Reserve Adequacy In Emerging Market Economics

This paper analyzes reserve adequacy in emerging market countries. It argues that the old rule of thumb of maintaining reserves equivalent to three months of imports has become obsolete and that, instead, a new benchmark is needed which takes into account the increased importance of capital flows. The paper suggests such a benchmark, consisting of the sum of short-term debt on a residual maturity basis (the external drain) and an allowance for possible capital flight (the internal drain), taking into account differences in country risk and exchange rate regime.

operational guidance to staff on reserve adequacy discussions in the IMF’s bilateral and multilateral surveillance. It is based on the views presented in the policy paper Assessing Reserve Adequacy—Specific Proposals and the related Board discussion. The note addresses key issues related to Staff’s advice on the assessment of the adequacy of reserves and related items, including answering the following questions: What is the expected coverage of reserve issues at different stages of the bilateral surveillance process (Policy Note, mission, and Staff Report)? Which reserve adequacy tools best fit different economies based on their financial maturity, economic flexibility, and market access? What do possible reserve needs in mature markets relate to, and how can their adequacy be assessed? How can reserve adequacy discussions for emerging and deepening financial markets be tailored and applied to better evaluate reserve levels in: (i) commodity-intensive economies; (ii) countries with capital flow management measures (CFMs); and (iii) partially and fully dollarized economies? What reserve adequacy considerations hold for countries with limited access to capital markets? How can metrics for these economies be tailored to evaluate their reserve needs? How should potential drains on reserves be covered? What are the various measures of the cost of reserves for countries with and without market access?

Reserves remain a critical liquidity buffer for most countries. They are generally associated with lower crisis risks (crisis prevention) as well as space for authorities to respond to shocks (crisis mitigation). While other instruments, such as official credit lines and bilateral swap lines, are also external buffers, for most countries they principally act as a complement to their official reserves. For countries with sound fundamentals and a good policy framework, reserves provide policy makers with considerable space to respond to transitory shocks. However, this space diminishes as fundamentals deteriorate and the existence of adequate reserves does not, by itself, eliminate the risk of market pressures.

This paper investigates the drivers of reserves in emerging markets (EMs) and small island (SIs) and develops an operational metric for estimating reserves in SIs taking into account their unique characteristics. It uses quantile regression techniques to allow the estimated factors driving reserves holdings to vary along the reserves’ holding distribution and tests for equality among the slope coefficients of the various quantile regressions and the overall models. F-tests comparing the inter-quantile differences could not reject the that the models for the different quantiles of SIs reserve distribution were similar but this was rejected for EMs distribution suggesting that models explaining drivers of reserve holdings should take into account the country’s reserve holdings. Empirical analysis suggests that the metric performs better than existing metrics in reducing crisis probabilities in SIs.

Using panel data for 15 economies from 2001-12, I identify determinants of central bank foreign exchange intervention in emerging markets (“EMs”) with flexible to moderately managed exchange rates. Similar to other studies, I find that central banks tend to “lean against the wind,” buying/selling more foreign exchange in response to greater short-run and medium-run appreciation/depreciation pressures. The panel structure provides a framework to test whether other macroeconomic variables influence the different rates of reserve accumulation between economies. In testing other variables, I find evidence of both precautionary and external competitiveness motives for reserve accumulation.

Reserves have a central place in the policy tool kit of most economies, providing insurance against shocks. In conjunction with sound policies, they can help reduce the likelihood of balance of payment crises and preserve economic and financial stability. Reserves, however, can result from both precautionary and non-precautionary policy objectives and institutional settings. While they can bring several important benefits, reserve holdings can sometimes be costly. This paper brings together recent Fund work on reserve adequacy issues aiming to strengthen their discussion in bilateral surveillance. Despite the ongoing debate on reserve issues, there is little consensus about how to assess reserve holdings in different economies, even though this is an important aspect of a member’s external stability assessment. The work stream of which this paper is part aims to fill this gap by outlining a framework for discussing reserve adequacy issues in different economies. In this regard, the paper also forms part of the Fund’s response to the 2012 IEO evaluation of the Fund’s advice related to international reserves, which recommended, inter alia, that assessments of international reserves in bilateral surveillance reports should be more detailed and reflect country circumstances. To this end, the paper proposes that, where warranted, individual country Article IV reports include a fuller discussion of the authorities’ stated objectives (precautionary and non-precautionary) for holding reserves, an assessment of the reserve needs for precautionary purposes, and a discussion of the cost of reserves. The aim would be to ensure evenhandedness so that countries with similar circumstances are assessed in similar ways, while allowing the depth and emphasis of this discussion to vary depending on country conditions and needs

Countries’ absolute and relative international reserves adequacy has recently attracted considerable attention. The analysis has however concentrated on the largest and most advanced economies. We apply various methodologies for assessing reserve adequacy in Central America, taking into account the region’s high degree of deposit dollarization. We find that reserve cover is low both in an absolute and relative sense, suggesting further reserve accumulation is an important policy option for reducing vulnerabilities.