Financial Surveillance Strategy Progress Report

This note provides background to the informal Board briefing on the one-year progress in implementation of the FSS. The Board will have the opportunity to review progress in implementing the FSS in the context of the 2014 TSR and the 2014 review of the Financial Sector Assessment Program (FSAP), as well as through periodic reports to the International Monetary and Financial Committee and the semi-annual work program.

This paper outlines strategic priorities for the IMF’s financial surveillance in the coming years. It complements recent discussions on the work agenda in this area. It takes stock of innovations and gaps in financial surveillance by the Fund during the past decade, including in the wake of the current global financial crisis. It proposes concrete and prioritized steps to further strengthen financial surveillance so that the Fund can fulfill its mandate to ensure the effective operation of the international monetary system and support global economic and financial stability.

With the 2011 TSR laying out a wide ranging agenda for surveillance reform, the 2014 review will take a more narrowly focused approach and be mindful of the need to make cost-neutral recommendations. The themes and associated outputs will cover areas that address the IMF’s core mandate of ensuring the stability of the international monetary system, provide the most value-added for the membership, and leverage the Fund’s comparative advantages. The review will be based on: (i) a review and analysis of Article IV reports and multilateral surveillance products; (ii) guidance from an External Advisory Group at key stages of the exercise; (iii) background studies; and (iv) surveys and interviews with country authorities, staff, and other stakeholders. A review of the Financial Sector Assessment Program (FSAP) will be conducted separately but concurrently with the TSR, with close coordination between the relevant authoring teams. The TSR will also take into account the findings of other recent work, including the progress report on the implementation of the Financial Surveillance Strategy, the range of papers on debt issues, the LIC pilot on financial depth and macroeconomic policy, the set of Board papers on the experience with unconventional monetary policies and the challenges of exit from these policies, and the planned discussion of communication issues with the Executive Board.

In response to the Global Financial Crisis, the IMF launched many initiatives to strengthen financial surveillance and better advise member countries of vulnerabilities and risks. While these initiatives have not yet been tested by a major crisis, the efforts have delivered a substantial upgrade of the Fund’s financial surveillance, including giving the IMF clearer responsibilities over financial sector stability and cross-country spillovers; making periodic financial stability assessments mandatory for jurisdictions with systemically important financial sectors; invigorating efforts to integrate financial and macroeconomic analysis in bilateral and multilateral surveillance; enhancing cooperation with the Financial Stability Board and standard setting bodies to promote reforms and monitor agreed standards; and taking steps to recruit and train greater financial expertise. While recognizing these achievements, this evaluation finds that the quality and impact of the IMF’s financial surveillance has been uneven. The expansion of products and activities has presented the Fund with difficult trade-offs between bilateral and multilateral surveillance; between countries with systemically important financial sectors and other member countries; and between financial surveillance and other activities. Moreover, resource constraints have slowed the needed build-up of financial and macrofinancial expertise. These are critical issues, given the IMF’s position as the only international financial institution with the mandate and ability to conduct financial and macrofinancial surveillance over the full range of countries as well as the global economy, and given that these issues are at the core of the IMF’s responsibilities. Thus, to further strengthen financial surveillance, the evaluation recommends devoting greater resources to financial surveillance overall; further strengthening financial and macrofinancial analysis in Article IV surveillance; refining resource allocation for FSAPs; enhancing rigor and transparency in multilateral surveillance; intensifying efforts to be a global center of excellence on financial and macrofinancial research; and extending efforts to develop financial expertise among IMF staff.

This paper reviews the status of financing for the Fund’s concessional lending and debt relief activities for low-income countries (LICs). It is based on the latest available data and projections, and it takes into account the commitments made so far in response to the Managing Director’s fund-raising request of August 2009. The paper is organized as follows. Section II summarizes: (i) the comprehensive reforms of the Fund’s concessional lending instruments and the associated financing framework that have become effective since the last review; and (ii) the measures that the Board recently endorsed to facilitate the needed mobilization of loan resources. Section III on the financing of PRGT operations begins by reviewing the projected financing needs established in July 2009 in light of recent commitments under the PRGT, and then considers the status of loan and subsidy resources, before discussing developments in the PRGT Reserve Account. Sections IV and V provide updates on the subsidization of emergency assistance and the financing of debt relief under the HIPC and MDRI.

"The Ninth Periodic Monitoring Report (PMR) on the Status of Management Implementation Plans (MIPs) in Response to Board-Endorsed Independent Evaluation Office (IEO) Recommendations assesses the progress made over the last year on actions contained in two “new” MIPs arising from recent IEO evaluations, and another seven for which individual management actions were classified as “open” in the Eighth PMR. Overall, 42 of the 96 actions included in the Ninth PMR remain open, representing roughly the same proportion as the previous PMR. A 25 percent net increase in open management actions over the past year is accounted for by 24 new actions from two MIPs, and 16 actions that have been implemented over the period. There is positive traction on the last four MIPs, but older actions appear challenging to implement. Better progress has been made with the implementation of the actions contained in recent MIPs. Fourteen of the actions implemented since the Eighth PMR relate to MIPs approved after October 2015, while only two actions (out of 24) from earlier MIPs were implemented. Improvements in the follow-up process approved by the Board in October 2015 have contributed to speedier implementation of recent actions, but some challenges remain. There are lingering challenges with defining measures of success for numerous actions, but accountabilities are now clearer and many actions are at advanced stages at the time of the Board’s discussion of the MIPs. This PMR introduces indicators to support the process for resolving challenges with long-standing actions. Despite the slower progress with the older actions, significant advances have been made over the past year in several key areas. These include: protocols for engaging the IEO; risk management and analysis; the mainstreaming of macrofinancial surveillance; an overarching strategy on data and statistics; guidance on cooperation with other organizations, including Regional Financing Arrangements (RFAs); improvements in External Stability Assessments; and ongoing analytical work on surveillance and program, including macrostructural issues, emerging topics, and debt sustainability analysis. On the other hand, progress has been slower on macro forecasting, outward spillovers, and cross-country knowledge sharing."

This progress report provides a short update on the first year of implementation of the 2011 Triennial Surveillance Review (TSR) in line with the Managing Director’s Statement on Strengthening Surveillance of October 2011. The report does not provide a comprehensive review of surveillance—which will be done in the 2014 TSR. Instead, its purpose is to establish, at an early stage, whether the new operational priorities are being implemented, set out key areas of progress, and discuss the challenges raised in their implementation. The report also identifies areas where further efforts may need to be directed—particularly following the change to the legal framework—to ensure even implementation and delivery of effective surveillance. The report recognizes that, while some measures have been implemented over the past year, others will take more time to come to fruition.

The Tenth Periodic Monitoring Report (PMR) on the Status of Management Implementation Plans (MIPs) in Response to Board-Endorsed Independent Evaluation Office (IEO) Recommendations assesses the progress made over the last year on actions contained in 10 MIPs with open management actions.

The October 2019 Global Financial Stability Report (GFSR) identifies the current key vulnerabilities in the global financial system as the rise in corporate debt burdens, increasing holdings of riskier and more illiquid assets by institutional investors, and growing reliance on external borrowing by emerging and frontier market economies. The report proposes that policymakers mitigate these risks through stricter supervisory and macroprudential oversight of firms, strengthened oversight and disclosure for institutional investors, and the implementation of prudent sovereign debt management practices and frameworks for emerging and frontier market economies.

Extraordinary policy measures have eased financial conditions and supported the economy, helping to contain financial stability risks. Chapter 1 warns that there is a pressing need to act to avoid a legacy of vulnerabilities while avoiding a broad tightening of financial conditions. Actions taken during the pandemic may have unintended consequences such as stretched valuations and rising financial vulnerabilities. The recovery is also expected to be asynchronous and divergent between advanced and emerging market economies. Given large external financing needs, several emerging markets face challenges, especially if a persistent rise in US rates brings about a repricing of risk and tighter financial conditions. The corporate sector in many countries is emerging from the pandemic overindebted, with notable differences depending on firm size and sector. Concerns about the credit quality of hard-hit borrowers and profitability are likely to weigh on the risk appetite of banks. Chapter 2 studies leverage in the nonfinancial private sector before and during the COVID-19 crisis, pointing out that policymakers face a trade-off between boosting growth in the short term by facilitating an easing of financial conditions and containing future downside risks. This trade-off may be amplified by the existing high and rapidly building leverage, increasing downside risks to future growth. The appropriate timing for deployment of macroprudential tools should be country-specific, depending on the pace of recovery, vulnerabilities, and policy tools available. Chapter 3 turns to the impact of the COVID-19 crisis on the commercial real estate sector. While there is little evidence of large price misalignments at the onset of the pandemic, signs of overvaluation have now emerged in some economies. Misalignments in commercial real estate prices, especially if they interact with other vulnerabilities, increase downside risks to future growth due to the possibility of sharp price corrections.