ANZ Re-balances Mortgage Pricing

As we foreshadowed, the banks are beginning to tweak their mortgage strategies in response to the 10% cap in investment loans, and in a drive to re-balance towards owner-occupied borrowers.

ANZ today announced interest rates for residential investment property loans will increase to manage investor lending growth targets and in response to changing market conditions. There is no change to other variable lending rates including the Standard Variable Rate for owner-occupied home loans or for business lending. Fixed rates for new owner-occupied home lending will be reduced by up to 0.40%.

Effective Monday, 10 August 2015, ANZ’s variable Residential Investment Property Loan (RIPL) Index Rate will rise by 0.27% to 5.65%pa (5.76%pa comparison rate). Fixed rates for new Residential Investment Lending will also increase by up to 0.30%.

ANZ CEO Australia Mark Whelan said: “Although interest rates for residential property investors are at very low levels historically, the decision to raise interest rates for residential investment lending has been difficult but necessary in the current environment. “It allows us to balance the mix of our lending between owner-occupied and investment lending as well as the impact of changing market conditions. This includes a decision to cut fixed rates for new owner-occupied home lending. “This is a considered decision that takes into account our customers’ position and the criteria we look at when setting rates including our competitive position, our regulatory obligations and the state of the residential property market,” Mr Whelan said. ANZ has also introduced a series of other measures recently to improve the mix between investor and owner occupied lending. For residential investment lending, these include reducing interest rate discounts, increasing the deposit required to at least 10% and increasing interest rate sensitivity buffers.

Those who are above APRA’s 10% guidance will be dialing investment loans down and turning to owner occupied loans to bolster their mortgage portfolio growth. On the other hand, those below the 10% threshold seem to be seeing an opportunity to grow their investment portfolio as others pull back. Non-banks are also joining in. Banks who are well above the 10% annual target will of course have to write smaller numbers of loans in the second half to balance out the full year.

MBS-May-2015--Loans-YOY-InvThe other factor in play are the capital changes APRA announced this week, from 16% to 25% for IRB banks by July 2016. ANZ’s approach of applying the lift in investment loan rates to its entire variable portfolio indicates their strategy is designed to take account of the capital allocation changes ahead. It will be interesting to see if other banks follow suit and we see investment loans repriced across the market. We think this is a likely outcome.

Strengthening Macroprudential Policy in Europe

Speech by Mr Vítor Constâncio, Vice-President of the European Central Bank, at the Conference on “The macroprudential toolkit in Europe and credit flow restrictions.”

The current euro area environment, with policy rates required to stay low for a prolonged period of time and an apparent disconnect between the business and financial cycle, clearly points to a situation where monetary policy cannot deviate from price stability objectives to influence the financial cycle. This is the task of macroprudential policy. While acknowledged in principle, this fact has not yet been fully reflected in our policy frameworks.

In summary, two major moves are required. First, macroprudential policy must place greater emphasis on preventing large fluctuations in the financial cycle, rather than simply increasing resilience to shocks when they occur. In addition to the bank-side capital based measures enhancing banks’ resilience, borrower-based instruments (such as LTVs or DSTIs), which have proved to be more effective in curtailing excessive credit growth, and are also applicable in a time-varying fashion, should gain more prominence. In particular, borrower-based measures should be properly embedded in European legislation, which is not the case at present. Second, a broader macroprudential toolkit is needed to address risks stemming from the shadow banking sector due to its increasing role in credit intermediation. This could involve measures such as redemption gates and loading fees to provide additional safeguards. Guided stress tests can provide comparable assessments of the health of individual institutions and of the resilience of the financial system as a whole. Appropriate policy responses to mitigate growing risks need however to be calibrated, in order to ensure a contained impact on credit supply to the real economy.

RBA Minutes Says Impact Of Investment Lending Scrutiny Not Showing Yet

The RBA released their minutes today for July. Little new really, though they comment that housing credit growth had been steady and remained relatively strong for investors in housing, although it had not accelerated. Any effects of regulators’ greater scrutiny of investor lending were probably not yet evident in the data. We expect to see the impact of the brakes being applied by the banks in the next quarter but our surveys continue to show strong demand from the investment sector.

The Board’s discussion about economic conditions opened with the observation that economic growth in Australia’s major trading partners appeared to have been around average in the June quarter. Consumption growth had been little changed for most trading partners in recent months, although it was perhaps a bit stronger in the United States and somewhat weaker in China. The level of consumption in Japan remained well below that seen prior to the increase in the consumption tax in 2014. Core inflation rates had been stable in year-ended terms over recent months and remained below the targets of most central banks. Members also observed that trade volumes, particularly within the Asian region, appeared to have fallen recently. Consistent with this observation, growth in industrial production across a number of east Asian economies had slowed a little.

In China, there had been little change in the monthly indicators of economic activity, although conditions had been a bit more positive in some sectors than early in 2015. The Chinese property market had improved somewhat; residential property prices overall had risen for the first time in a year and floor space sold had increased in the past few months. Members reflected that the recent easing in monetary conditions would provide additional support to the property market and growth more broadly, although it could be some time before a significant pick-up in construction activity began. Recent efforts by central government authorities to increase infrastructure investment further and reform local government financing arrangements were also expected to support investment.

Commodity prices overall had fallen since the previous meeting, driven by iron ore and oil prices. Growth in crude steel production had been modest and steel prices had fallen noticeably over the past month. Iron ore production in China had continued to decline. Shipments of iron ore from Australia and Brazil appeared to have increased in June, which contributed to lower iron ore prices over the past month.

Following quite strong output growth in Japan in the March quarter, more timely indicators pointed to modest growth in the June quarter. Labour market conditions had continued to improve, resulting in the unemployment rate falling further and the ratio of jobs to applicants continuing to rise. Wage growth and financial market measures of inflation expectations were higher than a year earlier and were expected to feed into higher core inflation over time. Members considered the importance for Japan of policy reforms designed to address some longer-term structural challenges, such as the ageing of the population.

In the United States, recent data pointed to moderate growth in economic activity in the June quarter following weakness in the March quarter. The labour market had strengthened further, with growth in non-farm payrolls employment rebounding in April and May and the unemployment rate falling. While there had been some increase in measures of wage growth, core measures of inflation remained below the Federal Reserve’s inflation target.

In the euro area, the available indicators pointed to modest economic growth and above-average sentiment in the June quarter, continuing the recent trend of improved conditions in the euro area as a whole. Members noted that exports had made a significant contribution to the pick-up in growth in the region but investment was still well below the levels seen prior to the global financial crisis. The unemployment rate had continued to fall modestly since its peak two years earlier, but varied sharply across the euro area; the unemployment rate was highest in Greece, where output was more than 25 per cent below its level prior to the financial crisis.

Domestic Economic Conditions

Members noted that output had increased by 0.9 per cent in the March quarter and by 2.3 per cent over the year. Resource exports had made a significant contribution to growth, reflecting better-than-usual weather conditions in the quarter. Dwelling investment had remained strong and while consumption growth had picked up over the past year or so, it had remained below average. Business investment had contracted in the quarter and there had been little growth in public demand. More recent economic indicators suggested that domestic demand had continued to grow at a below-average pace over recent months, but that labour market conditions had continued to improve.

Members observed that consumption grew faster than household income over the year to the March quarter. As a result, the saving ratio had declined further, although it remained well above the level it had been over much of the past 25 years. Year-ended growth in retail sales had been little changed over recent months and liaison suggested that this was likely to have continued into June. Retail sales growth had been relatively strong in New South Wales and Victoria but weaker in Queensland and Western Australia, in line with observed differences in economic conditions across the country. At the same time, surveys indicated that consumers had viewed their financial situation as being above average over the past year, notwithstanding the relatively weak growth in labour incomes. Members observed that this was likely to reflect the very low level of interest rates and strong growth in net household wealth.

Dwelling investment increased by 9 per cent over the year to the March quarter. An increase in the construction of new dwellings accounted for most of this growth, but the alterations and additions component had also contributed more recently, recording the first increase in a year in the March quarter. Forward-looking indicators pointed to further strong growth in dwelling investment in the period ahead. Members noted that there had been ongoing divergence in conditions in established housing markets across the country, as well as between houses and apartments. Housing prices had continued to rise rapidly in Sydney and to a lesser extent in Melbourne. Elsewhere, there had been little change in housing prices over the past six months or so. Prices of apartments had been growing less rapidly than those of houses, which members considered to be consistent with the relatively strong growth in the supply of higher-density housing in many capital cities.

Growth in housing credit overall had been stable over recent months at around 7 per cent on an annualised basis, while growth in lending to investors had been steady at a bit above 10 per cent. Members observed that the household debt-to-income ratio, calculated by netting funds held in mortgage offset accounts from total household debt to the financial sector, had increased over the year to March but had not exceeded previous peaks. Members discussed the fact that high housing prices had different implications for existing home owners, who benefited from increased wealth, and potential new home owners, who were finding it more difficult to finance a home purchase.

Investment in both the mining and non-mining sectors appeared to have fallen in the March quarter, although the split between the two components remained subject to some uncertainty. Profits for non-mining firms had increased by 6 per cent over the past year. More recent survey measures of business conditions, confidence and capacity utilisation had picked up to be around, or even above, their long-run averages. In contrast, private non-residential building approvals had remained weak.

The monthly trade data suggested that resource exports, including iron ore and coal, had declined in the June quarter. Coal exports had been affected by the severe storms in the Hunter region of New South Wales in late April. Members noted that there had been further signs of growth in service exports, in part a response to the depreciation of the exchange rate. Over the past year, net service exports had made a similar contribution to output growth as exports of iron ore, even though total import volumes had increased in the March quarter.

Labour force data indicated further signs of improvement in May. Employment growth had picked up over the year to exceed the rate of population growth. As a result, the unemployment rate had been relatively stable since the latter part of 2014 and had fallen slightly in May to 6 per cent. Members observed that employment growth had been strongest in household services and that employment and vacancies had been growing for business services but had remained little changed in the goods sector. As with other state-based indicators, employment growth and job vacancies had been strongest in New South Wales and Victoria. Forward-looking labour market indicators had been somewhat mixed over recent months. The ABS measure of firms’ job vacancies overall suggested that demand for labour could be sufficient to maintain a stable or even falling unemployment rate in the near term, while other forward-looking indicators suggested only modest growth in employment in coming months.

Members noted that the latest estimates indicated that the population had increased by 1.4 per cent over the year to the December quarter, down from a peak rate of growth of 1.8 per cent over 2012. The slower growth was primarily accounted for by a decline in net immigration, which was particularly pronounced in Western Australia and Queensland, consistent with weaker economic conditions in those states. Members observed that the lower-than-expected growth in the population helped to reconcile the below-average growth in output over the past year with a broadly steady unemployment rate.

Despite recent improvements in labour market indicators, members reflected that there was still evidence of spare capacity in the labour market. Consistent with this, the latest national accounts data indicated that non-farm average earnings per hour had recorded the lowest year-ended outcomes since the early 1990s and that unit labour costs had been little changed for around four years.

Financial Markets

International financial markets were mainly focused on developments in Greece and the fall in Chinese equity markets over the past month.

Members were briefed on recent developments in Greece. The ‘no’ vote in the referendum on the creditors’ latest proposals raised several issues, first among which was how the Greek authorities could reopen the banks. A critical vulnerability in the near term was related to whether the European Central Bank would provide additional emergency liquidity assistance. A second issue was how Greece would be able to service its external debt and a third was the challenges faced by the Greek authorities in improving the competitive position of the economy. Although these issues were of great concern to the Greek populace, the direct economic implications for the global economy and Australia were assessed by members to be relatively limited. They noted that the reaction of financial markets to these developments had been fairly muted. This was consistent with the economic and financial exposures to Greece – apart from the official sector’s financial exposure – being quite low.

Members noted that spreads to 10-year German Bunds on comparable bonds issued by Italy, Spain and Portugal had not risen much, with the limited contagion from developments in Greece likely to have reflected a general view of markets that previous adjustment policies in those countries had been relatively successful.

Members then turned their discussion to developments in bond markets more generally. Yields on longer-maturity German Bunds and US Treasuries had risen sharply over the first half of June, with German 10-year yields reaching 1 per cent, compared with a historic low of 8 basis points in mid April. German yields declined somewhat following the announcement of the Greek referendum. Longer-term sovereign yields of most other developed countries, including Australia, tended to move in line with US Treasuries.

Expectations about the timing of the US Federal Reserve’s first increase in the federal funds rate were little changed over the past month. Market pricing continued to suggest that the first increase would occur around the end of 2015. Although commentary by Federal Reserve officials suggested that it could be a little sooner than that, they continued to emphasise that the exact timing of the first increase would be less important than the pace of subsequent increases, which were expected to be gradual.

The People’s Bank of China (PBC) eased monetary policy further in June by cutting benchmark deposit and lending rates by 25 basis points, citing low inflation and a consequent increase in real interest rates. In addition, the PBC announced cuts to the reserve requirement ratio for selected financial institutions. The Chinese authorities had also announced a proposal to allow banks more flexibility in their choice of funding mix and asset allocation, which could lead to an increase in the supply of credit over time.

The Reserve Bank of New Zealand lowered its policy rate by 25 basis points, to 3.25 per cent, citing the decline in New Zealand’s terms of trade and the disinflationary effect of stronger-than-expected labour force growth.

Global equity markets fell by 3 per cent over the course of June, with broad-based falls and price movements generally tending to reflect fluctuations in sentiment about Greece. The Chinese equity market also fell sharply in June, partly in response to what was only a modest tightening of restrictions on margin lending. Mainland share prices were still well above their levels of a year earlier but the sharpness of the recent fall prompted the Chinese authorities to announce a number of measures, including an indefinite suspension of initial public offerings, an equity stabilisation fund and a funding facility for brokers. The Australian equity market underperformed several other advanced economy markets in June, mainly reflecting falls in resources and consumer sector share prices.

Global foreign exchange markets were relatively subdued in June. The euro recorded only a modest and short-lived fall when markets opened after the announcement of the Greek referendum result. The Australian dollar was 3 per cent lower against the US dollar and on a trade-weighted basis.

Corporate bond issuance in Australia had been strong over the course of 2015 to date, particularly by resource companies, although much of the increase reflected refinancing.

Pricing of Australian money market instruments suggested that the cash rate target was expected to remain unchanged at the present meeting.

Considerations for Monetary Policy

Members noted that global economic conditions remained consistent with growth in Australia’s major trading partners being around average over the period ahead. Global financial conditions were very accommodative and would remain so even in the event that the Federal Reserve started to raise its policy interest rate later in the year. Recent data suggested that conditions in Chinese property markets had improved and the authorities had acted to support activity by easing a range of policies further. Members noted that the recent volatility in Chinese equity markets and potential spillovers from developments in Greece would require close monitoring.

Domestically, the key forces shaping the economy over the past year were much as they had been for some time. Very low interest rates were working to support strong growth in dwelling investment and, together with strong housing prices, had supported consumption growth. Resource exports had made a substantial contribution to growth and mining investment had declined significantly, while public demand had been flat over the past year. Although output growth in the March quarter had been stronger than expected, growth over the year remained below average and early indications were that the strength in the March quarter had not carried through to the June quarter. Non-mining business investment had been subdued and surveys of businesses’ investment intentions suggested that it would remain so over the coming year. Nevertheless, non-mining business profits had increased over the past year and surveys suggested that business conditions had generally improved over recent months to be a bit above average.

Conditions in the housing market had been little changed in the most recent months, with notable strength in Sydney. Housing credit growth had been steady and remained relatively strong for investors in housing, although it had not accelerated. Any effects of regulators’ greater scrutiny of investor lending were probably not yet evident in the data.

Recent data indicated that employment had grown more rapidly than the population and the unemployment rate had been relatively stable since the latter part of the previous year. The easing in population growth over the past year helped to reconcile below-average growth in output with the relatively steady unemployment rate. Nevertheless, spare capacity remained, as evidenced by the level of the unemployment rate, historically low wage growth and unit labour costs that had been stable for a number of years. On this basis, members assessed that inflationary pressures were well contained and likely to remain so in the period ahead.

Commodity prices had fallen further and the Australian dollar had depreciated over the past month. Although the exchange rate against the US dollar was close to levels last seen in 2009, the decline in the Australian dollar had been more modest in terms of a basket of currencies. Members noted that the exchange rate had thus far offered less assistance than would normally be expected in achieving balanced growth in the economy and that further depreciation seemed both likely and necessary.

In light of current and prospective economic circumstances and financial conditions, the Board judged that leaving the cash rate unchanged was appropriate. Information to be received over the period ahead on economic and financial conditions would continue to inform the Board’s assessment of the outlook and hence whether the current stance of policy remained appropriate to foster sustainable growth and inflation consistent with the target.

FED Announces Further Capital Uplifts For GSIB’s

The Federal Reserve Board approved a final rule requiring the largest, most systemically important U.S. bank holding companies to further strengthen their capital positions. Under the rule, a firm that is identified as a global systemically important bank holding company, or GSIB, will have to hold additional capital ranging from 1.0 to 4.5 percent of each firm’s total risk-weighted assets to increase its resiliency in light of the greater threat it poses to the financial stability of the United States.

The final rule establishes the criteria for identifying a GSIB and the methods that those firms will use to calculate a risk-based capital surcharge, which is calibrated to each firm’s overall systemic risk. Eight U.S. firms are currently expected to be identified as GSIBs under the final rule: Bank of America Corporation; The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation; Citigroup, Inc.; The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.; JPMorgan Chase & Co.; Morgan Stanley; State Street Corporation; and Wells Fargo & Company.

“A key purpose of the capital surcharge is to require the firms themselves to bear the costs that their failure would impose on others,” Chair Janet L. Yellen said. “In practice, this final rule will confront these firms with a choice: they must either hold substantially more capital, reducing the likelihood that they will fail, or else they must shrink their systemic footprint, reducing the harm that their failure would do to our financial system. Either outcome would enhance financial stability.”

Like the proposal issued in December 2014, the final rule requires GSIBs to calculate their surcharges under two methods and use the higher of the two surcharges. The first method is based on the framework agreed to by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision and considers a GSIB’s size, interconnectedness, cross-jurisdictional activity, substitutability, and complexity.

The second method uses similar inputs, but is calibrated to result in significantly higher surcharges and replaces substitutability with a measure of the firm’s reliance on short-term wholesale funding. As seen during the crisis, reliance on this type of funding left firms vulnerable to runs and fire sales, which may impose additional costs on the broader financial system and economy.

Under the final rule and using the most recent available data, estimated surcharges for the eight GSIBs range from 1.0 to 4.5 percent of each firm’s total risk-weighted assets. Because the final rule relies on individual GSIB data that will change over time, the currently estimated surcharges may not reflect the surcharges that would apply to a GSIB when the rule becomes effective.

“A set of graduated capital surcharges for the nation’s most systemically important financial institutions will be an especially important part of the strengthened regulatory framework we have constructed since the financial crisis,” Governor Daniel K. Tarullo said. “Like the higher leverage ratio requirements we will apply to these firms, they reflect the relatively new, but very significant, principle that the stringency of prudential standards should vary with the systemic importance of regulated firms.”

In response to comments, the Board modified several aspects of the proposal’s second method to more accurately reflect a GSIB’s systemic importance. Additionally, the Board released a white paper on Monday describing how the surcharges were calibrated. The paper details the methodology used to set a GSIB’s surcharge at a level that would reduce the impact of its failure to near the impact of the failure of a large bank holding company that is not a GSIB.

The surcharges will be phased in beginning on January 1, 2016, becoming fully effective on January 1, 2019.

APRA Increases IRB Capital Adequacy Requirements for Residential Mortgages

APRA has announced that capital risk weight for banks using the internal risk-based model will increase from 16% to at least 25% from 1 July 2016. These changes, which chime with the recommendations from the FSI, will apply mainly to the big four and Macquarie and will tilt the playing field slightly back towards a more neutral balance with the smaller players who use the unchanged standard approach. That said the regional’s still have to hold more capital, at around 35%, and still have to pay more for that capital, so it will not create a level playing field.

The changes will require the banks to raise more capital (we think about ~$11bn to meet these revised ratios), throttle back mortgage lending growth or lift interest rates charged to borrowers or cut rates to savers. Further changes will probably follow in the light of evolving international developments, including the upcoming Basel IV. The changes as announced were expected, and it is unlikely overall banking profitability will impacted much at all, though the banks will squeal.

The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) has today announced an increase in the amount of capital required for Australian residential mortgage exposures by authorised deposit-taking institutions (ADIs) accredited to use the internal ratings-based (IRB) approach to credit risk.

This change will mean that, for ADIs accredited to use the IRB approach, the average risk weight on Australian residential mortgage exposures will increase from approximately 16 per cent to at least 25 per cent.

The increase in IRB mortgage risk weights addresses a recommendation of the Financial System Inquiry (FSI) that APRA ‘raise the average IRB mortgage risk weight to narrow the difference between average mortgage risk weights for ADIs using IRB risk weight models and those using standardised risk weights’. The increase is also consistent with the direction of work being undertaken by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (Basel Committee) on changes to the global capital adequacy framework for banks.

The increased IRB risk weights will apply to all Australian residential mortgages, other than lending to small businesses secured by residential mortgage. The increase is being implemented through an adjustment to the correlation factor used in the IRB mortgage risk weight function for each affected ADI. In order to provide these ADIs sufficient time to prepare for the change, the higher risk weights will come into effect from 1 July 2016.

The residential mortgage portfolio is the largest credit portfolio for ADIs and, in aggregate, IRB accredited ADIs hold the material share of these exposures. Therefore, strengthening the capital adequacy requirement for residential mortgage exposures under the IRB approach will enhance the resilience of IRB-accredited ADIs and the broader financial system.

The increase in IRB mortgage risk weights announced today is an interim measure. It is not possible to settle on the final calibration between the IRB and standardised mortgage risk weights until changes arising from the Basel Committee’s broader review of this framework are complete. Further changes to IRB mortgage risk weights will be considered over the medium term in the context of these broader international developments.

You can listen to my comments on ABC Radio National today on the APRA move.

FED to Modify its Capital Planning and Stress Testing Regulations

The Federal Reserve Board has proposed a rule to modify its capital planning and stress testing regulations.  The proposed changes would take effect for the 2016 capital plan and stress testing cycles.

The proposed rule would modify the timing for several requirements that have yet to be integrated into the stress testing framework.  Banking organizations subject to the supplementary leverage ratio would begin to incorporate that ratio into their stress testing in the 2017 cycle.  The use of advanced approaches risk-weighted assets–which is applicable to banking organizations with more than $250 billion in total consolidated assets or $10 billion in on-balance sheet foreign exposures–in stress testing would be delayed indefinitely, and all banking organizations would continue to use standardized risk-weighted assets.

Banking organizations are currently required to project post-stress regulatory capital ratios in their stress tests.  As the common equity tier 1 capital ratio becomes fully phased in under the Board’s regulatory capital rule, it would generally require more capital than the tier 1 common ratio.  The proposal would remove the requirement that banking organizations calculate a tier 1 common ratio.

The Board is also currently considering a broad range of issues related to its capital plan and stress testing rules.  Any modifications will be undertaken through a separate rulemaking and would take effect no earlier than the 2017 cycle.

Comments on the proposal will be accepted through September 24, 2015.

The Case For Tighter Financial Integration In Asia

The IMF released a working paper “Drivers of Financial Integration – Implications for Asia” which is highly relevant given that deeper intraregional financial integration is prominent on Asian policymakers’ agenda despite the fact that financial integration lags behind trade integration and that Asian economies maintain stronger financial links with the rest of the world than with other economies in the region. The paper concludes that financial integration in Asia could be enhanced through policies that lower informational frictions, continue to buttress trade integration and capital market development, remove restrictions to foreign flows and bank penetration, and promote a common regulatory framework.

Ever since the Asian financial crisis, Asian policymakers have embarked in a number of initiatives to foster regional cooperation and financial integration. This drive has been motivated to a large extent by the desire to enhance resilience against the vagaries of global financial markets by developing a local-currency denominated bond market and beefing up regional reserves. The “Manila Framework” was developed in 1997 as a “ new framework for enhanced Asian regional cooperation to promote financial stability”. Other important steps toward regional financial integration include liquidity support arrangements through the Chiang Mai Initiative Multilateralization, the Asian Bond Fund, the Asian Bond Market Initiative, and financial forums such as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations Plus Three and the Executives’ Meeting of East Asia–Pacific Central Banks. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) has also outlined plans to foster capital market integration, including by building capital market infrastructure and harmonizing regulations.

In spite of these efforts, though, the empirical evidence indicates that regional financial integration lags behind trade integration and that Asian economies maintain stronger financial links with the rest of the world than with other economies in the region.

This paper takes a fresh look at the status of financial integration within Asia and at possible factors hindering progress, focusing on portfolio investment and banking claims. More specifically, it attempts to address the following questions: how financially integrated are Asian economies within the region? Has Asia’s regional financial integration increased? And how does it compare to other regions? What are the drivers of financial integration? And, hence, what are the implications for Asian policymakers pursuing deeper regional financial integration?

To answer these questions we first review recent trends in the share of cross-border holdings of portfolio investment assets and bank claims within Asia compared to outside the region. Next, we estimate the home bias—that is, the tendency to invest more in one’s home country than abroad—in Asia and other regions. Then, through a gravity model, we study the main drivers of financial integration—focusing in particular on the role of regulations—and use the results to draw implications for Asia.

The paper finds that the degree of financial integration within Asia has increased, but remains relatively low, especially when compared with Asia’s high degree of trade integration. Moreover, financial linkages within Asia are less strong than those within the euro area and the European Union, but tighter than those in Latin America. The home bias is found to be particularly strong in Asia, limiting cross-border financial transactions within the region.

The gravity model estimates indicate that cross-border portfolio investment assets and bank claims increase with the size and sophistication of financial systems and the extent of trade integration. In addition, restrictions on cross-border capital flows, informational asymmetries, barriers to foreign bank entry, and differences in regulatory and institutional quality create obstacles to financial integration.

Hence, initiatives to advance Asian policymakers’ agenda toward deeper regional integration could include steps to further promote financial market development and trade linkages, and reduce informational asymmetries through increased financial disclosure and reporting requirements. Lowering regulatory barriers to capital movements and foreign bank entry, as well as harmonizing regulation, especially for investor protection, contract enforcement, and bankruptcy procedures, appear particularly important.

Note: IMF Working Papers describe research in progress by the author(s) and are published to elicit comments and to encourage debate. The views expressed in IMF Working Papers are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views of the IMF, its Executive Board, or IMF management.

Guidelines for identifying and dealing with weak banks released by the Basel Committee

The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision today published the final Guidelines for identifying and dealing with weak banks.

Weak banks are a worldwide phenomenon. They pose a continuing challenge for bank supervisors and resolution authorities in all countries, regardless of the political structure, financial system and level of economic and technical development. All bank supervisors should be prepared to mitigate the incidence of weak banks and deal with them when they occur.

A weak bank can be defined in various ways. In this report, it is “one whose liquidity or solvency is impaired or will soon be impaired unless there is a major improvement in its financial resources, risk profile, business model, risk management systems and controls, and/or quality of governance and management in a timely manner”. In cases where a bank is no longer viable, or likely to be no longer viable, and has no reasonable prospect of becoming viable once again, the authorities should resolve the institution without severe systemic disruption and without exposing taxpayers to loss, while protecting its critical functions. It may well be that the bank as a legal entity ceases to exist, but it should do so in a way that seeks to ensure continuity of access to the critical functions necessary to maintain financial stability and confidence in the financial system.

In the light of the significant post-crisis developments in financial markets and the regulatory landscape, the Committee has updated its 2002 Supervisory guidance on dealing with weak banks. Key changes include:

  • emphasising the need for early intervention and the use of recovery and resolution tools, and updating supervisory communication policies for distressed banks;
  • providing further guidance for improving supervisory processes, such as incorporating macroprudential assessments, stress testing and business model analysis, and reinforcing the importance of sound corporate governance at banks;
  • highlighting the issues of liquidity shortfalls, excessive risk concentrations, misaligned compensation and inadequate risk management; and
  • expanding guidelines for information-sharing and cooperation among relevant authorities.

Part I of the report discusses the underlying supervisory preconditions for dealing with weak banks and techniques that will allow the supervisor to identify problems. These phases include preparatory work on recovery and resolution issues. Part II concerns the corrective measures available to turn around a weak bank and, for resolution authorities, tools for dealing with failing or failed banks.

A consultative version of this paper was published for comment in June 2014.

Will Shadow Banking Regulation Be Sufficient?

The Financial Stability Board (FSB) has launched a peer review on the implementation of its policy framework for financial stability risks posed by non-bank financial entities other than money market funds (“other shadow banking entities”). The objective of the review is to evaluate the progress made by FSB jurisdictions in implementing the overarching principles set out in the framework – in particular, to assess shadow banking entities based on economic functions, to adopt policy tools if necessary to mitigate any identified financial stability risks, and to participate in the FSB information-sharing process. However,  DFA’s initial take is that the proposed approach is relatively light-handed, and may not be sufficient. You can read our analysis of shadow banking and why it should be better regulated here.

The summarized terms of reference provide more details on the objectives, scope and process of this review. A questionnaire to collect information from national authorities has been distributed to FSB members. The responses will be analysed and discussed by the FSB later this year. The peer review report will be published in early 2016.

As part of this peer review, the FSB invites feedback from financial institutions, industry and consumer associations as well as other stakeholders on the areas covered by the peer review. This could include comments on:

  • institutional arrangements needed to define and update the regulatory perimeter to capture new forms of shadow banking if necessary to ensure financial stability;
  • types of information that may be necessary to assess shadow banking risks for entities identified as having the potential to pose risks to the financial system;
  • possible ways to enhance public disclosure of shadow bank entities’ risks; and
  • the design of policy tools to mitigate identified financial stability risks.

Feedback should be submitted by 24 July 2015. Individual submissions will not be made public.

Transforming shadow banking into resilient market-based finance is one of the core elements of the FSB’s regulatory reform agenda to address the fault lines that contributed to the global financial crisis and to build safer, more sustainable sources of financing for the real economy. The FSB has adopted a two-pronged strategy to deal with these fault lines.  First, it has created a system-wide monitoring framework to track financial sector developments outside the banking system with a view to identifying the build-up of systemic risks and initiating corrective actions where necessary. Second, it is coordinating and contributing to the development of policy measures in five areas where oversight and regulation need to be strengthened to reduce excessive build-up of leverage, as well as maturity and liquidity mismatch, in the system.

One of these five areas is assessing and mitigating financial stability risks posed by non-bank financial entities other than money market funds (“other shadow banking entities”). Based on the G20 Roadmap agreed at the St Petersburg Summit, the FSB developed a high-level policy framework for other shadow banking entities in August 2013. The framework focuses on the underlying economic functions (i.e. activities) of non-bank financial entities instead of their legal forms, and sets forth key overarching principles that authorities should adhere to in their oversight of non-bank financial entities that are identified as posing shadow banking risks that threaten financial stability.