2021 Financial Sector Assessment Program Review Background Paper On Traction

This background paper reviews the development of the scope of financial stability assessments under the FSAP since the 2014 FSAP Review. The paper summarizes past experiences of such adaptation and observed trends with respect to the coverage of specific topics and then discusses possible directions to adjust the scope of future FSAPs over the next five years given the likely changes in the financial stability landscape. The paper also discusses collaboration with the World Bank as it pertains to the scope of financial stability assessments. It does not examine issues such as analytical approaches, participation, and resources, which are covered elsewhere in the FSAP Review.

A key criterion for judging the success of the Financial Sector Assessment Program (FSAP) is the extent to which the program has enhanced the IMF’s engagement with policymakers and influenced country policies. This reflects the fact that achieving one of the program’s key objectives—reducing the frequency and severity of financial crises—rests on its ability to encourage policy action by country authorities, either directly or through other bilateral and multilateral activities. The “traction” of FSAPs thus reflects the degree to which the program is seen as useful by the authorities and the effect it has in shaping the domestic policy agenda. And the impact that the FSAP may have on wider domestic and international audiences.

This paper reviews quantitative tools of financial stability assessments under the Financial Sector Assessment Program (FSAP). A key focus of FSAPs is on methodologies to gauge risks on a system-wide level and propose mitigating measures. Therefore, the paper concentrates on the main elements of the FSAP’s macroprudential stress testing framework:(i) the interaction among solvency, liquidity, and contagion risks in the banking sector, (ii) the assessment of the health of nonbank financial institutions (NBFIs), their interactions with banks and their impact on financial markets, (iii) the assessment of the health of nonfinancial sectors and their links to the financial sector, and (iv) macroprudential policy analysis. The paper also reviews recent improvements in microprudential bank solvency stress testing—an important foundation for the macroprudential stress testing framework—and discusses new tools for emerging risks (climate change, fintech, and cyber).

The Financial Sector Assessment Program (FSAP) Provides In-Depth Assessments Of Financial Sectors. FSAPs Are Usually Conducted Jointly With The World Bank In Emerging Market And Developing Economies And By The Fund Alone In Advanced Economies. Fsaps Provide Valuable Analysis And Policy Recommendations For Surveillance And Capacity Development. Since The Program’s Inception, 157 Fund Members Have Undergone Individual Or Regional Fsaps. In Recent Years, The Fund Has Been Conducting 12–14 Fsaps Per Year At A Cost Of About 3 Percent Of The Fund’s Direct Spending.

This paper reports on developments in the Financial Sector Assessment Program (FSAP) since the last Board review of the FSAP in spring 2003 and discusses staff views of the programs evolution.

This paper presents traction as a multidimensional concept and discusses a comprehensive and complementary set of approaches to attempt to measure it based on the Fund’s value added to policy dialogue and formulation and public debate in member countries.

Modern Fund surveillance needs to be more targeted, topical and timely, better interconnected and better informed. Modernizing surveillance will likely require additional resources, although estimates are highly uncertain at this stage. The paper offers a tentative costing of new proposals with significant budgetary implications. Other proposals could rely on optimizing processes, while others are underway and funded separately; the resource implications of yet others are being picked up in context of other workstreams. Estimates do not include short-term transition costs or pressures on support services and are subject to a significant degree of uncertainty. A flexible approach to implementing the new modalities, characterized by experimentation and learning-by- doing—a “sandbox” for new modalities—is proposed.

Fund surveillance needs to evolve to face the economic and financial challenges that will shape the global landscape for years to come. This paper first takes stock of the current economic and financial landscape. To better serve the membership in this context, Fund surveillance should be prioritized around four key priorities: (i) confronting risks and uncertainties: policymakers will need to actively manage the risks of a highly uncertain outlook; (ii) preempting and mitigating adverse spillovers: shifting patterns of global economic integration will bring about new channels for contagion and policy spillovers; (iii) fostering economic sustainability: a broader understanding of sustainability to better account for the impact of economic and non-economic developments on stability; and (iv) unified policy advice: better accounting for the trade-offs and synergies among different policy combinations in the face of limited policy space and overlapping priorities, tailored to country-specific circumstances. These priorities should further enhance the traction of Fund surveillance.

The coverage of risks has become more systematic since the Global Financial Crisis (GFC): staff reports now regularly identify major risks and provide an assessment of their likelihood and economic impact, summarized in Risk Assessment Matrices (RAM). But still limited attention is paid to the range of possible outcomes. Also, risk identification is useful only so much as to inform policy design to preemptively respond to relevant risks and/or better prepare for them. In this regard, policy recommendations in surveillance could be richer in considering various risk management approaches. To this end, progress is needed on two dimensions: • Increasing emphasis on the range of potential outcomes to improve policy design. • Encouraging more proactive policy advice on how to manage risks. Efforts should continue to leverage internal and external resources to support risk analysis and advice in surveillance.