Reserve’s latest increase in its policy rate is a signal of its desire to reestablish its credibility after U.S. inflation rose to 8.6% in May, and a precursor of more hikes.  Similar increases have been implemented by the Bank of England and the Swiss National Bank, and the European Central Bank has announced that an increase in its policy rate will occur in July.  These and other policy moves by central bankers indicate that we are in a new global financial cycle (GFC), which will have wide-ranging implications for emerging market and developing economies (EMDEs).

Maurice Obstfeld of UC-Berkeley and former chief economist of the IMF explains the linkages between monetary policy in advanced economies and economic activity in other countries in a Peterson Institute Working Paper, “The International Financial System after COVID-19.” Recent research has shown that U.S. financial conditions and Federal Reserve monetary policy, as well as conditions and policies in other advanced economies, affect asset prices, capital flows and commodity prices across a broad range of economies, evidence of a global financial cycle.

Researchers have devised measures of the cycle and studied its behavior. An index of global financial conditions shows a close correlation with output in the EMDEs. Part of this linkage is exerted via the dollar’s exchange rate, which appreciates in response to higher U.S. interest rates. Obstfeld lists several mechanisms that drive the relationship (see also here). He cites the impact of dollar appreciation on the tightening of trade finance credit, the role of the dollar as a safe haven during periods of heightened risk aversion, the contractionary impact of a stronger dollar on export demand when exports are denominated in dollars, a global decline in investment and a fall in real commodity prices. Exchange rate flexibility can mitigate the impact of shocks in the global financial cycle, but spillover effects are always present.

Obstfeld warns that higher interest rates in the advanced economies will affect the EMDEs. While the levels of government debt to GDP in many EMDEs are below those in most advanced economies, the rises in these ratios since the pandemic have been similar in magnitude. Refinancing will force these countries to deal with higher financing costs, and foreign-currency denominated debt adds another source of stress. Obstfeld cautions that one particular source of financial fragility is the concentration of sovereign debt on the balance sheets of banks in EMDEs.

An empirical assessment of the factors that drive capital flows to EMDEs is provided by Xichen Wang of the Chongqing Technology and Business University and Cheng Yan of the Essex Business School in their paper in the current IMF Economic Review, “Does the Relative Importance of the Push and Pull Factors of Foreign Capital Flows Vary Across Quantiles?  (working paper version here). They contrast the impact of “push” factors that are external to capital flow recipients and domestic “pull” factors on capital flows to 51 emerging markets. They use quantile analysis, which allows them to investigate the effect of the independent variables on different quantiles of the distribution of the dependent variable. The lower quantiles (such as the first 20%) are periods of relatively low capital flows, the median quantiles are tranquil and smooth periods, and the higher quantiles are periods of abundant capital financing.

The authors use several indicators of a GFC, including the U.S. 3-month Treasury bill rate deflated by U.S. inflation and the VIX index, which is based on the volatility of S&P 500 stock options. They also utiliized U. S. economic growth and average net capital flows to other countries in the region. For pull variables they utilized domestic variables, such as the domestic real interest rate, economic growth, public indebtedness, private credit expansion and the current account.

Wang and Yan’s results show that VIX and regional capital flows are highly significant for all the quantiles of gross capital inflows.  An increase in risk, as manifested in a rise in VIX, lowers capital flows to the emerging markets while an increase in capital flows to other countries in the region has a positive effect. Several of the domestic pull factors, such as economic growth and international reserves, are statistically significant at the lower quantiles, but their significance diminishes in the higher quantiles. Foreign investors pay attention to domestic conditions when capital flows are relatively limited.

The authors also present results for disaggregated capital flows (FDI, portfolio equity, portfolio debt, bank). The significance of VIX remains for all forms of capital, including FDI which is sometimes seen as less affected by global conditions. The domestic push factors are significant for the non-FDI flows at the lower quantiles, but not at the upper quantiles.

The authors conclude that policymakers need to pay attention to the manifestation of GFCs, as they can lead to a sudden fall in gross inflows. VIX has risen this year from 16.60 on January 3 to a high of 36.45 on March 7, and currently stands at 27.53. The nominal Treasury bill rate rose from 0.09% at the beginning pf the year and has risen to 1.59%.  But the rate of inflation rose from 7.5% to 8.6% over the same period, largely offsetting the rise in the nominal rate.

The World Bank has evaluated the prospects of the EMDES in the June edition of its Global Economic Prospects. They forecast a slowdown in economic growth in the EMDEs from 6.6% in 2021 to 3.4% this year, and warn that the war in Ukraine has increased the risk of a further negative adjustment. The World Bank also cites global financial conditions as a cause of concern:

“As global financing conditions tighten and currencies depreciate, debt distress—previously confined to low-income economies—is spreading to middle-income countries. The removal of monetary accommodation in the United States and other advanced economies, along with the ensuing increase in global borrowing costs, represents another significant headwind for the developing world.”

There is a well-established link, therefore, from monetary policies in the U.S. and other advanced economies to the rest of the global economy. As the Federal Reserve and its counterparts show their determination to face down inflation, they can trigger spillovers that exacerbate capital outflows from the EMDEs. The result will be a further deterioration in the economies of countries that have already endured a series of negative shocks.

The Long Reach of U.S. Monetary Policy

Leave a reply

The spillover of U.S. monetary policy on foreign economies has become an active area of research. Analysts seek to identify the channels of transmission between the policy stance of the Federal Reserve and foreign interest rates and credit extension. The usual account is that an expansionary Fed policy leads to capital outflows and an appreciation of foreign currencies as investors seek higher yields abroad. Two recent papers have focused on different aspects of this linkage.

Silvia Albrizio of the Bank of Spain, Sangyup Choi of Yonsei University, Davide Furceri of the IMF and Chansik Yoon of Princeton University investigated the impact of monetary tightening on cross-border bank lending in an IMF working paper, “International Bank Lending Channel of Monetary Policy.” Previous work was divided on whether a contractionary U.S. policy would lead to a decline or an increase in international bank lending. These economists used data on exogenous policy shocks in the U.S., which are based on the narrative approach of  Romer and Romer (2004), to examine their impact on cross-border bank lending in 45 countries.

The results show clear signs of a significant negative effect of U.S. monetary policy shocks on cross-border lending. A 100 basis point rise in the policy rate leads to a sizable more than 10% fall in lending after two quarters. When the authors extended their analysis to include monetary policy shocks in Canada, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and the U.K., they again found that exogenous monetary tightening in these economies led to a decline in cross-border bank lending. These results hold even when the authors control for global uncertainty or liquidity risks.

Sebnem Kalemli-Özcan of the University of Maryland focused on the impact of U.S. monetary policy changes on risk in her 2019 Jackson Hole presentation, “U.S. Monetary Policy and International Risk Spillovers.” In her analysis, there are two components of risk, global risk and country-specific risk, and these are crucial elements in the transmission of changes in U.S. policies to the emerging market economies. In these countries, a tightening of U.S. monetary policy leads to a rise in global risk as well as an increase in country risk. These changes in the risk premia affect the domestic response to the U.S. policy. The advanced economies, on the other hand, do not show similar responses.

For example, in the empirical analysis Kalemli-Özcan finds that an increase in the U.S. Treasury rate leads to an increase in the differential with domestic government bond rates in her sample of 46 emerging market economies, but a decline in the same differential in her sample of 13 advanced economies. However, the differential in the emerging market countries falls when a measure of global risk aversion (VIX) is added to the analysis, and becomes insignificant when an indicator of country risk (Emerging Market Bond Index Global of JPMorgan) is also utilized.

Risk premia also affect the linkage of domestic policy rates and lending rates. The presence of risk injects a wedge between the two domestic interest rates. If domestic bank rates are regressed on the policy rate in the emerging markets, the pass-through is less than complete, whereas the pass-through is almost complete in the case of the advanced economies. But the impact in the emerging markets rises when the two indicators of risk are included in the empirical analysis.

Kalemli-Özcan infers that the central banks of the emerging markets loosen their policies when risk rises, and tighten when risk falls. This response is determined in part by the type of exchange rate regime that a country has. Those emerging markets that manage their exchange rates raise their policy rates in response to the increased risk premia following a U.S. tightening. These interest rate upswings in turn affect domestic economic activity. A flexible exchange rate regime, on the other hand, mitigates the undesirable effects of the risk spillovers by absorbing the response to the higher risk. The differences in exchange rate regimes, therefore, may explain the divergence in the responses of emerging market and advanced economies to U.S. policy shocks.

Both papers acknowledge that U.S. policies have significant effects on foreign economies. Albrizio, Choi, Furceri and Yoon conclude that U.S. monetary policy is a contributor to the “global financial cycles” that Rey (2015) and others have identified. Kalemli-Özcan finds that U.S. policies are a “powerful force in driving international risk spillovers.” While global trade flows may have fallen, capital flows until the coronavirus were robust. As long as the U.S. dollar is dominant in international commerce and finance, the Fed’s influence will continue to unsettle foreign nations.

U.S. Interest Rates and Global Banking in Emerging Market Economies

3 Replies

The spillover effects of changes in U.S. interest rates are widely recognized (see here and  here). An increase in rates, for example, raises the cost of dollar-denominated financing outside the U.S., which has grown in recent years, while an appreciation of the dollar makes such debt even more expensive to service and refinance. The emerging markets are among the nations adversely affected by the rise in U.S. interest rates. Several recent research papers have shown how global bank lending in these economies is affected.

Stefan Avdjiev, Cathérine Koch, Patrick McGuire and Goetz von Peter of the Bank for International Settlements investigate the impact of a change in U.S. monetary policy on cross-border lending by global banks in their paper, “Transmission of Monetary Policy through Global Banks: Whose Policy Matters?”, BIS Working Paper no. 745. In their analysis they also investigate the effect of changes in the policy stance of the central banks of both the country of the borrower as well as the home country of the lending bank. They use data on cross-border claims denominated in U.S. dollars held by international banks in 32 lender countries on borrowers in 55 countries over the period of 2000-2016.

The authors find that a tightening in U.S. monetary policy does lead to a decrease in dollar-denominated lending, as expected. But they also find that a more contractionary monetary policy in the lending country leads in a rise in cross-border dollar lending out of that country, presumably as the banks within the country switch to the cheaper dollar funding. Similarly, monetary tightening in the country of the borrower also leads to an increase in dollar-denominated credit, although these results are less robust.

The authors then investigate some of the transmission channels and seek to identify which characteristics of the banks are most relevant for these effects. They find, for example, that the negative effect of a tightening in U.S. monetary policy is smaller for banks that are more reliant on short-term wholesale funding and have better access to intragroup funding. These banks may have more alternatives to turn to when the cost of borrowing in dollars rises.

Another analysis of the effects of U.S. monetary policy on credit to emerging markets is offered by Falk Bräuning of the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston and Victoria Ivashina of Harvard Business School in “U.S. Monetary Policy and Emerging Market Credit Cycles”, NBER Working Paper no. 25185. They investigate the impact of shocks in U.S. monetary policy on the issuance of global syndicated corporate loans in a broad range of countries between 1990 and 2016. Dollar-denominated loans represent a large share of cross-border credit in the emerging market economies.

Their results indicate that an easing (tightening) of U.S. monetary policy leads to a rise (decline) in bank flows to the foreign markets. When they distinguish between developed economies and emerging markets, they find that the impact is about twice as large in the latter group. They also report that this result holds for U.S. and non-U.S. lenders, and that this linkage existed before the global financial crisis.

Ilhyock Shim of the Bank for International Settlements and Kwanho Shin of Korea University offer another line of analysis of global bank activity in emerging market economies in “Financial Stress in Lender Countries and Capital Outflows From Emerging Market Economies”, BIS Working Paper no. 745. In their empirical analysis, they use data from bilateral banking flows to construct a measures of capital outflows from the emerging markets to each lender country. To measure stress in lender countries, they use three indicators: an average of bank credit default spreads (CDS) for 66 banks in 29 lender countries, sovereign CDS spreads in the banks’ home countries, and the spread between dollar-denominated corporate bonds in each lender country and the matching U.S. Treasury yield. They also use sovereign spreads for financial stress in the 67 borrower nations.

The authors find that an increase in financial stress in the lending country leads to capital outflows from the emerging markets. When the measure of financial stress in the emerging market is included, it is also significant. But when economic fundamental variables in the emerging markets are added, the significance of stress in the lender countries continues to be strong while stress in the emerging markets is not. In addition, they report that cross-border claims are particularly vulnerable to stress in the lender countries. They also find these results hold in the post-financial crisis period.

Shim and Shin point out that one of the policy implication of their results draw is that strong economic fundamentals in an emerging market economy may not be sufficient to prevent capital outflows during a period of stress in lending countries. The same lesson applies for these countries if U.S. interest rates are rising. Flexible exchange rates, the standard buffer from foreign shocks, may not be able to change global banking flows.

Federal Reserve officials are attempting to pull off a difficult task: raising interest rates without ending the recovery in the U.S. Within the U.S. this challenge has been complicated by the short-run effects of expansionary fiscal policies that are due to run out in coming months. If the rise in rates also contributes to a slowdown in bank lending in other countries, the Fed will face enormous pressure to put further rate hikes on hold.  We have seen the story of higher U.S. rates and emerging market economies before, and the ending is not pretty.

Capital Flows and Domestic Responses

Leave a reply

The international impact of financial shocks became apparent during the global financial crisis. But how do financial flows affect economic conditions during non-crisis times? And are there ways to shelter the domestic economy from these flows? Some new evidence from the IMF seeks to answer these questions.

IMF economists Bertrand Gruss, Malhar Nabar and Marcos Poplawski-Ribeiro, in a chapter in the IMF’s latest World Economic Outlook entitled “Roads Less Traveled: Growth in Emerging Markets and Developing Economies in a Complicated External Environment,” examine the impact of external conditions on growthsince the 1970s in over 80 emerging market and developing economies. This issue is particularly important in light of the contribution to global growth—80%—by these economies since the financial crisis.

The authors construct measures for the countries in their sample to capture the following external conditions: external demand, as measured by domestic absorption in a country’s trading partners; external finance, based on capital flows to peer economies; and the terms of trade, constructed from commodity prices. The cross-correlation across these measures is low, indicating that they capture different sources of external variation. The country-specific measures often diverge from their global values, which the authors attribute to domestic factors.

The three measures are all economically and statistically significant in explaining the growth rate of GDP per capita over five-year windows in the countries under stud , contributing almost 2 percentage points to income per capita growth over the 40-year period. Their collective impact rose from about 1.7 percentage points to 2.3 percentage points over the entire period. External financial conditions in particular have become increasingly important over time. Their contribution to growth increased by about half of a percentage point between the 1995-2004 and 2004-1014 periods, and represented half of the contribution from external factors since 2005. The authors attribute the rise in part to the increased financial integration of capital markets.

How do local conditions affect the impact of external financial flows on the domestic economy? In general, a loosening of external financial conditions contributes to growth when they are channeled to “…financially constrained agents while maintaining relatively robust risk management and origination standards that minimize the pitfalls of excessive credit growth.” This will occur when there is financial development and a healthy pace of increase in domestic credit to accompany capital account openness.

How do policymakers in emerging market economies actually respond to capital flows? IMF economists Atish R. Ghosh, Jonathan D. Ostry and Mahvash Qureshi look at this issue in a recent IMF working paper, “Managing the Tide: How Do Emerging Markets Respond to Capital Flows?” Using a sample of 50 emerging market economies over the period of 2005 to 2013, they investigate whether these countries sought to restrain the impact of capital inflows on their countries. Their evidence indicates that central bankers did seek to check their impact by foreign exchange market intervention and setting higher policy rates. Moreover, macro prudential policies were strengthened and capital controls tightened in response to capital surges. On the other hand, capital flows were associated a pro-cyclical response in government expenditures, signaling that fiscal and monetary policymakers have different goals.

The authors leave open for future research the question of whether such measures decrease the probability of experiencing a subsequent financial crisis (see here). The existence of global financial cycles (see here) indicates that global financial markets have become increasingly dependent on conditions in the advanced economies, particularly the U.S., which may limit the efficacy of domestic measures. Political turmoil in the U.S. may be the factor that upends the recent historically low levels of VIX (see also here). If so, policymakers in the emerging markets will need to take more steps to shield their economies from the ensuing turbulence.

The Search for an Effective Macro Policy

1 Reply

Economic growth in the advanced economies seems stalled. This summer the IMF projected increases in GDP in these economies of 1.8% for both 2016 and 2017. This included growth of 2.2% this year in the U.S. and 2.5% in 2017, 1.6% and 1.4% in the Eurozone in 2016 and 2017 respectively, and 0.3% and 0.1% in Japan. U.S. Treasury Secretary Jack Lew has called on the Group of 20 countries to use all available tools to raise growth, as has the IMF’s Managing Director Christine Lagarde. So why aren’t the G20 governments doing more?

The use of discretionary fiscal policy as a stimulus seems to be jammed, despite renewed interest in its effectiveness by macroeconomists such as Christopher Sims of Princeton University. While the U.S. presidential candidates talk about spending on much-needed infrastructure, there is little chance that a Republican-controlled House of Representatives would go along. In Europe, Germany’s fiscal surplus gives it the ability to increase spending that would benefit its neighbors, but it shows no interest in doing so (see Brad Setser and Paul Krugman). And the IMF does not seem to be following its own policy guidelines in its advice to individual governments.

One of the traditional concerns raised by fiscal deficits rests on their impact on the private spending that will be crowded out by the subsequent rise in interest rates. But this is not a relevant problem in a world of negative interest rates in many advanced economies and very low rates in the U.S. The increase in sovereign debt payments should be more than offset by the increase in economic activity that will be reinforced by the effect of spending on infrastructure on future growth.

On the other hand, there has been no hesitation by monetary policymakers in responding to economic conditions. They initially reacted to the global financial crisis by cutting policy rates and providing liquidity to banks. When the ensuing recovery proved to be weak, they undertook large-scale purchases of assets, known in the U.S. as “quantitative easing,” to bring down long-term rates that are relevant for business loans and mortgages.The asset purchases of the central banks led to massive expansions of their balance sheets on a scale never seen before. The Federal Reserve’s assets, for example, rose from about $900 billion in 2007 to $4.4 trillion this summer. Similarly, the Bank of Japan holds assets worth about $4.5 trillion, while the European Central Bank owns $3.5 trillion of assets.

The interventions of the central banks were successful in bringing down interest rates. They also elevated the prices of financial assets, including stock prices. But their impact on real economic activity seems to be stunted. While the expansion in the U.S. has lowered the unemployment rate to 4.9%, the inflation rate utilized by the Federal Reserve continues to fall below the target 2%. Investment spending is weaker than desired, despite the low interest rates. Indeed, many firms have sufficient cash to finance capital expenditures, but prefer to hold it back. The situations in Europe and Japan are bleaker. Investment in the Eurozone, where the unemployment rate is 10.1%., remains below its pre-crisis peak. Japan also sees weak investment that contributes to its stagnant position.

If lower interest rates do not stimulate domestic demand, there is an alternative channel of transmission: the exchange rate, which can improve the trade balance through expenditure switching. But there are several disturbing aspects of a dependence on a currency depreciation to increase output (see also here). First, there is an adverse impact on domestic firms with liabilities denominated in a foreign currency, as the cost of servicing and repaying that debt rises. Second, expansionary monetary policy does not always have the expected impact on the exchange rate. The Japanese yen appreciated last spring despite the central bank’s acceptance of negative interest rates to spur spending. Third, a successful depreciation requires the willingness of some other nation to accept an appreciation of its currency. The U.S. seems to have accepted that role, but Mohammed A. El-Erian has pointed out, U.S. firms are concerned “…about the impact of a stronger dollar on their earnings…” He also points to “…declining inward tourism and a deteriorating trade balance…” Under these circumstances, the willingness of the U.S. government to continue to accept an appreciating dollar is not guaranteed.

There is one other consequence of advanced economies pushing down their interest rates: increased capital flows to emerging market economies. Foreign investors, who had pulled out of bond markets in these countries for much of the last three years, have now reversed course. The inflows may help out those countries that face adverse economic conditions. But if/when the Federal Reserve resumes raising its policy rate, the attraction of these markets may pall.

The search for an effective macro policy tool, therefore, is constrained by political considerations as much as the paucity of options. But there is another factor: is it possible to return to pre-2008 economic growth rates? Harvard’s Larry Summers points out that those rates were based on an unsustainable housing bubble. He believes that private spending will not return us to full-employment, and urges the Fed to keep interest rates low and the government to engage in debt-financed investments in infrastructure projects. Ken Rogoff (also of Harvard), on the other hand, believes that we are suffering the downside of a debt supercycle. Joseph Stiglitz of Columbia University blames deficient aggregate demand in part on income inequality.

The one common theme that emerges from these different analyses is that there is no “quick fix” that will restore the advanced economies to some economic Eden. Structural and other forces are acting as headwinds to slow growth. But voters are not interested in long-run analyses, and many will turn to those who claim that they have solutions, no matter how potentially disastrous those are.

 

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.

The Enduring Relevance of “Manias, Panics, and Crashes”

1 Reply

The seventh edition of Manias, Panics, and Crashes has recently been published by Palgrave Macmillan. Charles Kindleberger of MIT wrote the first edition, which appeared in 1978, and followed it with three more editions. Robert Aliber of the Booth School of Business at the University of Chicago took over the editing and rewriting of the fifth edition, which came out in 2005. (Aliber is also the author of another well-known book on international finance, The New International Money Game.) The continuing popularity of Manias, Panics and Crashes shows that financial crises continue to be a matter of widespread concern.

Kindleberger built upon the work of Hyman Minsky, a faculty member at Washington University in St. Louis. Minsky was a proponent of what he called the “financial instability hypothesis,” which posited that financial markets are inherently unstable. Periods of financial booms are followed by busts, and governmental intervention can delay but not eliminate crises. Minsky’s work received a great deal of attention during the global financial crisis (see here and here; for a summary of Minksy’s work, see Why Minsky Matters by L. Randall Wray of the University of Missouri-Kansas City and the Levy Economics Institute).

Kindleberger provided a more detailed description of the stages of a financial crisis. The period preceding a crisis begins with a “displacement,” a shock to the system. When a displacement improves the profitability of at least one sector of an economy, firms and individuals will seek to take advantage of this opportunity. The resulting demand for financial assets leads to an increase in their prices. Positive feedback in asset markets lead to more investments and financial speculation, and a period of “euphoria,” or mania develops.

At some point, however, insiders begin to take profits and withdraw from the markets. Once market participants realize that prices have peaked, flight from the markets becomes widespread. As prices plummet, a period of “revulsion” or panic ensues. Those who had financed their positions in the market by borrowing on the promise of profits on the purchased assets become insolvent. The panic ends when prices fall so far that some traders are tempted to come back into the market, or trading is limited by the authorities, or a lender of last resort intervenes to halt the decline.

In addition to elaborating on the stages of a financial crisis, Kindleberger also placed them in an international context. He wrote about the propagation of crises through the arbitrage of divergences in the prices of assets across markets or their substitutes. Capital flows and the spread of euphoria also contribute to the simultaneous rises in asset prices in different countries. (Piero Pasotti and Alessandro Vercelli of the University of Siena provide an analysis of Kindleberger’s contributions.)

Aliber has continued to update the book, and the new edition has a chapter on the European sovereign debt crisis. (The prior edition covered the events of 2008-09.) But he has also made his own contributions to the Minsky-Kindleberger (and now –Aliber) framework. Aliber characterizes the decades since the early 1980s as “…the most tumultuous in monetary history in terms of the number, scope and severity of banking crises.” To date, there have been four waves of such crises, which are almost always accompanied by currency crises. The first wave was the debt crisis of developing nations during the 1980s, and it was followed by a second wave of crises in Japan and the Nordic countries in the early 1990s. The third wave was the Asian financial crisis of 1997-98, and the fourth is the global financial crisis.

Aliber emphasizes the role of cross-border investment flows in precipitating the crises. Their volatility has risen under flexible exchange rates, which allow central banks more freedom in formulating monetary policies that influence capital allocation. He also draws attention to the increases in household wealth due to rising asset prices and currency appreciation that contribute to consumption expenditures and amplify the boom periods. The reversal in wealth once investors revise their expectations and capital begins to flow out makes the resulting downturn more acute.

These views are consistent in many ways with those of Claudio Borio of the Bank for International Settlements (see also here). He has written that the international monetary and financial system amplifies the “excess financial elasticity,” i.e., the buildup of financial imbalances that characterizes domestic financial markets. He identifies two channels of transmission. First, capital inflows contribute to the rise in domestic credit during a financial boom. The impact of global conditions on domestic financial markets exacerbates this development (see here). Second, monetary regimes may facilitate the expansion of  monetary conditions from one country to others. Central bankers concerned about currency appreciation and a loss of competitiveness keep interest rates lower than they would otherwise, which furthers a domestic boom. In addition, the actions of central banks with international currencies such as the dollar has international ramifications, as the current widespread concern about the impending rise in the Federal Funds rate shows.

Aliber ends the current edition of Manias, Panics and Crashes with an appendix on China’s financial situation. He compares the surge in China’s housing markets with the Japanese boom of the 1980s and subsequent bust that initiated decades of slow economic growth. An oversupply of new housing in China has resulted in a decline in prices that threatens the solvency of property developers and the banks and shadow banks that financed them. Aliber is dubious of the claim that the Chinese government will support the banks, pointing out that such support will only worsen China’s indebtedness. The need for an eighth edition of Manias, Panics and Crashes may soon be apparent.

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.

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.