This note provides background to the informal Board briefing on the one-year progress in implementation of the FSS. The Board will have the opportunity to review progress in implementing the FSS in the context of the 2014 TSR and the 2014 review of the Financial Sector Assessment Program (FSAP), as well as through periodic reports to the International Monetary and Financial Committee and the semi-annual work program.
This paper outlines strategic priorities for the IMF’s financial surveillance in the coming years. It complements recent discussions on the work agenda in this area. It takes stock of innovations and gaps in financial surveillance by the Fund during the past decade, including in the wake of the current global financial crisis. It proposes concrete and prioritized steps to further strengthen financial surveillance so that the Fund can fulfill its mandate to ensure the effective operation of the international monetary system and support global economic and financial stability.
This progress report provides a short update on the first year of implementation of the 2011 Triennial Surveillance Review (TSR) in line with the Managing Director’s Statement on Strengthening Surveillance of October 2011. The report does not provide a comprehensive review of surveillance—which will be done in the 2014 TSR. Instead, its purpose is to establish, at an early stage, whether the new operational priorities are being implemented, set out key areas of progress, and discuss the challenges raised in their implementation. The report also identifies areas where further efforts may need to be directed—particularly following the change to the legal framework—to ensure even implementation and delivery of effective surveillance. The report recognizes that, while some measures have been implemented over the past year, others will take more time to come to fruition.
In a recently released New York Fed staff report, we present a forward-looking monitoring program to identify and track time-varying sources of systemic risk.
The October 2019 Global Financial Stability Report (GFSR) identifies the current key vulnerabilities in the global financial system as the rise in corporate debt burdens, increasing holdings of riskier and more illiquid assets by institutional investors, and growing reliance on external borrowing by emerging and frontier market economies. The report proposes that policymakers mitigate these risks through stricter supervisory and macroprudential oversight of firms, strengthened oversight and disclosure for institutional investors, and the implementation of prudent sovereign debt management practices and frameworks for emerging and frontier market economies.
Extraordinary policy measures have eased financial conditions and supported the economy, helping to contain financial stability risks. Chapter 1 warns that there is a pressing need to act to avoid a legacy of vulnerabilities while avoiding a broad tightening of financial conditions. Actions taken during the pandemic may have unintended consequences such as stretched valuations and rising financial vulnerabilities. The recovery is also expected to be asynchronous and divergent between advanced and emerging market economies. Given large external financing needs, several emerging markets face challenges, especially if a persistent rise in US rates brings about a repricing of risk and tighter financial conditions. The corporate sector in many countries is emerging from the pandemic overindebted, with notable differences depending on firm size and sector. Concerns about the credit quality of hard-hit borrowers and profitability are likely to weigh on the risk appetite of banks. Chapter 2 studies leverage in the nonfinancial private sector before and during the COVID-19 crisis, pointing out that policymakers face a trade-off between boosting growth in the short term by facilitating an easing of financial conditions and containing future downside risks. This trade-off may be amplified by the existing high and rapidly building leverage, increasing downside risks to future growth. The appropriate timing for deployment of macroprudential tools should be country-specific, depending on the pace of recovery, vulnerabilities, and policy tools available. Chapter 3 turns to the impact of the COVID-19 crisis on the commercial real estate sector. While there is little evidence of large price misalignments at the onset of the pandemic, signs of overvaluation have now emerged in some economies. Misalignments in commercial real estate prices, especially if they interact with other vulnerabilities, increase downside risks to future growth due to the possibility of sharp price corrections.
The Seventh PMR includes: (i) a discussion of progress made over the last year on the actions corresponding to four Management Implementation Plans (MIPs) that were classified as still “in progress” in the previous PMR; and (ii) an assessment of the progress made in achieving the high-level objectives in three areas directly related to those MIPs. In addition, an update on substantive issues related to five older MIPs agreed since 2007 is provided at the end of the report. Three new evaluations have been completed by the IEO since March 2014. In July and August 2015, Management issued the MIPs in response to these evaluations. Given that only a short time has passed since their completion, progress in addressing the actions contemplated in those MIPs will be discussed in the next PMR.
With the 2011 TSR laying out a wide ranging agenda for surveillance reform, the 2014 review will take a more narrowly focused approach and be mindful of the need to make cost-neutral recommendations. The themes and associated outputs will cover areas that address the IMF’s core mandate of ensuring the stability of the international monetary system, provide the most value-added for the membership, and leverage the Fund’s comparative advantages. The review will be based on: (i) a review and analysis of Article IV reports and multilateral surveillance products; (ii) guidance from an External Advisory Group at key stages of the exercise; (iii) background studies; and (iv) surveys and interviews with country authorities, staff, and other stakeholders. A review of the Financial Sector Assessment Program (FSAP) will be conducted separately but concurrently with the TSR, with close coordination between the relevant authoring teams. The TSR will also take into account the findings of other recent work, including the progress report on the implementation of the Financial Surveillance Strategy, the range of papers on debt issues, the LIC pilot on financial depth and macroeconomic policy, the set of Board papers on the experience with unconventional monetary policies and the challenges of exit from these policies, and the planned discussion of communication issues with the Executive Board.
An effective state is essential to achieving socio-economic and sustainable development. With the advent of globalization, there are growing pressures on governments and organizations around the world to be more responsive to the demands of internal and external stakeholders for good governance, accountability and transparency, greater development effectiveness, and delivery of tangible results. Governments, parliaments, citizens, the private sector, NGOs, civil society, international organizations and donors are among the stakeholders interested in better performance. As demands for greater accountability and real results have increased, there is an attendant need for enhanced results-based monitoring and evaluation of policies, programs, and projects. This Handbook provides a comprehensive ten-step model that will help guide development practitioners through the process of designing and building a results-based monitoring and evaluation system. These steps begin with a OC Readiness AssessmentOCO and take the practitioner through the design, management, and importantly, the sustainability of such systems. The Handbook describes each step in detail, the tasks needed to complete each one, and the tools available to help along the way."
IEO evaluations are an integral part of the Fund’s learning culture, helping the Fund absorb lessons that improve its work. In addition, the objectivity of IEO evaluations has bolstered the Fund’s credibility. In discussing the report of the External Evaluation of the IEO (the “Lissakers report”), Executive Directors welcomed the suggestions to strengthen follow-up to the IEO recommendations?including more Board involvement—and supported a more systematic approach for following up and monitoring the implementation of IEO recommendations approved by the Board. This periodic monitoring report (PMR) is the first such effort under the new procedures approved by the Executive Board in January 2007. In particular, it responds to the instruction that “Management shall present to the Board a periodic monitoring report on the state of implementation of actions contained in the forward-looking implementation plans already in force and not deemed completed on the occasion of a prior periodic monitoring report. These reports shall indicate difficulties in implementing the original plan and propose remedial or substitute actions whenever appropriate. The first periodic monitoring report shall be prepared following the delivery of the 2007 IEO Annual Report. As the IEO Annual Reports cover the status of all past IEO recommendations, it is expected that the first periodic monitoring report produced by Management would also review the implementation of recommendations made to date.”
