Shocks And Capital Flows

We study the optimal management of capital flows in a small open economy model with financial frictions and multiple policy instruments. The paper reports two main findings. First, both foreign exchange intervention (FXI) and macroprudential polices are tools complementary to the monetary policy rate that can largely reduce inflation and output volatility in a scenario of capital outflows. Second, the optimal policy mix depends on the underlying shock driving capital flows. FXI takes the leading role in response to foreign interest rate shocks, while macroprudential policy becomes the prominent tool for domestic risk shocks. These results highlight the importance of calibrating the use of multiple instruments according to the underlying shocks that induce shifts in capital flows.

Policymakers have relied on a wide range of policy tools to cope with capital flow shocks. And yet, the effects and interaction of these policies remain under debate, as does the motivation for using them. In this paper, quantile local projections are used to estimate the entire distribution of future policy responses to portfolio flow shocks for 20 emerging markets and understand the variety of policy choices across the sample. To assuage endogeneity concerns, estimates rely on the fact that global capital flows are exogenous from the viewpoint of any one of these countries. The paper finds that: (i) policy responses to capital flow shocks are heterogeneous across countries, fat-tailed—“extreme” responses tend to be more elastic than “typical” responses—and asymmetric—“extreme” responses tend to be more elastic with respect to outflows than to inflows; (ii) country characteristics are linked to policy choices—with cross-country differences in forex intervention relating to the size of balance sheet vulnerabilities and the depth of the forex market; (iii) the use of targeted macroprudential policy and capital flows management measures can help “free the hands” of monetary policy by allowing it to focus more squarely on domestic cyclical developments.

The volatility of capital flows to emerging markets continues to pose challenges to policymakers. In this paper, we propose a new framework to answer critical policy questions: What policies and policy frameworks are most effective in dampening sharp capital flow movements in response to global shocks? What are the near- versus medium-term trade-offs of different policies? We tackle these questions using a quantile regression framework to predict the entire future probability distribution of capital flows to emerging markets, based on current domestic structural characteristics, policies, and global financial conditions. This new approach allows policymakers to quantify capital flows risks and evaluate policy tools to mitigate them, thus building the foundation of a risk management framework for capital flows.

We show that “preemptive” capital flow management measures (CFM) can reduce emerging markets and developing countries’ (EMDE) external finance premia during risk-off shocks, especially for vulnerable countries. Using a panel dataset of 56 EMDEs during 1996–2020 at monthly frequency, we document that countries with preemptive policies in place during the five year window before risk-off shocks experienced relatively lower external finance premia and exchange rate volatility during the shock compared to countries which did not have such preemptive policies in place. We use the episodes of Taper Tantrum and COVID-19 as risk-off shocks. Our identification relies on a difference-in-differences methodology with country fixed effects where preemptive policies are ex-ante by construction and cannot be put in place as a response to the shock ex-post. We control the effects of other policies, such as monetary policy, foreign exchange interventions (FXI), easing of inflow CFMs and tightening of outflow CFMs that are used in response to the risk-off shocks. By reducing the impact of risk-off shocks on countries’ funding costs and exchange rate volatility, preemptive policies enable countries’ continued access to international capital markets during troubled times.

This paper uses a general equilibrium model to examine the central role played by commercial banks in intermediating and amplifying the capital flow shocks to the local economy in the 1997 Asia financial crisis. It finds that a sudden stop of capital inflows affects the equilibrium credit supply through two channels: first, the plunge of foreign financing decreases the loanable funds directly; and second the sudden stop drives up the cost of providing banking services, thereby additionally reducing the available bank credit to firms through a "deposit run". Empirical results from a VAR model broadly support the theoretical implications.

Asian economies are increasingly integrated to the global economy through trade and financial linkages, exposing them to the international financial cycle. This paper explores how external shocks are transmitted to Asian economies and whether the use of policies, such as the monetary policy interest rate, foreign exchange intervention (FXI) and macroprudential measures (MPMs), can mitigate the impact of these external shocks. It uses panel quantile regressions on a sample of 14 Asian advanced and emerging economies (AEs and EMs) to assess the impact of financial and real shocks on investment and GDP growth at the median and 5th percentile tail. It finds that external financial shocks tend to have a larger effect on Asian economies than real shocks, and that the main transmission channels through which shocks are propagated are capital flows (particularly via corporate and bank balance sheets) for EMs, and credit for AEs. It also finds evidence that for Asian EMs, FXI may help dampen the capital flows and real exchange rate channels and mitigate financial shocks in the short run, and monetary policy transmission tends to be relatively weak; meanwhile MPMs can help mitigate the credit channel for both AEs and EMs.

Capital flow volatility is a concern for macroeconomic and financial stability. Nonetheless, literature is scarce in this topic. Our paper sheds light on this issue in two dimensions. First, using quarterly data for 65 countries over the period 1970Q1-2016Q1, we construct three measures of volatility, for total capital flows and key instruments. Second, we perform panel regressions to understand the determinants of volatility. The measures show that the volatility of all instruments is prone to bouts, rising sharply during global shocks like the taper tantrum episode. Capital flow volatility thus remains a challenge for policy makers. The regression results suggest that push factors can be more important than pull factors in explaining volatility, illustrating that the characteristics of volatility can be different from those of the flows levels.