This paper examines how exchange rate volatility and Korean banks’ foreign exchange liquidity mismatches interacted with each other during the Global Financial Crisis, and whether the vulnerability stemming from this interaction has been reduced since then. Structural and cyclical changes after the crisis, including decreasing demand for currency hedges and the diversifying investor base for bonds, point to a possible weakening of the interaction mechanism; and we find evidences are strongly supportive of this.
This paper examines how exchange rate volatility and Korean banks’ foreign exchange liquidity mismatches interacted with each other during the Global Financial Crisis, and whether the vulnerability stemming from this interaction has been reduced since then. Structural and cyclical changes after the crisis, including decreasing demand for currency hedges and the diversifying investor base for bonds, point to a possible weakening of the interaction mechanism; and we find evidences are strongly supportive of this.
This paper examines how exchange rate volatility and Korean banks’ foreign exchange liquidity mismatches interacted with each other during the Global Financial Crisis, and whether the vulnerability stemming from this interaction has been reduced since then. Structural and cyclical changes after the crisis, including decreasing demand for currency hedges and the diversifying investor base for bonds, point to a possible weakening of the interaction mechanism; and we find evidences are strongly supportive of this.
This paper examines how exchange rate volatility and Korean banks' foreign exchange liquidity mismatches interacted with each other during the Global Financial Crisis, and whether the vulnerability stemming from this interaction has been reduced since then. Structural and cyclical changes after the crisis, including decreasing demand for currency hedges and the diversifying investor base for bonds, point to a possible weakening of the interaction mechanism; and we find evidences are strongly supportive of this.
We examine how Korea’s capital flows and trade have been affected by the quantitative easing (QE) of the United States and the quantitative and qualitative easing (QQME) of Japan. Korea is an intriguing case due to its borderline position between advanced and emerging market country groups, and the common perception that Korea competes fiercely with Japan in the world market for trade. We find that QE had little direct impact on capital flows to Korea, and tapering is unlikely to cause capital outflows from it owing to partial safe-haven behavior of capital flows to Korea. We also find that the exchange rate spillover from QQME to Korea has been limited both on trade and capital flow fronts.
High uncertainty in general, and high policy uncertainty more specifically, can have important impact on global investment and output growth. Much of the recent policy uncertainty emanated from the United States and Europe—the world’s two largest economies. Spillovers from policy uncertainty can occur through several channels. Trade can be affected if increased policy uncertainty adversely affects economic activity and import demand in the United States and Europe. Policy uncertainty could also raise global risk aversion, resulting in sharp corrections in financial markets and capital outflows from emerging markets. This background note attempts to quantify the impact of U.S. and European policy uncertainty on other regions. Specifically, it addresses the following questions: What do we mean by policy uncertainty? How well can we measure it? How has policy uncertainty in the United States and Europe evolved during the past several decades? And how large are the spillovers to economic activity in other regions? The analysis suggests that sharp increases in U.S. and European policy uncertainty in the past have temporarily lowered investment and output in other regions to varying degrees. It also suggests that a marked decrease in policy uncertainty in the United States and Europe in the near term could help boost global investment and output.
A comprehensive examination of policy measures intended to help emerging markets contend with large and volatile capital flows. While always episodic in nature, capital flows to emerging market economies have been especially volatile since the global financial crisis. After peaking at $680 billion in 2007, flows to emerging markets turned negative at the onset of crisis in 2008, then rebounded only to recede again during the U.S. sovereign debt downgrade in 2011. Since then, flows have continued to swing wildly, leaving emerging market policy makers wondering whether they can put in place policies during the inflow phase that will soften the blow when flows subsequently recede. This book offers the first comprehensive treatment of policy measures intended to help emerging markets contend with large and volatile capital flows. The authors, all IMF experts, explain that, in the spirit of liberalization and deregulation in the 1980s and 1990s, many emerging market governments eliminated capital inflow controls along with outflow controls. By 2012, however, capital inflow controls were again acknowledged as legitimate policy tools. Focusing on the macroeconomic and financial-stability risks associated with capital flows, the authors combine theoretical and empirical analysis to consider the interaction between monetary, exchange rate, macroprudential, and capital control policies to mitigate these risks. They examine the effectiveness of various policy tools, discuss the practical considerations and multilateral implications of their use, and provide concrete policy advice for dealing with capital inflows.
The Research Summaries in the December 2012 IMF Research Bulletin look at "Market Failures and Macroprudential Policy" (Giovanni Favara and Lev Ratnovski) and "Measurement Matters for House Price Indices" (Mick Silver). The Q&A column looks at "Seven Questions on Turning Points of the Global Business Cycle." The Bulletin also includes a listing of recent IMF Working Papers and Staff Discussion Notes, as well as a list of the top-viewed articles for the first three issues of IMF Economic Review in 2012. Information is also included on a call for papers for the conference "Asia: Challenges of Stability and Growth" to be held in Seoul in 2013.
This note outlines the approach of the proposed revision to the Institutional View (IV) when assessing whether systemic financial stability risks are elevated due to foreign currency (FX) mismatches. The approach builds on the staff guidance regarding risk assessments in bilateral surveillance, while allowing for flexibility to draw on future advances in best practice. This note proposes a two-step approach to assess systemic risks from FX mismatches. This note is organized as follows. Section II outlines the sources of systemic risks stemming from FX debt and potential amplification channels. Section III outlines the risk assessment approach in practice and Section IV concludes.
This paper provides background material to support the Board paper on the interaction of monetary and macroprudential policies. It analyzes the scope for and evidence on interactions between monetary and macroprudential policies. It first reviews a recent conceptual literature on interactive effects that arise when both macroprudential and monetary policy are employed. It goes on to explore the “side effects” of monetary policy on financial stability and their implications for macroprudential policy. It finally addresses the strength of possible effects of macroprudential policies on output and price stability, and draws out implications for the conduct of monetary policy.
