Central Bank Independence and Macro-prudential Regulation. By Kenichi Ueda & Fabian Valencia

Central Bank Independence and Macro-prudential Regulation. By Kenichi Ueda & Fabian Valencia
IMF Working Paper No. 12/101
Apr 2012
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/cat/longres.aspx?sk=25872.0

Summary: We consider the optimality of various institutional arrangements for agencies that conduct macro-prudential regulation and monetary policy. When a central bank is in charge of price and financial stability, a new time inconsistency problem may arise. Ex-ante, the central bank chooses the socially optimal level of inflation. Ex-post, however, the central bank chooses inflation above the social optimum to reduce the real value of private debt. This inefficient outcome arises when macro-prudential policies cannot be adjusted as frequently as monetary. Importantly, this result arises even when the central bank is politically independent. We then consider the role of political pressures in the spirit of Barro and Gordon (1983). We show that if either the macro-prudential regulator or the central bank (or both) are not politically independent, separation of price and financial stability objectives does not deliver the social optimum.

Excerpts

Introduction

A growing literature based on models where pecuniary externalities reinforce shocks in the aggregate advocates the use of macro-prudential regulation (e.g. Bianchi (2010), Bianchi and Mendoza (2010), Jeanne and Korinek (2010), and Jeanne and Korinek (2011)). Most research in this area has focused on understanding the distortions that lead to financial amplification and to assess their quantitative importance. The natural next question is how to implement macro-prudential regulation.

Implementing macro-prudential policy requires, among other things, figuring out the optimal institutional design. In this context, there is an intense policy debate about the desirability of assigning the central bank formally with the responsibility of financial stability. This debate has spurred interest in studying the interactions between monetary and macro-prudential policies with the objective of understanding the conflicts and synergies that may arise from different institutional arrangements.

This paper contributes to this debate by exploring the circumstances under which it may be suboptimal to have the central bank in charge of macro-prudential regulation. We differ from a rapidly expanding literature on macro-prudential and monetary interactions, including De Paoli and Paustian (2011) and Quint and Rabanal (2011), mainly in that our focus is on the potential time-inconsistency problems that can arise, which are not addressed in existing work. Our departure point is the work pioneered by Kydland and Prescott (1977) and Barro and Gordon (1983) who studied how time-inconsistency problems and political pressures distort the monetary authority’s incentives under various institutional arrangements. In our model, there are two stages, in the first stage, the policymaker (possibly a single or several institutions) makes simultaneous monetary policy and macro-prudential regulation decisions. In the second stage, monetary policy decisions can be revised or “fine-tuned” after the realization of a credit shock.  This setup captures the fact that macro-prudential regulation is intended to be used preemptively, once a credit shock (boom or bust) have taken place, it can do little to change the stock of debt. Monetary policy, on the other hand, can be used ex-ante and ex-post.

The key finding of the paper is that a dual-mandate central bank is not socially optimal. In this setting, a time inconsistency problem arises. While it is ex-ante optimal for the dual-mandate central bank to deliver the socially optimal level of inflation, it is not so ex-post. This central bank has the ex-post incentive to reduce the real burden of private debt through inflation, similar to the incentives to monetize public sector debt studied in Calvo (1978) and Lucas and Stokey (1983).  This outcome arises because ex-post the dual-mandate central bank has only one tool, monetary policy, to achieve financial and price stability.

We then examine the role of political factors with a simple variation of our model in the spirit of Barro and Gordon (1983). We find that the above result prevails if policy is conducted by politically independent institutions. However, when institutions are not politically independent (the central bank, the macro-prudential regulator, or both) neither separate institutions nor combination of objectives in a single institution delivers the social optimum. As in Barro and Gordon (1983), the non-independent institution will use its policy tool at hand to try to generate economic expansions. The non-independent central bank will use monetary policy for this purpose and the non-independent macro-prudential regulator will use regulation. Which arrangement generates lower welfare losses in the case of non-independence depends on parameter values. A calibration of the model using parameter values from the literature suggest, however, that a regime with a non-independent dual-mandate central bank almost always delivers a worse outcome than a regime with a non-independent but separate macro-prudential regulator.

Finally, if the only distortion of concern is political interference (i.e. ignoring the time-inconsistency problem highlighted earlier) all that is needed to achieve the social optimum is political independence, with separation or combination of objectives yielding the same outcome.  From a policy perspective, our analysis suggests that a conflict between price and financial stability objectives may arise if pursued by a single institution. Our results also extend the earlier findings by Barro and Gordon (1983) and many others on political independence of the central bank to show that these results are also applicable to a macro-prudential regulator. We should note that we have abstracted from considering the potential synergies that may arise in having dual mandate institutions. For instance, benefits from information sharing and use of central bank expertise may mitigate the welfare losses we have shown may arise (see Nier, Osinski, J´acome and Madrid (2011)), although information sharing would also benefit fiscal and monetary interactions. However, we have also abstracted other aspects that could exacerbate the welfare loss such as loss in reputation.


Conclusions

We consider macro-prudential regulation and monetary policy interactions to investigate the welfare implications of different institutional arrangements. In our framework, monetary policy can re-optimize following a realization of credit shocks, but macro-prudential regulation cannot be adjusted immediately after the credit shock. This feature of the model captures the ability of adjusting monetary policy more frequently than macro-prudential regulation because macro-prudential regulation is an ex-ante tool, whereas monetary policy can be used ex-ante and ex-post. In this setting, a central bank with a price and financial stability mandate does not deliver the social optimum because of a time-inconsistency problem. This central bank finds it optimal ex-ante to deliver the social optimal level of inflation, but it does not do so ex-post. This is because the central bank finds it optimal ex-post to let inflation rise to repair private balance sheets because ex-post it has only monetary policy to do so. Achieving the social optimum in this case requires separating the price and financial stability objectives.

We also consider the role of political independence of institutions, as in Barro and Gordon (1983).  Under this extension, separation of price and financial stability objectives delivers the social optimum only if both institutions are politically independent. If the central bank or the macro-prudential regulator (or both) are not politically independent, they would not achieve the social optimum. Numerical analysis in our model suggest however, that in most cases a non-independent macro-prudential regulator (with independent monetary authority) delivers a better outcome than a non-independent central bank in charge of both price and financial stability.

Principles for financial market infrastructures, assessment methodology and disclosure framework

CPSS Publications No 101

April 2012

http://www.bis.org/publ/cpss101.htm

Final version of the Principles for financial market infrastructures

The report Principles for financial market infrastructures contains new and more demanding international standards for payment, clearing and settlement systems, including central counterparties. Issued by the CPSS and the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO), the  new standards (called "principles") are designed to ensure that the infrastructure supporting global financial markets is more robust and thus well placed to withstand financial shocks.

The principles apply to all systemically important payment systems, central securities depositories, securities settlement systems, central counterparties and trade repositories (collectively "financial market infrastructures"). They replace the three existing sets of international standards set out in the Core principles for systemically important payment systems (CPSS, 2001); the Recommendations for securities settlement systems (CPSS-IOSCO, 2001); and the Recommendations for central counterparties (CPSS-IOSCO, 2004). CPSS and IOSCO have strengthened and harmonised these three sets of standards by raising minimum requirements, providing more detailed guidance and broadening the scope of the standards to cover new risk-management areas and new types of FMIs.

The principles were issued for public consultation in March 2011. The finalised principles being issued now have been revised in light of the comments received during that consultation.

CPSS and IOSCO members will strive to adopt the new standards by the end of 2012. Financial market infrastructures (FMIs) are expected to observe the standards as soon as possible.

Consultation versions of an assessment methodology and disclosure framework

At the same time as publishing the final version of the principles, CPSS and IOSCO have issued two related documents for public consultation, namely an assessment methodology and a disclosure framework for these new principles.

Comments on these two documents are invited from all interested parties and should be sent by 15 June 2012 to both the CPSS secretariat (cpss@bis.org) and the IOSCO secretariat (fmi@iosco.org). The comments will be published on the websites of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) and IOSCO unless commentators request otherwise. After the consultation period, the CPSS and IOSCO will review the comments received and publish final versions of the two documents later in 2012.

Other documents

A cover note that explains the background to the three documents above and sets out some specific points on the two consultation documents on which the committees are seeking comments during the public consultation period is also available.

A summary note that provides background on the report and an overview of its contents is also available.

• Cover note
• Summary note
• Principles for financial market infrastructures
• Assessment methodology for the principles for FMIs and the responsibilities of authorities
• Disclosure framework for financial market infrastructures

America's Voluntary Standards System--A "Best Practice" Model for Innovation Policy?

America's Voluntary Standards System--A "Best Practice" Model for Innovation Policy? By Dieter Ernst
East-West Center, Apr 2012
http://www.eastwestcenter.org/publications/americas-voluntary-standards-system-best-practice-model-innovation-policy

For its proponents, America's voluntary standards system is a "best practice" model for innovation policy. Foreign observers however are concerned about possible drawbacks of a standards system that is largely driven by the private sector. There are doubts, especially in Europe and China, whether the American system can balance public and private interests in times of extraordinary national and global challenges to innovation. To assess the merits of these conflicting perceptions, the paper reviews the historical roots of the American voluntary standards system, examines its current defining characteristics, and highlights its strengths and weaknesses. On the positive side, a tradition of decentralized local self-government, has given voice to diverse stakeholders in innovation, avoiding the pitfalls of top-down government-centered standards systems. However, a lack of effective coordination of multiple stakeholder strategies tends to constrain effective and open standardization processes, especially in the management of essential patents and in the timely provision of interoperability standards. To correct these drawbacks of the American standards system, the government has an important role to play as an enabler, coordinator, and, if necessary, an enforcer of the rules of the game in order to prevent abuse of market power by companies with large accumulated patent portfolios. The paper documents the ups and downs of the Federal Government’s role in standardization, and examines current efforts to establish robust public-private standards development partnerships, focusing on the Smart Grid Interoperability project coordinated by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). In short, countries that seek to improve their standards systems should study the strengths and weaknesses of the American system. However, persistent differences in economic institutions, levels of development and growth models are bound to limit convergence to a US-Style market-led voluntary standards system.

BCBS: Implementation of stress testing practices by supervisors

Implementation of stress testing practices by supervisors: Basel Committee publishes peer review

BCBS

April 13, 2012

http://www.bis.org/press/p120413.htm

The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision has today published a peer review of the implementation by national supervisory authorities of the Basel Committee's principles for sound stress testing practices and supervision.

Stress testing is an important tool used by banks to identify the potential for unexpected adverse outcomes across a range of risks and scenarios. In 2009, the Committee reviewed the performance of stress testing practices during the financial crisis and published recommendations for banks and supervisors entitled Principles for sound stress testing practices and supervision. The guidance set out a comprehensive set of principles for the sound governance, design and implementation of stress testing programmes at banks, as well as high-level expectations for the role and responsibilities of supervisors.

As part of its mandate to assess the implementation of standards across countries and to foster the promotion of good supervisory practice, the Committee's Standards Implementation Group (SIG) conducted a peer review during 2011 of supervisory authorities' implementation of the principles. The review found that stress testing has become a key component of the supervisory assessment process as well as a tool for contingency planning and communication. Countries are, however, at varying stages of maturity in the implementation of the principles; as a result, more work remains to be done to fully implement the principles in many countries.

Overall, the review found the 2009 stress testing principles to be generally effective. The Committee, however, will continue to monitor implementation of the principles and determine whether, in the future, additional guidance might be necessary.

Conference on macrofinancial linkages and their policy implications

Bank of Korea - Bank for International Settlements - International Monetary Fund: joint conference concludes on macrofinancial linkages and their policy implications

April 12, 2012

http://www.bis.org/press/p120412.pdf
 

The Bank of Korea, the Bank for International Settlements and the International Monetary Fund have today brought to a successful conclusion their joint conference on "Macrofinancial linkages: Implications for monetary and financial stability policies". Held on April 10-11 in Seoul, Korea, the event brought together central bankers, regulators and researchers to discuss a variety of topics related to interactions between the financial system and the real economy. The goal of the conference was to promote a continuing dialogue on the policy implications of recent research findings.

The conference programme included the presentation and discussion of research on the following issues:

• Banks, shadow banks and the macroeconomy;
• Bank liquidity regulation;
• The macroeconomic impact of regulatory measures;
• Macroprudential policies in theory and in practice;
• Monetary policy and financial stability.

Efforts to recast monetary and financial stability policies to reduce the frequency and severity of financial crises have focused attention on the interactions between the financial system and the macroeconomy. The crisis demonstrated that financial system weaknesses can have sudden and long-lasting macroeconomic effects.

The conference concluded with a panel discussion chaired by Stephen Cecchetti (BIS), and including Jun Il Kim (Bank of Korea), Jan Brockmeijer (IMF), Hiroshi Nakaso (Bank of Japan), and David Fernandez (JP Morgan). The panel discussion focused on the lessons or guideposts for the formulation and implementation of macroprudential and monetary policies that can be drawn from the intensive research efforts on macrofinancial issues in recent years, as well as on the empirical evidence on the effectiveness of policy measures. The roundtable also included a discussion of weaknesses in our understanding of macrofinancial linkages and touched on priorities for future research, analysis, and continuing cooperation between central banks, regulatory authorities, international organisations and academics.

Introducing the conference, Choongsoo Kim, Governor of the Bank of Korea, said, "Since major countries' measures to reform financial regulations, including Basel III of the BCBS, focus mostly on the prevention of crisis recurrence, we need to continuously monitor and track how these measures will affect the sustainability of world economic growth in the medium- and long-term. In doing so, we should be careful so that the strengthening of financial regulation does not weaken the benign function of finance, which is to drive the growth of the real economy through seamless financial intermediation. Moreover, in today's more closely interconnected world economy, the strengthening of financial regulation with a primary focus on advanced countries does not equally affect the financial system in emerging market countries with their significantly different financial structure. Hence, in examining the implementation of regulations, an in-depth analysis should be conducted of how these regulations will affect the financial industries of emerging market countries and all other countries other than the advanced economies and their careful monitoring is called for."

Stephen Cecchetti, Economic Adviser and Head of the BIS Monetary and Economic Department, remarked that "It is important that we continue to learn about the mechanisms through which financial regulation helps to stabilize the economic and financial system. We are not only exploring the effectiveness of existing tools, but also working to fashion new ones. Doing this means refining the intellectual framework, including both the theoretical models and empirical analysis, that forms the basis for macroprudential policy and microprudential policy, as well as conventional and unconventional monetary policy. The papers presented and discussed in this conference are part of the foundation of this new and essential stability-oriented policy framework."

Jan Brockmeijer, Deputy Director of the IMF Monetary and Capital Markets Department, added that "All the institutions involved in developing macroprudential policy frameworks are on a learning curve both with regard to monitoring systemic risks and in using tools to limit such risks. In such circumstances, sharing of views and experiences is crucial to identifying best practices and moving up the learning curve quickly. The Fund is eager to help its members in this regard, and the conference co-organised by the Fund is one way to serve this purpose."