Changes in Prudential Policy Instruments — A New Cross-Country Database

This paper documents the features of a new database that focuses on changes in the intensity in the usage of several widely used prudential tools, taking into account both macro-prudential and micro-prudential objectives. The database coverage is broad, spanning 64 countries, and with quarterly data for the period 2000Q1 through 2014Q4. The five types of prudential instruments in the database are: capital buffers, interbank exposure limits, concentration limits, loan to value (LTV) ratio limits, and reserve requirements. A total of nine prudential tools are constructed since some useful further decompositions are presented, with capital buffers divided into four subindices: general capital requirements, real state credit specific capital buffers, consumer credit specific capital buffers, and other specific capital buffers; and with reserve requirements divided into two sub-indices: domestic currency capital requirements and foreign currency capital requirements. While general capital requirements have the most changes from the cross-country perspective, LTV ratio limits and reserve requirements have the largest number of tightening and loosening episodes. We also analyze the instruments’ usage in relation to the evolution of key variables such as credit, policy rates, and house prices, finding substantial differences in the patterns of loosening or tightening of instruments in relation to business and financial cycles.

[1]  J. Aizenman,et al.  Domestic and Multilateral Effects of Capital Controls in Emerging Markets , 2015, Journal of International Economics.

[2]  L. Goldberg,et al.  Cross-Border Prudential Policy Spillovers: How Much? How Important? Evidence from the International Banking Research Network , 2016, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[3]  Credit cycles and capital flows : effectiveness of macroprudential policy framework in emerging countries ” , 2016 .

[4]  Dennis Reinhardt,et al.  Regulatory Arbitrage in Action: Evidence from Banking Flows and Macroprudential Policy , 2015 .

[5]  Ozge Akinci,et al.  How Effective are Macroprudential Policies? An Empirical Investigation , 2015 .

[6]  L. Laeven,et al.  The Use and Effectiveness of Macroprudential Policies: New Evidence , 2015, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[7]  S. Claessens An Overview of Macroprudential Policy Tools , 2014, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[8]  Carlos A. Végh,et al.  Reserve Requirement Policy Over the Business Cycle , 2014 .

[9]  Edda Zoli,et al.  Leaning Against the Wind: Macroprudential Policy in Asia , 2014, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[10]  Kenneth N. Kuttner,et al.  Can Non-Interest Rate Policies Stabilise Housing Markets? Evidence from a Panel of 57 Economies , 2013 .

[11]  A. Zlate,et al.  Capital Flows to Emerging Market Economies: A Brave New World? , 2013 .

[12]  E. Detragiache,et al.  Macroprudential Policies and Housing Prices-A New Database and Empirical Evidence for Central, Eastern, and Southeastern Europe , 2012, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[13]  Guonan Ma,et al.  China’s evolving reserve requirements , 2011 .

[14]  Deniz Igan,et al.  Do Loan-to-Value and Debt-to-Income Limits Work? Evidence from Korea , 2011, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[15]  C. Borio Towards a Macroprudential Framework for Financial Supervision and Regulation? , 2003 .

[16]  Eddie Yue,et al.  Marrying the micro- and macro-prudential dimensions of financial stability - the Hong Kong experience , 2001 .