Implementing Macroprudential Policy Selected Legal Issues

As countries design and implement macroprudential policies, they face the challenge of determining what—if any—changes need to be made to their legal and institutional framework to ensure that these policies are effective. Based on a review of experience, it is clear that there are a variety of approaches that can be taken by members, in light of the legal constraints and institutional preferences of each country. Whichever approach is followed, a number of issues need to be addressed when designing legislation in this area, both with respect to the substantive legal provisions and the allocation of institutional responsibilities. As background to ”Key Aspects of Macroprudential Policy“, this paper provides an overview of these legal and institutional issues, while recognizing that macroprudential policy is an area that is still evolving.

The countercyclical capital buffer (CCB) was proposed by the Basel committee to increase the resilience of the banking sector to negative shocks. The interactions between banking sector losses and the real economy highlight the importance of building a capital buffer in periods when systemic risks are rising. Basel III introduces a framework for a time-varying capital buffer on top of the minimum capital requirement and another time-invariant buffer (the conservation buffer). The CCB aims to make banks more resilient against imbalances in credit markets and thereby enhance medium-term prospects of the economy—in good times when system-wide risks are growing, the regulators could impose the CCB which would help the banks to withstand losses in bad times.

MCM conducted a survey in December 2010 to take stock of international experiences with financial stability and the evolving macroprudential policy framework. The survey was designed to seek information in three broad areas: the institutional setup for macroprudential policy, the analytical approach to systemic risk monitoring, and the macroprudential policy toolkit. The survey was sent to 63 countries and the European Central Bank (ECB), including all countries in the G-20 and those subject to mandatory Financial Sector Assessment Programs (FSAPs). The target list is designed to cover a broad range of jurisdictions in all regions, but more weight is given to economies that are systemically important (see Annex for details). The response rate is 80 percent. This note provides a summary of the survey’s main findings.

This note provides guidance to facilitate the staff’s advice on macroprudential policy in Fund surveillance. It elaborates on the principles set out in the “Key Aspects of Macroprudential Policy,” taking into account the work of international standard setters as well as the evolving country experience with macroprudential policy. The main note is accompanied by supplements offering Detailed Guidance on Instruments and Considerations for Low Income Countries

Macroprudential policy focuses on the financial system as a whole, as distinct from individual institutions, and its objective is to limit the costs to the real economy from system-wide distress of the financial sector. This book helps readers discover and decipher the multi-faceted and fascinating area of macroprudential policy through taking a theoretical, interdisciplinary and legal-focused approach.

Macroprudential policies – caps on loan to value ratios, limits on credit growth and other balance sheets restrictions, (countercyclical) capital and reserve requirements and surcharges, and Pigouvian levies – have become part of the policy paradigm in emerging markets and advanced countries alike. But knowledge is still limited on these tools. Macroprudential policies ought to be motivated by market failures and externalities, but these can be hard to identify. They can also interact with various other policies, such as monetary and microprudential, raising coordination issues. Some countries, especially emerging markets, have used these tools and analyses suggest that some can reduce procyclicality and crisis risks. Yet, much remains to be studied, including tools’ costs ? by adversely affecting resource allocations; how to best adapt tools to country circumstances; and preferred institutional designs, including how to address political economy risks. As such, policy makers should move carefully in adopting tools.

Macro-prudential policies aimed at mitigating systemic financial risks have become part of the policy toolkit in many emerging markets and some advanced countries. Their effectiveness and efficacy are not well-known, however. Using panel data regressions, we analyze how changes in balance sheets of some 2,800 banks in 48 countries over 2000–2010 respond to specific macro-prudential policies. Controlling for endogeneity, we find that measures aimed at borrowers––caps on debt-to-income and loan-to-value ratios––and at financial institutions––limits on credit growth and foreign currency lending––are effective in reducing asset growth. Countercyclical buffers are little effective through the cycle, and some measures are even counterproductive during downswings, serving to aggravate declines, consistent with the ex-ante nature of macro-prudential tools.

This book critically examines the theoretical foundations and legal framework for macroprudential policy, its tools and governance in the UK, the US, and the EU. It goes deeper into a normative discussion of the legitimacy of macroprudential policy in these jurisdictions, where the mandate for maintaining financial stability has been delegated to independent authorities. The Global Financial Crisis of 2007-2008 reopened debates regarding legitimacy of the independent regulatory state, given its democratic deficit. The response to a perceived legitimacy gap has been to increase political oversight in financial policymaking and regulation. The book posits that the real problem is not a lack of democracy, but rather a lack of social justice. Across the globe, there is growing dissatisfaction with a financial system and regulatory process that appear depersonalised and perpetuate inequalities. Citizens are calling for more socially just systems of governance and the future success of financial policymakers and regulators will hinge on this. Given the marked distributional effects that have been noted in some macroprudential policy tools, the book questions whether macroprudential policy should be solely based on highly rationalised and strongly quantitative reasons. By proposing that macroprudential policymakers should have a social justice mandate alongside their financial stability mandate, as well as legal mechanisms for operationalising the added authority, the book contributes to the growing discourse on the role of social justice in public policy.