Evaluating capital flow management measures used as macro-prudential tools

Abstract

Earlier OECD research has shown that capital flow management measures (CFMs) that are used as macro-prudential measures (MPMs), including currency-based restrictions applied to banks’ operations also with non-residents, have the intended negative impact on capital account openness as measured by covered interest parity indicators. But what is their impact as macro-prudential tools to improve resilience to financial stability risks? This paper refers to the Bruno and Shin (2013) study that suggests that currency-based restrictions act as an effective macro-prudential buffer by reducing the sensitivity in emerging economies of cross-border bank lending to global credit cycles as measured by the volatility index VIX. The specific restrictions considered by the Bruno and Shin study are defined as CFMs and MPMs by both the IMF and the OECD. The paper shows that this result is mitigated when using updated data and testing the same hypotheses for more countries. Therefore further research is needed before concluding on the effectiveness of CFMs used as MPMs. On the other hand, the paper does find that CFMs, including currency-based measures, play a role in managing the domestic credit implications of those central banks engaged in foreign exchange interventions. The paper suggests that countries concerned with financial stability risks that may arise from global credit push factors, while wishing to avoid price distortions caused by CFMs, could use Basel III-consistent liquidity coverage ratios and net stable funding ratios as alternatives to CFMs; they also have the advantage of not having raised objections between governments so far regarding international commitments to exchange rate flexibility and cross-border openness, including the OECD Code of Liberalisation of Capital Movements.