Global Impact And Challenges Of Unconventional Monetary Policies Background Paper

This paper provides case studies of 13 of the largest non-UMP countries. The case studies begin with an overview of recent macro-economic developments as well as capital flow patterns during the crisis up to the first U.S. tapering announcement in May 2013. Country experiences with capital inflows are judged along five dimensions: (i) the size of capital inflows, (ii) policies used to manage inflows, (iii) external stability, measured by exchange rate overvaluation and current account deficits relative to fundamentals,2 (iv) asset price and credit market reactions, and (v) financial sector stability. Case studies mostly draw on published IMF Staff Reports for each country, as well as the 2013 Pilot External Stability Report (IMF 2013d).

This paper takes stock of unconventional monetary policies (UMP) and their impact so far, and looks ahead towards exit and prospects for policy coordination. It synthesizes earlier staff work on UMP,1 the findings of a substantial and growing academic and central banking literature, as well as further staff analysis contained in the Background Paper. While some widely accepted conclusions have emerged from the large and growing number of studies on UMP, many important questions remain unsettled, as enough time has not elapsed to draw definitive conclusions. In those cases, the paper will pose the relevant questions and provide possible nswers, while recognizing the uncertainty that remains.

This paper provides background information to the main Board paper, “The Role and Limits of Unconventional Monetary Policy.” This paper is divided in five distinct sections, each focused on a different topic covered in the main paper, though most relate to bond purchase programs. As a result, this paper centers on the experience of the United States Federal Reserve (Fed), the Bank of England (BOE) and the Bank of Japan (BOJ), mostly leaving the European Central Bank (ECB) aside given its focus on restoring the functioning of financial markets and intermediation. Section A explores whether bond purchase programs were effective at decreasing bond yields and, if so, through which channels. Section B goes one step further in evaluating whether bond purchase programs had—or can be expected to have—significant effects on real growth and inflation. Section C studies the spillover effects of bond purchases on both advanced and emerging market economies, using very similar methods as introduced in the first section. Section D breaks from the immediate focus on bond purchases to discuss how inflation might decrease the debt burden in advanced economies, in light of possible pressures that could fall (or be perceived to fall) on central banks. Finally, Section E discusses the possible risks of exiting given the very large central bank balance sheets.

The paper examines the impact of unconventional monetary policy measures (UMPMs) implemented since 2008 in the United States, the United Kingdom, Euro area and Japan— the Systemic Four—on global monetary and liquidity conditions. Overall, the results show positive significant relationships. However, there are differences in the impact of the UMPMs of individual S4 countries on these conditions in other countries. UMPMs of the Bank of Japan have positive association with global liquidity but negative association with securities issuance. The quantitative easing (QE) of the Bank of England has the opposite association. Results for the quantitative easing measures of the United States Federal Reserve System (U.S. Fed) and the ECB UMPMs are more mixed.

Among member states, many structural weaknesses were exposed when economic performance declined significantly and financial markets became more discerning. This book focuses on the analytical underpinnings of real-time policy advice given to euro area policymakers during four cycles of the IMF’s annual Article IV consultations (2012–15) with euro area authorities.

This Selected Issues paper discusses the risks of low growth and inflation over the medium term for the euro area. It examines the consequences of longer term trends that predate the crisis and the progress made in addressing the crisis legacies of high unemployment and debt. The paper illustrates, in a downside scenario, how low potential growth and crisis legacies leave the euro area vulnerable to the risks of stagnation. The weak medium-term prospect and limited policy space leave the euro area vulnerable to shocks that could lead to a prolonged period of low growth and inflation. Model simulations suggest that a modest shock to investor confidence could push up risk premia and real interest rates, as policy space is constrained at the zero lower bound and fiscal policy space to provide stimulus is limited. Moreover, the lingering crisis legacies of high debt and unemployment could amplify the original shocks, creating a bad feedback loop and keeping the economy stuck in equilibrium of stagnation.

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.

This paper analyzes the behavior of gross capital inflows across 34 emerging markets (EMs). We first confirm that aggregate inflows to EMs co-move considerably. We then report three findings: (i) the aggregate co-movement conceals significant heterogeneity across asset types as only bank-related and portfolio bond and equity inflows do co-move; (ii) while global push factors in advanced economies mostly explain the common dynamics, their relative importance varies by type of flow; and (iii) the sensitivity to common dynamics varies significantly across borrower countries, with market structure characteristics (especially the composition of the foreign investor base and the level of liquidity) rather than borrower country’s institutional fundamentals strongly affecting sensitivities. Countries relying more on international funds and global banks are found to be more sensitive to push factors. Our findings suggest that EMs need to closely monitor their lenders and investors to assess their inflow exposures to global push factors.