The IMF just released a working paper “Experiences with Macroprudential Policy—Five Case Studies” which discusses the implementation of macroprudential policies, mainly to attempt to manage the housing sector at a time of rising prices and high levels of bank lending.
The paper presents case studies of macroprudential policy in five jurisdictions (Hong Kong SAR, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Singapore, and Sweden). The case studies describe the institutional framework, its evolution, the use of macroprudential tools, and the circumstances under which the tools have been used. In all cases macroprudential tools have been used to address risks in the housing market. In addition, some of them have moved to enhance the resilience of their banks to more general cyclical and structural risks.
In all the cases reviewed, the macroprudential tools have been used primarily to address risks in the real estate sector. Partly for this reason, the loan-to-value (LTV) limit was the most popular macroprudential tool, used in the five cases. Some jurisdictions have used multiple tools to help the effectiveness of the measures. For instance, Hong Kong SAR and Singapore have used the debt service–to-income (DSTI) ratio and taxes applied to real estate transactions along with the LTV ratio. Sweden and Hong Kong SAR also have imposed additional capital requirements for mortgages.
To enhance the resilience of the banking system, some authorities in these five cases also have used, or plan to use, additional macroprudential tools to address risk in the time and structural dimensions. Most of these measures were adopted in response to the global financial crisis. New Zealand, for instance, moved quite quickly compared to other countries and imposed liquidity requirements to contain bank funding risks, and gradually increased the requirement. Sweden did the same in 2013. Banks in both countries rely heavily on wholesale funding. Countercyclical capital buffers will take effect in Sweden in the Fall of 2015 and in Hong Kong SAR in phases beginning 2016, while the Netherlands intends to impose them too. Furthermore, systemically important institutions will have to hold additional capital buffers starting in 2015 in Sweden and 2016 in Hong Kong SAR and the Netherlands.
It is too early to gauge the full impact of the measures that have been undertaken. In addition, some measures will only take effect in the future. Nevertheless, there is some early evidence that the implementation of macroprudential measures have enhanced banking system resilience and helped reduce the build-up of housing sector leverage in the cases reviewed. For instance, LTV ratios declined in Hong Kong SAR, New Zealand, and Singapore following the adoption of LTV limits. House prices growth was also affected. For example, the rate of growth of house prices peaked in New Zealand following the imposition of a cap on LTVs. House prices also leveled off in Hong Kong SAR under the combined weight of macroprudential tools and taxes, with the taxes appearing to have a more immediate impact.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
Increasing attention has been given to the field of macroprudential policy following the global financial crisis. This paper reviews the use of macroprudential policy in five economies (Hong Kong SAR, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Singapore, and Sweden). All these jurisdictions actively implemented macroprudential policy measures following the global financial crisis. The analysis shows that each jurisdiction reviewed adopted an institutional framework for macroprudential policy suited to their own circumstances. The evidence reviewed confirms that “one size does not fit all,” and that it is possible to conduct macroprudential policy with a heterogenous set of institutional frameworks. In all cases, most of the macroprudential tools used were directed at containing risks arising from a booming housing market (for e.g., LTV and DSTI ratio limits). Some of the cases studied also took steps to enhance the resilience of the banking system to more general cyclical and structural risks (for e.g., liquidity requirements and additional capital requirement for systemically important institutions). While there is some early evidence that the measures taken have enhanced banking system resilience, it is still early to determine their full impact.
Note: The views expressed in this Working Paper are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent those of the IMF or IMF policy. Working Papers describe research in progress by the author(s) and are published to elicit comments and to further debate.
