Regulation and Policy Coordination in Normal

Download Report

Transcript Regulation and Policy Coordination in Normal

Regulation and Policy Coordination
in Normal and Crisis regimes
Joe Pearlman
City University
WP9
Participants and Deliverables
•
•
•
•
City (Pearlman, Melina) - D9.1, 9.3, 9.7
UvA (Hommes) - D9.4
CERGE (Slobodyan) – D9.2
CEP (Ragot, Iliopoulos) – D9.5, 9.6
• D9.1, D9.4 and D9.2 are being summarized at
this meeting
Background to Macroprudential
Regulation
• Ayah El-Said has written a paper “On The
Impact of MacroPrudential Policy: Lessons
From Emerging Markets”.
• Emerging markets employed macroprudential
tools for at least two decades to pursue
financial stability and reduce systemic risk,
with monetary policy pursuing price stability.
• She has examined this in the context of a
structural VAR.
Countries of Interest
• Brazil
• Turkey
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Argentina
Colombia
Mexico
Peru
Czech Republic
South Korea
Russia
South Africa
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Malaysia
China
India
Indonesia
Saudi Arabia
UAE
Egypt
Monthly Data
1990 Onwards
Methodology
• Uses the SVAR specification
•
• Y : a vector of 5 endogenous variables with monthly logarithms of indicators
of economic activity, prices, credit, monetary policy, and macroprudential
policy.
• Economic activity: unemployment/industrial production
• Prices: CPI/core CPI/Housing Specific CPI
• Monetary Policy: Policy Rate (ordered last, as it is fast-moving)
• Macroprudential Tools
–
–
–
–
loan to value ratios,
minimum and total regulatory capital,
Required reserve ratios, effective required reserves
provisioning values (buffer of banks’ own funds from retained profits)
Main Results
• LTV ratios are useful for managing price of housing –
significant mainly in Latin America
• Increase in provisioning curbs credit growth
• Regulatory capital does not have much effect
• Required or effective reserves show some effects on
credit
• Macroprudential tightening tends to be associated with
currency depreciation which is in line with previous
findings.
• Macroprudential policies not always applied
countercyclically. In the UAE, the measures were used
to lower credit in bad times.
9.1 A stylized model of European monetary union for
analysing coordination games for monetary and macroprudential policy (Cantore, Levine, Melina, Pearlman)
• Initially use a model that includes two nontraded sectors, one traded sector, then estimate
using German and peripheral EU data.
• Then investigate a Nash game in simple rules for
monetary and macroprudential policymakers
• Currently this work is following Quint and
Rabanal (2014), with one or two modifications.
Description of Model
• Two-country, two-sector, two agent general equilibrium model of a single
currency area.
• Two types of goods, durables and non-durables, produced under
monopolistic competition and nominal rigidities (Calvo or Rotemberg)
• Non-durables are traded, durable goods are non-tradable.
• In each country, there are two types of agents, savers and borrowers, with
different discount factor and habit formation parameters. Both agents
consume non-durable goods and purchase durable goods to increase their
housing stock.
• Borrowers are more impatient than savers, which motivates credit
• To introduce credit frictions borrowers are hit by idiosyncratic quality
shocks to their housing stock, which affects the value of collateral that
they can use to borrow against.
• BGG then applies to residential investment: shocks to the valuation of
housing affect the balance sheets of borrowers, which affect the default
rate on mortgages and the lending-deposit spread.
Description of Model (cont)
• Domestic financial intermediaries take deposits from savers,
grant loans to borrowers, and issue bonds.
• International financial intermediaries trade these bonds
across countries to channel funds from one country to the
other.
• Thus excess credit demand in one region can be met by
funding coming from elsewhere.
• International financial intermediaries charge a risk premium
dependent on the net foreign asset position of the country.
Modifications to Quint and Rabanal
• We firstly use a non-separable utility function.
This is consistent with
– balanced growth
– the observed relationship for interest rate in the
Euler equation (Collard and Dellas, 2012)
– the increase in consumption in response to an
increase in government spending (Bilbiie, 2009)
(cont)
• Secondly we correct what appears to be an error in Quint and
Rabanal.
• In their paper their macroprudential instrument is used to regulate
the ratio of borrowings/savings for impatient and patient agents.
The instrument reacts to either credit growth or credit/GDP relative
to steady state.
• This implies that borrowing could be > saving half the time!
• The ratio of mortgage lending to deposits for all banks in the
Bankscope database for 1990-2012 is about 0.5; this will represent
our base value therefore for the instrument.
• In addition we allow for the instrument to depend on GDP growth
as in Lambertini et al (2013), as recommended by Goodhart, and
following new BoE practice.
(cont)
• The welfare in Quint and Rabanal uses a 2nd
order approximation, but we use the actual
nonlinear form (unlikely though to make much
difference).
• We follow Quint and Rabanal and evaluate the
effects of non-coordination of monetary and
macroprudential policies for a two bloc model
of the Euro-area.
• No results as yet.
WP11.2/3: Robust Policy Rules
(Amisano, Levine, McAdam, Pearlman)
• We evaluate competing models by Predictive
Density Forecasts
• Then use a sample of draws generated by
MCMC techniques to design robust simple
rules whose average welfare is maximized
across the sample.
• The latter technique is very similar to that of
Batini et al (2006) and Levine et al (2012)
Novelty of the Work
• The basic idea is that of Geweke and Amisano (2012):
• Models M1,…,MM: generate a series of 1-step ahead predictive
densities for y, and define the weighted sum of predictive
densities
• A linear pool of the predictive densities is then created and the
optimal weights are derived by maximizing that pool of (log)
predictive densities:
• Maximizing over the weights usually does not lead to just
one model being vastly preferred over others
Modification to Geweke and Amisano
• Since our focus is robust rules, in order to correctly compare
models, we need to have the same rule (represented by
coefficients r), so we need to solve
• So the algorithm is as follows:
• Fix the rule, and optimize for r and wi using Bayesian
maximum likelihood (less time consuming than MCMC)
• Estimate each model Mj with optimal rule r using MCMC.
• Sample and design the optimal robust rule.
• All steps are in place, apart from the optimal search for r.
Which models will be used?
• Clearly there is a vast range of possibilities
• We will restrict ourselves to a small number of
different types of financial frictions, and also
address internal and external, and deep habit.
• Then evaluate the robust simple rules.