The Fund S Role Regarding Cross Border Capital Flows

Global capital flows have multiplied many times over in recent years, mainly between advanced economies but increasingly also to emerging markets, reflecting the general reduction in regulatory and informational barriers. Thus, with international asset positions now dwarfing output, global portfolio allocations and reallocations have profound effects on the world economy, as demonstrated by recent boombust episodes of both global reach (e.g., the transmission of the 2001 IT shock and the 2008 mortgage market shock from the United States) and regional significance (in Asia, Latin America, and Central and Eastern Europe). Such cycles and reversals in cross-border capital flows should not be surprising, given that these flows - more so than domestic ones - imply crossing informational barriers, currency and macroeconomic risks, and regulatory regimes.

Capital flows have increased significantly in recent years and are a key aspect of the global monetary system. They offer potential benefits to countries, but their size and volatility can also pose policy challenges. The Fund needs to be in a position to provide clear and consistent advice with respect to capital flows and policies related to them. In 2011, the International Monetary and Financial Committee (IMFC) called for ?further work on a comprehensive, flexible, and balanced approach for the management of capital flows.? This paper proposes an institutional view to underpin this approach, drawing on earlier Fund policy papers, analytical work, and Board discussions on capital flows.

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.

Gaining a better understanding of the behavior of international investors is key for informing the debate about the optimal response to capital flows and about reforms to the international financial architecture. In this context, recent research on the behavior of international mutual funds at the micro level has expanded our knowledge about the drivers of portfolio flows and the mechanisms behind the transmission of financial shocks across countries. This paper provides a brief survey of this literature, with a focus on the empirical evidence for emerging markets. Overall, the behavior of international mutual funds is complex and overly simplistic characterizations are misleading. However, there is broad-based evidence for momentum trading among funds. Moreover, funds tend to avoid opaque markets and assets, and this behavior becomes more pronounced during volatile times. Portfolio rebalancing mechanisms are clearly important in explaining contagion patterns, even in the absence of common macroeconomic fundamentals. From a surveillance point of view, this implies that monitoring the exposures of large investors at a micro level is crucial to assess vulnerabilities.

This volume contains country experiences explained by policy makers and studies by leading experts on causes and consequences of capital flows as well as policies to control these flows. It addresses portfolio flow issues central to open economies, especially emerging markets.

This paper outlines a “modern” approach to managing risks in cross-border capital movements that is consistent with an environment of increased and liberalized capital flows. Key elements of this approach include: a consistent monetary and exchange rate policy mix to avoid incentives for volatile capital flows; prudential management of the specific risks in capital flows; supporting financial sector reforms; and appropriate sequencing of liberalization. The approach can reduce the potential size of the shocks associated with capital movements and increase the resilience of the financial system to such shocks when they occur; overtime, it is expected to reduce the need for recourse to capital controls.

This paper examines country experiences with the use and liberalization of capital controls to develop a deeper understanding of the role of capital controls in coping with volatile capital flows, as well as the issues surrounding their liberalization. Detailed analyses of country cases aim to shed light on the motivations to limit capital flows; the role the controls may have played in coping with particular situations, including in financial crises and in limiting short-term inflows; the nature and design of the controls; and their effectivenes and potential costs. The paper also examines the link between prudential policies and capital controls and illstrates the ways in which better prudential practices and accelerated financial reforms could address the risks in cross-border capital transactions.

The crisis is prompting a reconsideration of capital flows and the policies that affect them. A breakdown in the domestic stability of a large country can spill over into stress in other countries and even to the global system as a whole. The activities of global institutions and markets—some regulated and some not—can bear on the riskiness of flows. Thus, national policies affecting capital flows can transmit multilaterally. This transmission has not been fully appreciated by national policymakers. Further, they may not have incentives to take full account of the cross-border effects of their policies. Looking ahead, the upward trend in the volume of capital flows can be expected to continue, making it ever more important to address the associated cross-border risks. This paper aims to draw greater attention to the multilateral aspects of policies affecting capital flows. Previous work by the Fund has focused on the policies of recipient countries, mainly emerging market economies (EMEs), and addressed the circumstances in which capital flow management measures (CFMs) would be appropriate. This paper provides a complementary assessment of regulatory and supervisory policies of advanced economies, as well as large advanced economy monetary policy. Moreover, it addresses the multilateral transmission of CFMs.