by Don Alexander, MBA
Associate, RSD Solutions Inc.
Do advanced economies have an edge in resolving financial crises? Two authors from the IMF, Luc Laevan and Fabian Valencia in recent VOXEU column, suggest that the record supports the opposite view, with the average crisis lasting about twice as long as in developing and emerging market economies. It argues that macroeconomic stabilization policies in advanced countries often delay the necessary financial restructuring. This has important implications for risk management since the conventional wisdom is that advanced countries resolve banking crises faster.
Countries resort to a policy mix to contain and resolve banking crises, ranging from macroeconomic stabilization to financial sector restructuring and institutional reforms. However, despite many commonalities in the origins of crises these strategies have met with mixed success. Successful crisis resolutions have been characterized by transparency and resoluteness in terms of resolving insolvent institutions.
Sweden’s policy experience during its banking crisis in the early 1990’s is seen as an example successful crisis resolution. The government moved swiftly to liquidate failing banks, recapitalize viable institutions, and remove bad assets from the system, thereby, avoiding a period of prolonged stagnation. Yet the experience of Japan produced the opposite result. Authorities, instead of acknowledging the true extent of losses at troubled banks, allowed insolvent institutions to continue to operate as “zombie” banks, evergreening bad credits, and using one-off gimmicks to bolster regulatory capital positions. The reluctance of these banks to resolve bad assets contributed to the Japanese lost decade.
Advanced economies with their stronger macroeconomic frameworks and institutional setting would have an edge in crisis resolution, the record supports the opposite: the average crisis in advanced countries lasts twice as long.
The authors suggest that the greater reliance on macroeconomic policies as crisis management tools may delay financial restructuring, with the risk of prolonging the crisis. Macroeconomic prevent a disorderly deleveraging and gives way for balance sheet repair, buying time to address solvency problems. However, by masking balance sheet problems of financial institutions, they may also reduce incentives for financial restructuring, with the risk of dampening growth and prolonging the crisis.
The crisis response by advanced economies, have initially relied on monetary and fiscal policy. However, these countries now use a broader range of policy measures compared to past crisis episodes, including unconventional monetary policy measures, asset purchases and guarantees, and significant fiscal stimulus packages, in part reflecting the better macroeconomic and institutional setting of the countries involved. These policies were combined with substantial government guarantees on non-deposit bank liabilities and ample liquidity support for banks, often at concessional penalty rates and at reduced collateral requirements.
Taken together, these actions have mitigated the financial turmoil and contained the crisis. But it means that the bulk of the cost of this crisis has simply been transferred to the future, in the form of higher public debt and possibly a dampened economic recovery due to residual uncertainty about the health of banks and continued high private sector indebtedness. While monetary policy has avoided an even sharper contraction in economic activity, it has also discouraged more active bank restructuring. The lingering bad assets and uncertainty about the health of financial institutions risk prolonging the crisis and depressing growth for a prolonged period of time. Macroeconomic stabilization policies should supplement and support not displace financial restructuring.
What are the implications for risk management?
For more on this, please follow the link: http://www.voxeu.org/article/curse-advanced-economies-resolving-banking-crises
No comments:
Post a Comment