金融周期条件下跨境资本流动时变效应及监测预警研究

本文将美元周期纳入中国金融周期测算指标体系进行测算和评价,并运用TVP-VAR模型分析金融周期不同阶段对我国跨境资本流动影响的时变性,同时构建跨境资本流动的监测预警模型。研究表明:(1)2005年1月至2019年4月中国金融发展呈现三个周期;(2)金融周期与跨境资本流动的顺周期性具有一致性,金融周期上行有利于跨境资本流入,而金融周期下行则可能引发跨境资本流出;(3)金融周期对跨境资本流动冲击呈现倒"U"特征,伴随金融周期指数的不断提升,跨境资本净流动先上升后下降,且三次金融周期对跨境资本流动的影响具有显著差异;(4)纳入金融周期后的监测预警指数对跨境资本流动具有较好的预测效果。为有效应对顺周期金融风险,需建立逆周期管理机制。     

全球金融冲击、网络关联性特征与银行跨境资本流入

为揭示银行跨境资本流动网络关联性特征在全球金融冲击中的作用，本文构建了2000年第一季度至2022年第一季度的银行跨境资本流动网络，分析网络关联性特征对全球金融冲击负向影响的调节作用。结果发现：网络关联性特征在全球金融冲击对各经济体银行跨境资本流入的影响中产生“倒U型”调节作用。全球金融冲击会加剧银行跨境资本流动网络的区域化特征，进而影响各经济体银行跨境资本流入水平。面对全球金融冲击，各经济体实施的资本管制政策能够起到“倒U型”调节作用，因此需要关注跨境资本流动监管政策的实施强度。各经济体在全球金融一体化进程中需要密切关注跨境资本流动网络关联性特征的变化，及时采取适度的监管措施，以防范全球金融风险的溢出效应。     

内外部金融周期差异如何影响中国跨境资本流动?

本文揭示了内外部金融周期差异影响跨境资本流动的机制,并以美国为外部经济代表,基于1998年第一季度至2018年第一季度数据进行了实证检验。研究发现:(1)中国跨境资本流动波动主要来自短期资本流动波动;分类看,其他投资波动较大;方向上看,流入波动要大于流出波动。(2)利差、汇差、资产价差(股指变动差异和房价变动差异)是影响跨境资本流动的重要因素,汇差和资产价差对短期资本流动影响尤甚。(3)内外部金融周期差异变动对资本流入的影响比对资本流出的影响更明显。(4)近年来,利差对跨境资本流动影响减弱,汇差和资产价差对跨境资本流动影响增强。结果说明,防范跨境资本流动风险要关注其他投资资本流动大幅波动风险,同时注意防范汇率和资产价格波动共振对跨境资本流动的冲击。     

新兴经济体跨境资本流动的影响因素及预警机制

本文首先基于新兴经济体面板数据，研究了跨境资本流动的影响因素。发现：金融开放与发展水平上升会显著增加各类跨境资本流动规模，经济周期上升能显著吸引跨境资金流入，金融周期差会显著减少其他投资净额——即金融周期背离时跨境资本会通过其他投资项目流出。其次，以probit面板模型构建了跨境资本流出风险预警系统，结果显示，对于新兴经济体，经济周期上升期会显著减小跨境资本流出风险；与美国的金融周期差、金融开放与发展水平上升、全球经济风险、浮动汇率制会增加跨境资本流出风险。最后，本文研判了近期人民币跨境资本流动风险，认为人民币跨境资本外流的风险整体可控，但是伴随中美金融周期出现背离和外部风险上升，我国其他投资项目可能出现较大波动，应引起关注。     

汇率波动、跨境资本流动对金融风险的动态冲击影响——基于SVAR模型的实证研究

当前我国经济增长放缓,国际经济复苏仍未达到预期,全球各主要经济体的失衡加剧了全球金融不稳定程度,汇率波动幅度、跨境资本流动规模的逐渐增加,对我国金融稳定状况产生极大影响.本文运用结构式向量自回归(SVAR)模型进行脉冲响应函数实证分析,研究汇率波动、跨境资本流动对金融风险的动态冲击影响.实证结果表明,汇率波动、跨境资本流动通过直接和间接两种方式对金融风险状况产生影响.在当前我国经济发展的阶段,汇率贬值在初期会一定程度改善金融风险状况,而贬值持续时间过长则会形成不良的贬值预期,促使本国的金融风险状况恶化.跨境资本流动尤其是热钱规模越大,金融风险指数越大,本国的金融不稳定程度随之增加.总体而言,汇率波动、跨境资本流动的增大,极易恶化本国的国际收支和金融稳定状况,严重时甚至会引发金融危机.     

经济政策不确定性、金融发展与双边跨境银行资本流动北大核心

本文选取1985年第一季度至2018年第四季度的双边跨境银行信贷数据,考察包含18个报告国和191个接受国金融发展水平对经济政策不确定性冲击下双边跨境银行资本流动的影响。基于多维固定效应模型研究发现:报告国经济政策不确定性上升会导致双边跨境银行资本外流减少,即发生银行信贷撤回现象;报告国金融发展水平越高,其跨境银行资本外流越少;报告国和接受国的金融发展水平对经济政策不确定性冲击下双边跨境银行资本流动变动的影响存在差异,报告国金融发展水平提升能缓解经济政策不确定性冲击时其跨境银行资本撤回,金融发展水平较高的接受国为经济政策不确定性冲击下跨境银行资本撤回提供更多的银行信贷。本文的政策启示在于,各国央行在制定跨境资本流动管理的宏观审慎政策时不仅需要实施跨周期宏观调控,而且需要考虑报告国与接受国的金融发展因素,实施差异化的双边跨境银行资本流动管理措施。     

资本流动与汇率失衡——基于跨国经验的实证分析

基于EQCHANGE汇率失衡数据库,本文采用双向固定效应面板模型分析1995-2015年间全球77个国家净资本流动对汇率失衡程度的影响.研究发现:净资本流入影响汇率失衡程度,即在汇率低估时,净资本流入有利于汇率回归其均衡水平,在汇率高估时,净资本流入反而会增加汇率失衡;子项目资本净流动对汇率水平的影响不尽相同;汇率制度弹性越大,越有利于资本流动调节汇率水平;资本流入管制的调节效果比流出管制更佳.     

全球金融周期对国际资本异常流动的影响北大核心

本文选取1990—2019年58个经济体的季度面板数据,采用Probit模型实证检验全球金融周期对国际资本异常流动的影响及其异质性。研究发现:全球金融周期对激增、中断、外逃和撤回四类国际资本异常流动均能产生显著影响。异质性分析表明:全球金融周期对新兴经济体资本激增和中断的影响要大于对发达经济体的影响,对发达经济体资本外逃和撤回的影响要大于对新兴经济体的影响;较高的经济增速可以弱化全球金融周期对国际资本流动激增和中断的影响,富有弹性的汇率制度可以弱化全球金融周期对国际资本异常流动的影响,较高的资本账户开放程度可以强化全球金融周期对国际资本异常流动的影响。本文的研究为加强国际资本流动管理和防范外部金融风险冲击提供经验证据与决策参考。     

美国货币政策如何影响跨境信贷极端流动？——基于汇率制度非对称性的再探讨

本文首次研究了在美国货币政策的不同阶段,汇率制度对跨境信贷极端流动的非对称作用。结合名义工资刚性和抵押品约束的理论模型显示,存在一个世界利率临界值,当世界利率低于该阈值时,汇率制度并不影响跨境信贷流入;当世界利率高于该阈值时,浮动汇率制度国家更易发生极端资本流动。基于39个新兴经济体146个季度的跨境银行信贷数据的实证分析发现,在美元加息期,实行浮动汇率制度的国家发生资本流入骤降的概率显著更高;在美元降息期,汇率制度对跨境资本极端流动的发生概率没有显著影响。异质性分析显示,在债务负担较重、资本账户开放度较高、外汇储备较低的国家,浮动汇率制度的非对称调节作用会进一步放大。因此,当一国选择浮动汇率制度时,较高的外汇储备水平和一定程度的资本管控政策可以有效降低跨境资本极端流动的风险。     

全球投资者国别风险情绪对跨境股票资本流动的影响

本文分析了全球投资者国别风险情绪对跨境股票资本流动的影响,通过构造一般均衡跨期选择模型,刻画了投资者国别风险情绪负向影响跨境股票净资本流入的理论机理以及投资者风险厌恶程度的调节作用,并基于EPFR全球股票型基金微观数据和由大数据文本分析技术构造的全球投资者国别层面风险情绪指标进行实证检验。结果表明:第一,全球投资者对一国的国别风险情绪上升会推升该国的整体风险溢价水平,降低跨境股票型基金净资本流入,尤其是风险厌恶度较高的被动型、开放式和ETF基金;第二,一国金融市场成熟度上升和汇率弹性增强可以缓解全球投资者国别风险情绪对跨境股票型基金净资本流入的负向影响;第三,在全球风险情绪极端低或者各国股票型基金净资本流入极端高的时期,全球投资者国别风险情绪的影响更为显著。     

International income risk-sharing and the global financial crisis of 2008–2009

We examine the impact of the global financial crisis on the degree of international income and consumption risk-sharing among industrial economies using returns on cross-border portfolio holdings (e.g., debt, equity, FDI). We split the returns from the net foreign holdings as receipts (inflows) and payments (outflows) to investigate which of the two sides exhibited the greater resilience for income risk-sharing during the recent crisis. First, we find that debt delivered better risk-sharing than equity, mainly reflecting the deficit deterioration in EMU countries during the post-crisis period. FDI, by contrast, did not correspond to noticeable risk diversification. Second, separating output shocks into positive and negative components reveals that debt holding receipts (equity liability payments) performed better under negative (positive) realizations of the shock variable. Third, the unwinding of capital flows resulted in a sharp fall in income dis-smoothing via the debt liability channel in the new EU countries.     

Measuring and explaining the volatility of capital flows to emerging countries

This paper analyzes the determinants of the volatility of the various types of capital inflows into emerging countries. After calculating a proxy of the volatility of FDI, portfolio and bank inflows, we use a panel data model to study their relationship with a broad set of explanatory variables. Our results highlight the difficulties policy-makers face in stabilizing capital flows. Thus, we show that since 2000 global factors beyond the control of emerging economies have become increasingly significant relative to country-specific drivers. However, we identify some domestic macroeconomic and financial factors that appear to reduce the volatility of certain capital flows without increasing that of others.     

Capital flows to emerging market economies: A brave new world?

We examine the determinants of net private capital inflows to emerging market economies (EMEs) since 2002. Our main findings are: First, growth and interest rate differentials between EMEs and advanced economies and global risk appetite are statistically and economically important determinants of net private capital inflows. Second, there have been significant changes in the behavior of net inflows from the period before the recent global financial crisis to the post-crisis period, especially for portfolio inflows, partly explained by the greater sensitivity of such flows to interest rate differentials since the crisis. Third, capital controls introduced in recent years do appear to have discouraged both total and portfolio net inflows. Finally, we find positive effects of unconventional U.S. monetary policy on EME inflows, especially portfolio inflows. Even so, U.S. unconventional policy is one among several important factors influencing flows.     

跨境金融:驱动因素、结构特征与未来路径

跨境金融的驱动因素和结构特征是理论界和实务界关注的重要话题。在当前复杂的国际经济金融形势下,厘清全球跨境金融的规律特征,对我国更好地利用“两个市场、两种资源”,防范外部金融风险具有重要意义。2008年国际金融危机以来,在经济周期、全球流动性、金融结构和监管政策等驱动因素的影响下,全球跨境金融活动呈现规模下降、结构调整、流向分化、主体切换和风险变化等特征。同时,银行跨境业务呈现综合化趋势,数字化转型提速,经营稳健性明显增强。我国跨境金融规模稳步增长,对国际收支的影响持续增强,在全球资金循环中的份额不断提高。未来,随着我国经济转型和对外开放步伐的加快,跨境金融的规模和结构还将发生深刻变化,风险日趋复杂。应引导形成与我国经济金融发展特征相匹配的跨境资金结构,平衡扩大开放与风险防控的关系,充分发挥银行业在跨境金融领域的“比较优势”。     

金融开放背景下金融发展对跨境资本流动的影响研究

金融开放能够促进跨境资本流动,也具有引发跨境资本流动失衡和波动性增加的风险,而一国金融发展水平在其金融开放效应中发挥着重要作用。本文基于58个国家及地区1999-2016年的数据建立动态面板模型,研究金融开放背景下金融发展对直接投资和证券投资流入、流出以及总跨境资本流动波动性的影响。研究结果表明:金融开放本身有可能造成跨境资本流出大于流入的失衡现象,并显著增加跨境资本流动波动性风险,而金融发展水平的提高有助于在一定程度上抑制金融开放带来的跨境资本流动失衡现象和波动性风险。因此,在扩大金融开放进程中,为获得跨境资本流动的积极效应,应密切关注跨境资本流向和资本波动性变化,提高国内金融发展水平,使之与金融开放水平相匹配。     

Net Equity and Debt Flows to Emerging Market and Developing Economies in the Post-Crisis Era

We investigate the determinants of net equity and debt flows into 60 emerging and developing countries during 1986–2012, with a special focus on the period following the onset of the global financial crisis (GFC). Our results controlling for endogeneity show that net equity flows to emerging markets were mostly influenced by global risk factors, while net debt flows were affected by country-specific factors. We further distinguish the factors that were more pronounced in determining net portfolio flows to emerging markets since the GFC. The US real interest rate had significant spillover effects on net equity flows after the GFC. An increase in country’s domestic credit attracted net debt inflows before the GFC, while it was associated with net equity outflows after the GFC. We also find that capital controls moderated net debt flows since the GFC.     

Macroeconomic stability or financial stability: How are capital controls used? Insights from a new database

While the traditional objectives of capital controls were to address macroeconomic stability risks, a new “externalities view” has emerged prescribing their use to contain financial stability risks. In this context, our understanding of whether capital controls are used in practice to mitigate macroeconomic or financial stability remains limited. Using a novel database on high-frequency capital account regulations for 47 advanced and emerging economies from 2008 to 2020, this paper empirically assesses this question. Our main findings are that: (a) in emerging markets there is a strong association of capital controls on inflows to mitigate risks to macro stability but not financial stability risks; (b) in advanced economies there is a robust association between capital controls on inflows to lean against the buildup of financial stability but not macro stability risks; (c) banking sector flows, but not aggregate capital flows, are strongly associated with tightening capital controls on inflows in emerging markets; and (d) pooling advanced and emerging economies attenuates regression estimates and would lead to concluding that capital controls have weak association with both financial and macro stability motives. Our results can be rationalized by the greater capital flows, more volatile business cycles and stronger interaction between business and financial cycles in emerging markets, and the deeper asset markets found in advanced economies.     

The cost of private debt over the credit cycle

We identify global and regional fluctuations in international private debt flows to emerging and developing countries using data on cross-border loans and international bond issuance over 1993–2009. We use micro-level data on syndicated cross-border loans and international bond placements to estimate the effects of individual borrower characteristics as well as macroeconomic conditions on the cost of foreign borrowing and test whether these effects differ across phases of the lending cycle. First, we find that borrower characteristics associated with lower loan spreads are not necessarily associated with lower bond spreads. Second, we find differential effects of borrower characteristics between cycle phases for loans and bonds separately. Third, we find strong reductions in the cost of debt finance during periods when international debt flows are more than one standard deviation above their mean, but not for expansionary periods, when the growth rate of debt flows is increasing. We also find that higher trade ratios in the borrower's home country raise loan spreads more in periods of high credit flows but have no effect on bond spreads. At the same time, borrowers residing in countries with high investment ratios pay lower spreads on bond issuance particularly during periods of high credit flows, but we find no similar effect for loan spreads. Inflation rates, real exchange rates and previous banking crises have small impacts on loan and bond spreads.