跨境资本流动宏观审慎管理的国际经验

2008年全球金融危机以后,新兴市场国家经历了资本大量流入、流出、再大量流入的过程。2007年,新兴市场资本流入达历史最高位——1.5万亿美元,2008年和2009年,流入额分别锐减为7686亿美元及5674亿美元。随后,发达国家实施量化宽松政策,新一轮的资本流入席卷了新兴市场。2010年,资本流入规模猛增至1.2万亿美元。跨境资本流动尤其是资本的大进大出,对新兴市场国家的金融稳定和货币政策独立性都带来了深远的影响。     

美国货币政策不确定性与跨境资本流入——兼论宏观审慎跨部门溢出效应

美国货币政策不确定性衡量的是市场主体对美联储政策利率路径或政策行动的不确定性感知，其对货币政策传导机制和跨境资本流入会产生深远影响。本文使用72个经济体1995年第一季度—2022年第三季度跨境资本流入数据，研究美国货币政策不确定性对跨境资本流入的影响。结果表明：第一，美国货币政策不确定性会显著降低跨境资本总流入、证券投资资本流入和其他投资资本流入；第二，美国货币政策不确定性分别通过加剧全球金融周期和提高风险溢价降低发达经济体和新兴经济体跨境资本流入；第三，总体和部分子类宏观审慎政策工具的跨部门国际溢出效应依赖于美国货币政策不确定性的不同强度，整体呈现出一定的非对称性特征，并且该非对称性特征在新兴经济体中表现得更为明显。本文对在推进高水平对外开放背景下，中国人民银行和金融监管部门有效识别美国货币政策不确定性对中国资本流动和宏观调控效果的负向影响，加强货币政策与宏观审慎政策协调提出政策建议。     

短期资本流动对中国经济的影响

短期资本大量流入国内的现象值得关注，大量违规短期资本流入股市、房产市场会给汇率政策、货币政策及一国经济的发展带来危害。本文通过分析短期资本流动的原因及影响因素，结合国内外资本管理的实践，提出了政策建议。     

新兴市场的市场预期与资本流动研究

市场预期一直被认为是影响资本流动的重要原因,在全球金融危机的大背景下,新兴市场成为大家关注的焦点,因此,文章旨在研究新兴市场在市场预期的影响下,资本流动所呈现出的基本特征。     

新兴市场的市场预期与资本流动研究

市场预期一直被认为是影响资本流动的重要原因,在全球金融危机的大背景下,新兴市场成为大家关注的焦点,因此,文章旨在研究新兴市场在市场预期的影响下,资本流动所呈现出的基本特征。     

我国短期资本流入规模估算:2001-2006

在人民币升值预期的背景下,大量国际短期资本通过各种渠道进入境内,对我国货币政策和宏观经济带来潜在的影响。文章对2001-2006年我国短期资本流入规模进行了估算。除BOP表金融项目所反映的短期资本,本文重点对隐性和非法流入的资本进行分析,并按直接投资、个人外汇收支、进出口伪报、地下钱庄等不同渠道分别进行估算。结论是2001-2006年我国短期资本流入增长迅速,隐性与非法流入的短期资本规模庞大,表明我国资本管制存在很大漏洞。应加强对短期资本流入的监管和控制并通过各种方式消除市场对人民币升值的预期。     

资本流动趋势与货币对策研究

随着我国经济的稳定快速发展,以及人民币升值预期的强烈,国际资本越来越多的流入我国。国际资本的流入在推动我国经济发展的同时也带来了诸多不确定性。最直接的影响是基础货币中外汇占款所占比例越来越高,造成我国货币供给的内生性大大增强。本文分析了我国近年来的资本流动特征以及对我国货币供给产生的影响,并对我国当前的应对措施进行了分析,认为应该通过大力发展国债市场、转变货币政策调整手段等方式应对资本流动。     

中国国际资本流入的影响因素实证分析

本文通过建立中国长期和短期资本流入的协整方程,实证分析了2000年至2007年初中国国际资本流动的情况,考察了利差、通胀、汇率预期以及中国经济增长和股票市场发展等因素对不同性质资本流动的影响。实证分析显示,中国经济的高速发展和人民币稳步升值有利于吸引外国资本对中国进行直接投资,而人民币升值预期的加强和资本市场的蓬勃发展对短期资本的流入套利具有较强的吸引力,中外利差对短期资本也有一定的影响。     

新兴市场国家资本异常流入对经济增长的影响

本文选取全球35个新兴市场国家2000～2020年的年度数据，参考经典的国际资本异常流入的划分准则和测度方法，采用面板回归模型进行实证分析。实证结果表明：资本流入激增会推动新兴市场国家的经济增长,资本流入突然中断则会抑制新兴市场国家的经济增长。基于地缘政治风险视角的局部样本回归结果表明：地缘政治风险会抑制新兴市场国家的资本流入，从而对经济增长有显著的负向影响。鉴于此，本文建议各国要加强对国际资本异常流动的监管，完善国际资本异常流动的防范预警机制，同时要加强区域性的多边交流合作，为本国经济发展创造良好稳定的地缘环境。     

亚洲新兴市场国家应对资本流入实施的政策及启示

本轮金融危机后,发达经济体经济复苏缓慢,而新兴市场国家经济快速增长.为应对经济复苏乏力和欧债危机产生的不确定性,发达经济体继续保持量化宽松的货币政策,全球流动性十分充裕.新兴市场国家由于实施退出战略和有着较好的经济前景预期,全球资本迅速向新兴市场国家集聚.在此背景下,本文分析了当前资本流入到新兴市场国家的特点,并对新兴...     

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.     

Spillovers of U.S. unconventional monetary policy to emerging markets: The role of capital flows

We employ a structural global VAR model to analyze whether U.S. unconventional monetary policy shocks, identified through changes in the central bank’s balance sheet, have an impact on financial and economic conditions in emerging market economies (EMEs). Moreover, we study whether international capital flows are an important channel of shock transmission. We find that an expansionary policy shock significantly increases portfolio flows from the U.S. to EMEs for almost two quarters, accompanied by a persistent movement in real and financial variables in recipient countries. Moreover, EMEs on average respond to the shock with an easing of their own monetary policy stance. The findings appear to be independent of heterogeneous country characteristics like the underlying exchange rate arrangement, the quality of institutions, or the degree of financial openness.     

Self-oriented monetary policy,global financial markets and excess volatility of international capital flows

This paper explores the nature of macroeconomic spillovers from advanced economies to emerging market economies (EMEs) and the consequences for independent use of monetary policy in EMEs. We first empirically document that a US contractionary monetary policy shock leads a retrenchment in EME capital flows, a fall in EME GDP, and an exchange rate depreciation. We construct a theoretical model that can help to account for these findings. In the model, macroeconomic spillovers may be exacerbated by financial frictions. Absent financial frictions, international spillovers are minor, and an inflation targeting rule represents an effective policy for the EME. With frictions in financial intermediation, however, spillovers are substantially magnified, and an inflation targeting rule has little advantage over an exchange rate peg. However, an optimal monetary policy markedly improves on the performance of naive inflation targeting or an exchange rate peg. Furthermore, optimal policies don't need to be coordinated across countries. A non-cooperative, self-oriented optimal policy gives results very similar to those of a global cooperative optimal policy.     

International capital market frictions and spillovers from quantitative easing

This paper analyzes the impact of large-scale, unconventional asset purchases by advanced country central banks on emerging market economies (EMEs) from 2008 to 2014. I show that there was substantial heterogeneity in the way these purchases affected EME currency, equity, and long-term sovereign bond markets. Drawing on the gravity-in-international-finance literature, I show that the degree of capital market frictions between EMEs and advanced countries is significant in explaining the observed heterogeneity in how these asset prices were affected. This result is robust to considerations of domestic monetary policy, exchange rate regime, and capital control policies in EMEs. Furthermore, I show that the size and direction of asset price movements in EMEs depended both on the type of assets purchased and on whether it was the U.S. Federal Reserve or other advanced country central banks engaging in the purchases.     

Global financial shocks and foreign asset repatriation: Do local investors play a stabilizing role?

We study the dynamic response of gross capital flows in emerging market economies to different global financial shocks, using a panel vector-autoregressive (PVAR) approach. Our focus lies primarily on the potentially stabilizing role played by domestic investors in offsetting the response of foreign investors to adverse global shocks. We find that, while foreign investors tend to retrench from emerging markets in response to global risk aversion and monetary policy shocks, foreign asset repatriation by resident investors does not always follow suit. Local investors play a meaningful stabilizing role in the face of global risk aversion shocks, with sizeable asset repatriation largely offsetting the retrenchment of non-residents. In contrast, foreign investor retrenchment in response to global monetary policy shocks is not mirrored by asset repatriation. Finally, we find robust evidence that positive global real shocks tend to have a positive impact on net capital inflows to emerging markets. Our results shed light on the likely impact of the Fed's QE tapering on capital flows to emerging market economies.     

Current Accounts and Global Adjustment: The Long and Short of It

Global rebalancing is underway, but still quite a distance from being done. Current account imbalances have been a persistent feature of the global economy for over 100 years, especially during the two eras of globalization—the period 1870 to 1914 and the present. Such imbalances have reflected underlying imbalances between savings and investment as well as the prevailing international monetary regime. One important lesson from the past 150 years is that capital flows play an important role in funding global investment opportunities—a role that would be harmed if policy makers responded to the perceived threat of global imbalances by imposing any sort of cap. During those periods when capital flows have been relatively unhindered, investment opportunities around the world have been financed by capital flows. Such flows have financed the growth of many erstwhile “emerging market” economies, including the U.S. in the early part of this century. And global capital flows are doing much the same for many emerging markets today, even though purchases of reserves by some countries have been offsetting inbound private capital flows in the aggregate. The other main lesson of history is that imbalances do not last forever, and tend to lead to adjustments and reversals. Experience shows that such adjustments are much easier for surplus countries than for deficit countries.     

Monetary policy and stock prices – Cross-country evidence from cointegrated VAR models

This study applies the Cointegrated Vector-Autoregressive (CVAR) model to analyze the long-run relationships and short-run dynamics between stock markets and monetary policy across five developed and three emerging economies. Our main aim is to check whether monetary policy plays an important role for stock market developments. As an innovation, monetary policy enters the analysis from three angles: in the form of a broad monetary aggregate, short-term interest rates and net capital flows. Based on this framework, we analyze whether central banks are able to influence stock market developments. Our findings suggest different patterns and causalities for emerging and industrial economies with the stock markets of the former economies more frequently related to monetary aggregates and capital flows. A direct long-run impact from short-term interest rates on stock prices is only observed for 3 out of 8 economies.     

全球金融周期与跨境资本流动

本文从全球42个主要的股票市场指数提取全球股票市场因子,作为全球金融周期的代理变量,考察全球金融周期对跨境资本总流入的影响。结果发现:(1)当全球股票市场因子(全球风险规避和不确定性)上升时,跨境资本流入显著下降;(2)一国处于经济繁荣时期,经济增速和利率处于相对较高水平,全球金融周期对资本流入的影响会减弱;(3)一国资本账户开放程度或金融发展水平越高,全球金融周期对资本流入的影响会越强;(4)更具弹性的汇率制度尽管不能完全隔绝全球金融周期的影响,但相比固定汇率制度,可提高一国抵御全球金融周期冲击的能力;(5)美国货币政策冲击是全球金融周期的重要驱动因素,并通过全球金融周期影响跨境资本流动。本文的政策含义在于,一国应夯实经济基本面、采取富有弹性的汇率制度和适当的资本管制措施,以缓解全球金融周期给资本流动带来的冲击。     

Joining the club? Procyclicality of private capital inflows in lower income developing economies

Using a newly developed dataset this paper examines the cyclicality of private capital inflows to low-income developing countries (LIDCs). The empirical analysis shows that capital inflows to LIDCs are procyclical, yet considerably less procyclical than flows to more advanced economies. The analysis also suggests that flows to LIDCs are more persistent than flows to emerging markets (EMs). There is also evidence that changes in risk aversion are a significant correlate of private capital inflows with the expected sign, but LIDCs seem to be less sensitive to changes in global risk aversion than EMs. A host of robustness checks to alternative estimation methods and control variables confirm the baseline results. In terms of policy implications, these findings suggest that private capital inflows are likely to become more procyclical as LIDCs move along the development path, which could render the conduct of countercyclical monetary and fiscal policies more challenging in these economies.     

International financial spillovers to emerging market economies: How important are economic fundamentals?

We assess the importance of economic fundamentals in the transmission of international shocks to financial markets in various emerging market economies (EMEs), covering the so-called taper-tantrum episode of 2013 and seven other episodes of severe EME-wide financial stress since the mid-1990s. Cross-country regressions lead us to the following results: (1) EMEs with relatively better economic fundamentals suffered less deterioration in financial markets during the 2013 taper-tantrum episode. (2) Differentiation among EMEs set in relatively early and persisted through this episode. (3) During the taper tantrum, while controlling for the EMEs’ economic fundamentals, financial conditions also deteriorated more in those EMEs that had earlier experienced larger private capital inflows and greater exchange rate appreciation. (4) During the EME crises of the 1990s and early 2000s, we find little evidence of investor differentiation across EMEs being explained by differences in their relative vulnerabilities. (5) However, differentiation across EMEs based on fundamentals does not appear to be unique to the 2013 episode; it also occurred during the global financial crisis of 2008 and, subsequently, during financial stress episodes related to the European sovereign crisis in 2011 and China’s financial market stresses in 2015.