We analyze the joint impact of macroprudential and capital control measures on cross-border banking flows, while controlling for multidimensional aspects in lender-and-borrower-relationships (e.g., distance, cultural proximity, microprudential regulations). We uncover interesting spillover effects from both types of measures when applied either by lender or borrowing countries, with many of them most likely associated with circumvention or arbitrage incentives. While lender countries’ macroprudential policies reduce direct cross-border banking outflows, they are associated with larger outflows through local affiliates. Direct cross-border inflows are higher in borrower countries with more usage of macroprudential policies, and are linked to circumvention motives. In the case of capital controls, most spillovers seem to be present through local affiliates. We do not find evidence to support the idea that additional capital inflow controls could interact with macro-prudential policies to mitigate cross-border spillovers.
While global uncertainty—measured by the VIX—has proven to be a robust global “push” factor of international capital flows, there has been no systematic study assessing the role of country-specific uncertainty as a key (pull and push) factor of international capital flows. This paper tries to fill this gap in the literature by examining the effects of country-specific uncertainty shocks on cross-border banking flows using the confidential Bank for International Settlements Locational Banking Statistics data. The dyadic structure of this data allows to disentangle supply and demand factors and to better identify the effect of uncertainty shocks on cross-border banking flows. The results of this analysis suggest that: (i) uncertainty is both a push and pull factor that robustly predicts a decrease in both outflows (retrenchment) and inflows (stops); (ii) global banks rebalance their lending towards safer foreign borrowers from local borrowers when facing higher uncertainty; (iii) this rebalancing occurs only towards advanced economies (flight to quality), but not emerging market economies.
Qianying Chen, Andrew Filardo, Mr. Dong He, and Mr. Feng Zhu
We study the impact of the US quantitative easing (QE) on both the emerging and advanced economies, estimating a global vector error-correction model (GVECM) and conducting counterfactual analyses. We focus on the effects of reductions in the US term and corporate spreads. First, US QE measures reducing the US corporate spread appear to be more important than lowering the US term spread. Second, US QE measures might have prevented episodes of prolonged recession and deflation in the advanced economies. Third, the estimated effects on the emerging economies have been diverse but often larger than those recorded in the US and other advanced economies. The heterogeneous effects from US QE measures indicate unevenly distributed benefits and costs.
What is global liquidity and how does it affect an economy? The paper addresses that question by looking at liquidity from two different perspectives: global liquidity as availability of funds in safe and risky asset markets. This distinction between safe and risky asset markets is important due to market segmentation, which called for unconventional monetary policy to restore a function of risky asset markets. To analyze the effect of global liquidity, I construct proxy variables and then asses how they affect an emerging economy whose interest rate is affected by a world risk-free rate and a risk premium. Using the data from four major Latin American countries, I find that these two aspects of global liquidity have similar effects on economic performance in emerging market economies except for their effect on inflation.
Mr. Brad Setser, Nouriel Roubini, Mr. Christian Keller, Mr. Mark Allen, and Mr. Christoph B. Rosenberg
The paper lays out an analytical framework for understanding crises in emerging markets based on examination of stock variables in the aggregate balance sheet of a country and the balance sheets of its main sectors (assets and liabilities). It focuses on the risks created by maturity, currency, and capital structure mismatches. This framework draws attention to the vulnerabilities created by debts among residents, particularly those denominated in foreign currency, and it helps to explain how problems in one sector can spill over into other sectors, eventually triggering an external balance of payments crisis. The paper also discusses the potential of macroeconomic policies and official intervention to mitigate the cost of such a crisis.
The substantial increase in foreign direct investment (FDI) in recent years has triggered a discussion of a uniform treatment of investment in international law. Most contributions to the multilateral investment framework derive from the World Trade Organization (WTO) agreements on trade liberalization. The resulting framework is incomplete, as the WTO agreements restrict their focus on investment to aspects related to international trade and often apply to selected sectors only. A broader investment regime is needed to provide a more neutral incentive framework for investment liberalization and to promote efficient international investment flows.