Global Liquidity and Cross Border Capital Flows

Global Liquidity and Cross Border Capital Flows

 

Types of Cross Border Capital Flows

  • Intra Bank Flows (Intra Firm Transfers)
  • Inter Bank Flows (wholesale Money Markets)
  • International Shadow Banking
  • Euro Dollar Market
  • International Bond and Equity Portfolio Flows

Growth of Capital Flows and FX Reserves

From INTERNATIONAL MONETARY RELATIONS: TAKING FINANCE SERIOUSLY

Capitalflows

 

From INTERNATIONAL MONETARY RELATIONS: TAKING FINANCE SERIOUSLY

Capital Flows 2

From Stitching together the global financial safety net

Cap Flows 6

 

Decline in Global Trade and Cross Border Capital Flows since 2008

 

From Global Liquidity and Cross-Border Bank Flows

Cap Flows 7

 

US DOLLAR FLOWS – Inter regional Flows

  • Not all dollar flows are from USA.
  • Through Eurodollar Market, firms in many countries are engaged in US Dollar transactions.
  • US Dollar dominates cross border capital flows.

 

From External dimension of monetary policy

Cap Flows 4

 

 

From Economic resilience: a financial perspective

 

Cap Flow 15

 

 

ALL CURRENCIES

From Breaking free of the triple coincidence in international finance

Cap Flows 10

 

Who is Involved in Cross Border Capital Flows

From The shifting drivers of global liquidity

Cap Flows 8

 

Recent Trends in Capital Flows

 

From The shifting drivers of global liquidity

Cap Flows 9

 

Problem of Boundaries

From Breaking the Triple Coincidence in International Finance

Capital Flows 3

Cross Border (International) Capital Flows (Networks) for

  • Intra Bank Flows
  • Inter-bank Lending
  • Debt and Securities Flows
  • International Shadow Banking

Capital Flows are not confined to National Boundaries.

Boundaries for

  • Monetary Policy
  • National Income Accounting
  • National Currencies

Types of Flows

From From Breaking the Triple Coincidence in International Finance

Cap Flows 11

 

A. Round tripping of Capital Flows

From Breaking the Triple Coincidence in International Finance

Cap Flows 12

B. International Debt Issuance by Non Financial Corporates in Emerging Markets

 

From From Breaking the Triple Coincidence in International Finance

Cap Flows 13

From Global dollar credit: links to US monetary policy and leverage

Cap flow 14

 

From  What does the new face of international financial intermediation mean for emerging market economies?

capflows 16

 

 

From Economic resilience: a financial perspective

 

Cap Flow 16

Please see my other related posts:

The Dollar Shortage, Again! in International Wholesale Money Markets

Currency Credit Networks of International Banks

Low Interest Rates and International Capital Flows

Low Interest Rates and International Investment Position of USA

Economics of Trade Finance

External Balance sheets of Nations

 

Key Sources of Research:

 

 

Breaking the Triple Coincidence in International Finance

Hyun Song Shin

Bank for International Settlements
Keynote speech at seventh conference of
Irving Fisher Committee on Central Bank Statistics

Basel, 5 September 2014

http://www.bis.org/ifc/publ/ifcb39_keynote-rh.pdf

 

 

Breaking free of the triple coincidence in international finance

Hyun Song Shin, BIS

Eighth IFC Conference on “Statistical implications of the new financial landscape”
Basel, 8–9 September 2016

http://www.bis.org/ifc/publ/ifcb43_zp_rh.pdf

 

 

 

Breaking free of the triple coincidence in international finance

by Stefan Avdjiev, Robert N McCauley and Hyun Song Shin

Monetary and Economic Department

BIS

October 2015

http://www.bis.org/publ/work524.pdf

 

 

 

Global Liquidity and Cross-Border Bank Flows

Eugenio Cerutti (International Monetary Fund)
Stijn Claessens (Federal Reserve Board)
Lev Ratnovski (International Monetary Fund)

Economic Policy
63rd Panel Meeting
Hosted by the De Nederlandsche Bank

Amsterdam, 22-23 April 2016

http://www.economic-policy.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Global-liquidity-and-cross-border-bank-flows.pdf

 

 

 

Stitching together the global financial safety net

Edd Denbee, Carsten Jung and Francesco Paternò

Financial Stability Paper No. 36 – February 2016

BOE

http://www.reinventingbrettonwoods.org/sites/default/files/fs_paper36.pdf

 

 

 

Gross Capital Inflows to Banks, Corporates and Sovereigns

Stefan Advjiev

Bryan Hardy

Sebnem Kalemli-Ozcan

Luis Serven

January 2017

http://www.econweb.umd.edu/~kalemli/GrossFlows_jan17_final.pdf

 

 

External dimension of monetary policy

Hyun Song Shin

Remarks at the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System conference
“Monetary policy implementation and transmission in the post-crisis period”

Washington DC, Friday 13 November 2015

https://www.bis.org/speeches/sp151113.pdf

 

 

 

 

Financial deglobalisation in banking?

Robert N McCauley, Agustín S Bénétrix,
Patrick M McGuire and Goetz von Peter

TEP Working Paper No. 1717

July 2017

http://www.tcd.ie/Economics/TEP/2017/tep1717.pdf

 

 

Monetary policy spillovers and currency networks in cross-border bank lending

by Stefan Avdjiev and Előd Takáts
Monetary and Economic Department

March 2016

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2749311

 

 

 

Accounting for global liquidity: reloading the matrix

Hyun Song Shin
Economic Adviser and Head of Research

IMF-IBRN Joint Conference “Transmission of macroprudential and monetary policies across borders”

Washington DC, 19 April 2017

https://www.bis.org/speeches/sp170419.pdf

 

 

 

 

INTERNATIONAL MONETARY RELATIONS: TAKING FINANCE SERIOUSLY

Maurice Obstfeld
Alan M. Taylor
May 2017

http://econ.sciences-po.fr/sites/default/files/file/w23440.pdf

 

 

 

The Currency Dimension of the Bank Lending Channel in International Monetary Transmission

BIS Working Paper No. 600

Posted: 2 Jan 2017

Előd Takáts

Judit Temesvary

 

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2891530

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Elod_Takats/publication/311451202_The_Currency_Dimension_of_the_Bank_Lending_Channel_in_International_Monetary_Transmission/links/587dd04808ae9a860ff2723a/The-Currency-Dimension-of-the-Bank-Lending-Channel-in-International-Monetary-Transmission.pdf

 

 

 

The Second Phase of Global Liquidity and Its Impact on Emerging Economies

Hyun Song Shin
Princeton University

November 7, 2013

 

http://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/events/2013/november/asia-economic-policy-conference/program/files/The-Second-Phase-of-Global-Liquidity-and-Its-Impact-on-Emerging-Economies.pdf

 

 

 

 

BIS Quarterly Review

September 2017

International banking and financial market developments

 

http://www.bis.org/publ/qtrpdf/r_qt1709.pdf

 

 

 

 

The Three Phases of Global Liquidity

https://www.springer.com/cda/content/document/cda_downloaddocument/9789812872838-c2.pdf?SGWID=0-0-45-1490720-p177066168

 

 

 

 

The Shifting Drivers of Global Liquidity

Stefan Avdjiev
Leonardo Gambacorta
Linda S. Goldberg
Stefano Schiaffi

Staff Report No. 819
June 2017

https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/media/research/staff_reports/sr819.pdf?la=en

 

 

 

How Do Global Liquidity Phases Manifest Themselves in Asia?

Iwan J. Azis
Asian Development Bank and Cornell University
Hyun Song Shin
Princeton University
August 2013

http://www.iwanazis.com/files/documents/Iwan-Azis-Paper-Shin-Global-Liquidity2013.pdf

 

 

 

 

GLOBAL LIQUIDITY—ISSUES FOR SURVEILLANCE

2014

IMF

http://www.imf.org/external/np/pp/eng/2014/031114.pdf

 

 

 

 

The shifting drivers of global liquidity

Stefan Avdjiev, Leonardo Gambacorta, Linda S. Goldberg and Stefano Schiaffi

May 2017

FED NY

 

https://www.chapman.edu/business/_files/faculty-research/2017-conference-presentations/linda-goldberg.pdf

 

 

 

CAPITAL FLOWS AND GLOBAL LIQUIDITY

IMF Note for G20 IFA WG
February 2016

 

http://g20chn.org/English/Documents/Current/201608/P020160811536051676178.pdf

 

 

 

 

Capital Flows, Cross-Border Banking and Global Liquidity∗

Valentina Bruno

Hyun Song Shin

March 15, 2012

http://www.igier.unibocconi.it/files/capital_flows_global_liquidity.pdf

 

 

Cross-Border Banking and Global Liquidity

Valentina Bruno

Hyun Song Shin

August 28, 2014

 

http://www.bis.org/publ/work458.pdf

 

 

The international monetary and financial system: a capital account historical perspective

by Claudio Borio, Harold James and Hyun Song Shin

2014

 

http://www.bis.org/publ/work457.pdf

 

 

Banks and Cross-Border Capital Flows: Policy Challenges and Regulatory Responses

 

https://www.tcd.ie/policy-institute/assets/pdf/CIEPR_banking_capital_flows_report_Sept12.pdf

 

 

 

Global dollar credit and carry trades: a firm-level analysis

Valentina Bruno

Hyun Song Shin

August 2015

 

http://www.bis.org/publ/work510.pdf

 

 

Global dollar credit: links to US monetary policy and leverage

by Robert N McCauley, Patrick McGuire and Vladyslav Sushko

2015

 

http://www.bis.org/publ/work483.pdf

 

 

 

Global liquidity and procyclicality

Hyun Song Shin

Bank for International Settlements

“The State of Economics, The State of the World” World Bank conference,

8 June 2016

 

http://pubdocs.worldbank.org/en/710301465395290548/Shin-Son-Shin-Presentation.pdf

 

 

 

 

Economic resilience: a financial perspective

Note submitted to the G20 on 7 November 2016

December 2016

 

http://www.g20.utoronto.ca/2017/2017-Germany-BIS-economic-resilience.pdf

 

 

Emerging Market Nonfinancial Corporate Debt: How Concerned Should We Be?,

Beltran, Daniel, Keshav Garud, and Aaron Rosenblum (2017).

IFDP Notes. Washington: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, June 2017.

 

https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/notes/ifdp-notes/emerging-market-nonfinancial-corporate-debt-how-concerned-should-we-be-20170601.pdf

 

 

 

 

International capital flows and financial vulnerabilities in emerging market economies: analysis and data gaps

By Nikola Tarashev, Stefan Avdjiev and Ben Cohen

Note submitted to the G20 International Financial Architecture Working Group

August 2016

 

https://www.bis.org/publ/othp25.pdf

 

 

 

Recent trends in EME government debt volume and composition

Corporate Debt in Emerging Economies: Threat to Financial Stability

Viral Acharya et al
2015

 

 

 

 

 Dollar credit to emerging market economies

Robert N McCauley Patrick McGuire Vladyslav Sushko

2015

 

https://www.bis.org/publ/qtrpdf/r_qt1512e.pdf

 

 

 

 

What does the new face of international financial intermediation mean
for emerging market economies?

Hyun song shin and PhiliP Turner, Bank for International Settlements

2015

 

https://publications.banque-france.fr/sites/default/files/medias/documents/financial-stability-review-19_2015-04.pdf

Advertisements

Trends in Cross Border Mergers and Acquisitions

Trends in Cross Border Mergers and Acquisitions

 

From The Location of Cross-Border Mergers & Acquisitions in the USA

The vast majority of foreign direct investment (FDI) takes place in the form of cross-border mergers and acquisitions (M&As), see Evenett (2004). Analyzing the determinants and consequences of M&As is part of a large and growing literature in both (international) economics and (international) business. In economics, the dominant industrial organization (IO) literature does, however, typically not deal with the cross-border aspect of M&As, but instead concentrates on national M&As (Salant et al., 1983; O’Brien and Shaffer, 2005; Davis and Wilson, 2008; Egger and Hahn, 2010). A relatively small literature explicitly tries to include the cross-border aspect of M&As, but neglects the role of country factors that are central in international economics and international business to explain the structure and variation of cross-border transactions (Anand and Delios, 2002; Nocke and Yeaple, 2007, 2008, Bertrand and Zitouna, 2006; Fugmagalli and Vasconcelos, 2009, Halverson, 2012). The impact of country wide differences on cross-border M&As is taken explicitly into account by Neary (2004, 2007) who focuses on differences in comparative advantage between countries in a general equilibrium model to explain the occurrence of cross-border M&As. Empirical support for this idea is found by Brakman et al (2013), see also Blonigen et al (2014). In the international business literature – ever since the introduction of Dunning’s Ownership-Location-Internalization (OLI) framework – the mode of foreign entry and the choice of a foreign location have been central, but not explicitly modelled, as the OLI framework is more a taxonomy of relevant elements for location choice than a model (see for example Dunning, 2000).2

Both for the modern international business and international economics literature, however, whenever the location of cross-border M&As is taken into account, it usually refers to the host country as a whole. Where to locate the M&A within the host country is not analyzed. This amounts to assuming that if foreign firms have decided to engage in an M&A they choose a country but are indifferent regarding the target location within that country. This observation is the starting point for the present paper. In contrast to this observation with respect to cross-border M&As, the within country location choice with respect to greenfield FDI has been analyzed in depth. The seminal study by Head et al. (1995) was pivotal, and initiated a large and growing body of literature; see for example Fontagne and Mayer (2005); Basile et al., (2008); Defever, (2006); or Mataloni, (2011). Similar analyses for cross-border M&As are largely absent and this is striking because the bulk of FDI is in the shape of cross-border M&As. A priori, there is no reason to assume that the location decision of greenfield investments and M&As are similar. M&As, by definition, merge with or acquire existing firms at a specific location, whereas greenfield investments can, in principle, locate anywhere.

 

From Economic and Financial Integration and the Rise of Cross-Border M&As

FDI8

 

From CROSS-BORDER MERGERS & ACQUISITIONS: THE FACTS AS A GUIDE FOR INTERNATIONAL ECONOMICS

FDI

  • Most of the Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) is in the form of Cross Border M&A.

 

The motivation for Cross Border M&A can be several:

  • Horizontal Integration ( Seeking Market Share)
  • Vertical Integration ( Control of Supply Chain)
  • Diversification (Market Seeking)

Research indicate that most of the cross border M&A are for seeking markets.

 

From CROSS-BORDER MERGERS & ACQUISITIONS: THE FACTS AS A GUIDE FOR INTERNATIONAL ECONOMICS

FDI2

  • Cross Border Mergers have been rising since 1985.

 

From CROSS-BORDER MERGERS & ACQUISITIONS: THE FACTS AS A GUIDE FOR INTERNATIONAL ECONOMICS

FDI3

 

  • Europe and North America dominate regions in which cross borders M&A are taking place.

 

From CROSS-BORDER MERGERS & ACQUISITIONS: THE FACTS AS A GUIDE FOR INTERNATIONAL ECONOMICS

FDI4

From CROSS-BORDER MERGERS & ACQUISITIONS: THE FACTS AS A GUIDE FOR INTERNATIONAL ECONOMICS

FDI6

 

From CROSS-BORDER MERGERS & ACQUISITIONS: THE FACTS AS A GUIDE FOR INTERNATIONAL ECONOMICS

FDI5

From CROSS-BORDER MERGERS & ACQUISITIONS: THE FACTS AS A GUIDE FOR INTERNATIONAL ECONOMICS

FDI7

 

From  M&A Today: A Quick Pre-Financial Crisis Comparison

FDI9FTD10FDI11

Sources of M&A Data:

From Exploration of Mergers and Acquisitions Database: Deals in Emerging Asian Markets

There are four popular mergers and acquisitions databases,

  • SDC Platinum Mergers & Acquisitions (M&A) database,
  • Bloomberg M&A database,
  • Mergerstat M&A database,
  • ZEPHYR M&A database.

The SDC Platinum M&A Database covers domestic deals from 1979 to present and international deals from 1985 to present. Thomson Reuters states that the SDC includes more transactions than any other source and is widely used by the industry professionals and academic researchers.

The Bloomberg M&A database began putting the mergers and acquisitions product together in January 1998, with the intention of providing “100 percent coverage of all global deals as they were announced” (Ide, 2001). Bloomberg states that it has mergers and acquisitions staff in 12 offices worldwide compiling M&A data and relationships with over 800 legal and financial firms.

According to the Zimmerman (2006), the Mergerstat database covers both acquisitions and divestitures where at least one significant party is a U.S. company.

the ZEPHYR database covers transactions both inside and outside the U.S. and is particularly useful to study M&A deals in Europe (from 1997 forward for European transactions; from 2000 forward for North American transactions; global coverage begins in 2003).

 

Academic Libraries

 

Deloitte Consulting M&A Services

https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/pages/mergers-and-acquisitions/solutions/merger-and-acquisition-services.html

 

KPMG Consulting

https://advisory.kpmg.us/content/kpmg-advisory/deal-advisory/ma-spotlight/ma-spotlight-june-2017.html?gclid=CjwKCAjwo4jOBRBmEiwABWNaMQAFeh6oDkE3FAlfCTiA8yKJkpHwuRPwcvBQlnZpFbm_JpODEt1AuRoC8t4QAvD_BwE

 

Thomson Reuters

https://financial.thomsonreuters.com/en/markets-industries/investment-banking-financial-advisory/mergers-and-acquisitions.html

 

PITCHBOOK.COM

http://get.pitchbook.com/mergers-and-acquisitions-data/?utm_term=mergers%20and%20acquisitions&utm_source=adwords&utm_campaign=ma&utm_content=ma&_bt=166828976390&_bm=p&_bn=g&gclid=CjwKCAjwo4jOBRBmEiwABWNaMSspbwSShK79f6OskgjShGv0_8c8qgrnqF35qv2Fu9t9ZvgwfzfTpxoCaa8QAvD_BwE

White and Case

http://mergers.whitecase.com

 

IMAA-Institute.org

https://imaa-institute.org/mergers-and-acquisitions-statistics/

FACTSET / MERGERSTAT

https://www.factset.com/data/company_data/mergers_acq

 

Bureau Van Dijk/ZEPHYR

https://www.bvdinfo.com/bvd/media/reports/global-fy-2016.pdf

 

STATISTA

https://www.statista.com/topics/1146/mergers-and-acquisitions/

UNCTAD / World Investment Report

http://unctad.org/en/Pages/DIAE/World%20Investment%20Report/World_Investment_Report.aspx

Wilmer and Hale Law Firm

https://www.wilmerhale.com/uploadedFiles/Shared_Content/Editorial/Publications/Documents/2017-WilmerHale-MA-Report.pdf

 

Dealogic.com

http://www.dealogic.com/insight/ma-outlook-2017/

Please also see other related posts:

Mergers and Acquisitions – Long Term Trends and Waves

External Balance sheets of Nations

Low Interest Rates and International Investment Position of USA

 

Key sources of Research:

CROSS-BORDER MERGERS AND ACQUISITIONS:
ON REVEALED COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE AND MERGER WAVES

Steven Brakman
Harry Garretsen
Charles van Marrewijk

2008

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1087886https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1087886

 

Cross-Border Mergers & Acquisitions: The Facts as a Guide for International Economics

CESifo Working Paper Series No. 1823

 

Steven Brakman

Harry Garretsen

Charles van Marrewijk

 

Date Written: October 2006

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=940348

 

Cross-border Mergers and Acquisitions: Their Role in Industrial Globalisation

2000

Nam-Hoon Kang and Sara Johansson

 

http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/download/137157251088.pdf?expires=1505877469&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=BA90C157DC1196BE6E7C3CE1726D31FF

 

 

Theoretical foundations of cross-border mergers and acquisitions: A review of current research and recommendations for the future

Katsuhiko Shimizua,*, Michael A. Hittb,1, Deepa Vaidyanathc,2, Vincenzo Pisanod,3

Available online 24 July 2004

 

 

 Determinants of Cross-Border Mergers and Acquisitions

Isil Erel / Rose C. Liao /  Michael S. Weisbach

March 15, 2011

https://fisher.osu.edu/supplements/10/9864/ELW_JFRound3Revision.pdf

The Cross-Border Mergers and Acquisitions Wave of the Late 1990s

Simon J. Evenett

 

http://www.nber.org/chapters/c9545.pdf

 

 

 

The Macroeconomic Determinants of Cross Border Mergers and Acquisitions and Greenfield Investments

Paula Neto; Antonio Brandão; António Cerqueira

2010

 

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Antonio_Brandao3/publication/46466162_The_Macroeconomic_Determinants_of_Cross_Border_Mergers_and_Acquisitions_and_Greenfield_Investments/links/0912f50c5ab64daab5000000.pdf

 

 

The Impact of FDI, Cross Border Mergers and Acquisitions and Greenfield Investments on Economic Growth

Paula Neto; Antonio Brandão; António Cerqueira

2010

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Antonio_Brandao3/publication/24111675_The_Impact_of_FDI_Cross_Border_Mergers_and_Acquisitions_and_Greenfield_Investments_on_Economic_Growth/links/0912f50c5ab651626b000000.pdf

 

Exploration of Mergers and Acquisitions Database: Deals in Emerging Asian Markets

 

http://www.myacme.org/ijmtp/IJMTPV14N1/3%20IJMTP14005%20Draft%203%20final.pdf

 

 

Cross Border Mergers and Acquisitions

Scott Whitaker

2016

 

 

Economic and Financial Integration and the Rise of Cross-Border M&As

STEVEN BRAKMAN

GUS GARITA

HARRY GARRETSEN

CHARLES VAN MARREWIJK

March 2009

 

 

 

The Location of Cross-Border Mergers & Acquisitions in the USA

Steven Brakman
Harry Garretsen
Charles Van Marrewijk

CESIFO WORKING PAPER NO. 5331

APRIL 2015

 

 

M&A Today: A Quick Pre-Financial Crisis Comparison

2017

 

https://financial.thomsonreuters.com/content/dam/openweb/documents/pdf/financial/pre-financial-crisis-comparison.pdf

 

 

 

 

Cross-Border Mergers and Acquisitions and Financial Development:
Evidence from Emerging Asia

Douglas H. Brooks and Juthathip Jongwanich

No. 249 | February 2011

 

https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/publication/28703/economics-wp249.pdf

 

 

 

MERGERS AND ACQISITIONS (M&As)

Prepared by
Directorate for Financial and Enterprise Affairs, Investment Division, OECD

May 2004

 

https://www.imf.org/External/NP/sta/bop/pdf/diteg4a.pdf

 

 

 

OECD BENCHMARK DEFINITION OF FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENT:

FOURTH EDITION –

ISBN 978-92-64-04573-6 – © OECD 2008

 

https://www.oecd.org/daf/inv/investmentstatisticsandanalysis/40193734.pdf

 

 

 

Economic and Other Impacts of Foreign Corporate Takeovers in OECD Countries

 

https://www.oecd.org/daf/inv/investment-policy/40476100.pdf

 

 

 

A Comparative Analysis of the Economic Effects of Cross-Border Mergers and Acquisitions in European Countries

Anita Maček

 

https://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs-wm/38482.pdf

 

 

Trading Down: NAFTA, TPP, TATIP and Economic Globalization

Trading Down: NAFTA, TPP, TATIP and Economic Globalization

Top Institutions and Economists Now Say Globalization Increases Inequality

World Bank, IMF, BIS, NBER, McKinsey Now Admit that Globalization Increases Inequality

We’ve all heard that globalization lifts all boats and increases our prosperity …

But mainstream economists and organizations are now starting to say that globalization increases inequality.

The National Bureau of Economic Research – the largest economics research organization in the United States, with many Nobel economists and Chairmen of the Council of Economic Advisers as members –  published,  a report in May finding:

Recent globalization trends have increased U.S. inequality by disproportionately raising top incomes.

***

Rising import competition has adversely affected manufacturing employment, led firms to upgrade their production and caused labor earnings to fall.

NBER explains that globalization allows executives to gain the system to their advantage:

This paper examines the role of globalization in the rapid increase in top incomes. Using a comprehensive data set of thousands of executives at U.S. firms from 1993-2013, we find that exports, along with technology and firm size, have contributed to rising executive compensation. Isolating changes in exports that are unrelated to the executive’s talent and actions, we show that globalization has affected executive pay not only through market channels but also through non-market channels. Furthermore, exogenous export shocks raise executive compensation mostly through bonus payments in poor-governance settings, in line with the hypothesis that globalization has enhanced the executive’s rent capture opportunities. Overall, these results indicate that globalization has played a more central role in the rapid growth of executive compensation and U.S. inequality than previously thought, and that rent capture is an important part of this story.

A World Bank document says globalization “may have led to rising wage inequality”. It  notes:

Recent evidence for the US suggests that adjustment costs for those employed in sectors exposed to import competition from China are much higher than previously thought.

***

Trade may have contributed to rising inequality in high income economies ….

The World Bank also cites Nobel prize-winning economist Eric Maskin’s view that globalization increases inequality because it increases the mismatch between the skills of different workers.

A report by the International Monetary Fund notes:

High trade and financial flows between countries, partly enabled by technological advances, are commonly cited as driving income inequality …. In advanced economies, the ability of firms to adopt laborsaving technologies and offshoring has been cited as an important driver of the decline in manufacturing and rising skill premium (Feenstra and Hanson 1996, 1999, 2003) ….

***

Increased financial flows, particularly foreign direct investment (FDI) and portfolio flows have been shown to increase income inequality in both advanced and emerging market economies (Freeman 2010). One potential explanation is the concentration of foreign assets and liabilities in relatively higher skill- and technology-intensive sectors, which pushes up the demand for and wages of higher skilled workers. In addition, FDI could induce skill-specific technological change, be associated with skill-specific wage bargaining, and result in more training for skilled than unskilled workers (Willem te Velde 2003). Moreover, low-skill, outward FDI from advanced economies may in effect be relatively high-skilled, inward FDI in developing economies (Figini and Görg 2011), thus exacerbating the demand for high-skilled workers in recipient countries. Financial deregulation and globalization have also been cited as factors underlying the increase in financial wealth, relative skill intensity, and wages in the finance industry, one of the fastest growing sectors in advanced economies (Phillipon and Reshef 2012; Furceri and Loungani 2013).

The Bank of International Settlements – the “Central Banks’ Central Bank” – also notes  that globalization isn’t all peaches and cream.  The Financial Times explains :

A trio of recent papers by top officials from the Bank for International Settlements goes further, however, arguing that financial globalisation itself makes booms and busts far more frequent and destabilising than they otherwise would be.

McKinsey & Company notes:

Even as globalization has narrowed inequality among countries, it has aggravated income inequality within them.

The Economist points out:

Most economists have been blindsided by the backlash [against globalization]. A few saw it coming. It is worth studying their reasoning ….

***

Branko Milanovic of the City University of New York believes such costs perpetuate a cycle of globalisation. He argues that periods of global integration and technological progress generate rising inequality ….

Supporters of economic integration underestimated the risks … that big slices of society would feel left behind ….

The New York Times reported:

Were the experts wrong about the benefits of trade for the American economy?

***

Voters’ anger and frustration, driven in part by relentless globalization and technological change [has made Trump and Sanders popular, and] is already having a big impact on America’s future, shaking a once-solid consensus that freer trade is, necessarily, a good thing.

“The economic populism of the presidential campaign has forced the recognition that expanded trade is a double-edged sword,” wrote Jared Bernstein, former economic adviser to Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.

What seems most striking is that the angry working class — dismissed so often as myopic, unable to understand the economic trade-offs presented by trade — appears to have understood what the experts are only belatedly finding to be true: The benefits from trade to the American economy may not always justify its costs.

In a recent study, three economists — David Autor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, David Dorn at the University of Zurich and Gordon Hanson at the University of California, San Diego — raised a profound challenge to all of us brought up to believe that economies quickly recover from trade shocks. In theory, a developed industrial country like the United States adjusts to import competition by moving workers into more advanced industries that can successfully compete in global markets.

They examined the experience of American workers after China erupted onto world markets some two decades ago. The presumed adjustment, they concluded, never happened. Or at least hasn’t happened yet. Wages remain low and unemployment high in the most affected local job markets. Nationally, there is no sign of offsetting job gains elsewhere in the economy. What’s more, they found that sagging wages in local labor markets exposed to Chinese competition reduced earnings by $213 per adult per year.

In another study they wrote with Daron Acemoglu and Brendan Price from M.I.T., they estimated that rising Chinese imports from 1999 to 2011 cost up to 2.4 million American jobs.

“These results should cause us to rethink the short- and medium-run gains from trade,” they argued. “Having failed to anticipate how significant the dislocations from trade might be, it is incumbent on the literature to more convincingly estimate the gains from trade, such that the case for free trade is not based on the sway of theory alone, but on a foundation of evidence that illuminates who gains, who loses, by how much, and under what conditions.”

***

The case for globalization based on the fact that it helps expand the economic pie by 3 percent becomes much weaker when it also changes the distribution of the slices by 50 percent, Mr. Autor argued.

And Steve Keen – economics professor and Head of the School of Economics, History and Politics at Kingston University in London – notes:

Plenty of people will try to convince you that globalization and free trade could benefit everyone, if only the gains were more fairly shared. The only problem with the party, they’ll say, is that the neighbours weren’t invited. We’ll share the benefits more equally now, we promise. Let’s keep the party going. Globalization and Free Trade are good.

This belief is shared by almost all politicians in both parties, and it’s an article of faith for the economics profession.

***

It’s a fallacy based on a fantasy, and it has been ever since David Ricardo dreamed up the idea of “Comparative Advantage and the Gains from Trade” two centuries ago.

***

[Globalization’s] little shell and pea trick is therefore like most conventional economic theory: it’s neat, plausible, and wrong. It’s the product of armchair thinking by people who never put foot in the factories that their economic theories turned into rust buckets.

So the gains from trade for everyone and for every country that could supposedly be shared more fairly simply aren’t there in the first place. Specialization is a con job—but one that the Washington elite fell for (to its benefit, of course). Rather than making a country better off, specialization makes it worse off, with scrapped machinery that’s no longer useful for anything, and with less ways to invent new industries from which growth actually comes.-

Excellent real-world research by Harvard University’s “Atlas of Economic Complexity” has found diversity, not specialization, is the “magic ingredient” that actually generates growth. Successful countries have a diversified set of industries, and they grow more rapidly than more specialized economies because they can invent new industries by melding existing ones.

***

Of course, specialization, and the trade it necessitates, generates plenty of financial services and insurance fees, and plenty of international junkets to negotiate trade deals. The wealthy elite that hangs out in the Washington party benefits, but the country as a whole loses, especially its working class.

Some Big Companies Losing Interest In Globalization

Ironically, the Washington Post noted in 2015 that the giant multinational corporations themselves are losing interest in globalization … and many are starting to bring the factories back home:

Yet despite all this activity and enthusiasm, hardly any of the promised returns from globalization have materialized, and what was until recently a taboo topic inside multinationals — to wit, should we reconsider, even rein in, our global growth strategy? — has become an urgent, if still hushed, discussion.

***

Given the failures of globalization, virtually every major company is struggling to find the most productive international business model.

***

Reshoring — or relocating manufacturing operations back to Western factories from emerging nations — is one option. As labor costs escalate in places such as China, Thailand, Brazil and South Africa, companies are finding that making products in, say, the United States that are destined for North American markets is much more cost-efficient. The gains are even more significant when productivity of emerging countries is taken into account.

***

Moreover, new disruptive manufacturing technologies — such as 3-D printing, which allows on-site production of components and parts at assembly plants — make the idea of locating factories where the assembled products will be sold more practicable.

***

GE, Whirlpool, Stanley Black & Decker, Peerless and many others have reopened shuttered factories or built new ones in the United States.

 Key Sources of Research

 

Trading Down: Unemployment, Inequality and Other Risks of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement

 

Jeronim Capaldo and Alex Izurieta

with Jomo Kwame Sundaram

January 2016

 

http://www.ase.tufts.edu/gdae/Pubs/wp/16-01Capaldo-IzurietaTPP.pdf

 

 

The Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership: European Disintegration, Unemployment and Instability

Jeronim Capaldo

October 2014

 

http://ase.tufts.edu/gdae/Pubs/wp/14-03CapaldoTTIP.pdf

 

 

 Revisiting the Link between Trade, Growth and Inequality:
Lessons for Latin America and the Caribbean

by Kimberly Beaton, Aliona Cebotari, and Andras Komaromi

 

 

ECONOMIC GLOBALIZATION AND INCOME INEQUALITY IN THE UNITED STATES

 

http://www.colorado.edu/ibs/intdev/johno/papers/inequality.pdf

 

 

Data Fail: The Divergence between Rosy International Trade Commission Projections and U.S. Trade Agreements’ Actual Outcomes

Tradewatch.com

May 2016

https://www.citizen.org/sites/default/files/usitc-tpp-prebuttal.pdf

 

Globalization, Outsourcing, and Wage Inequality

Robert C. Feenstra, Gordon H. Hanson

NBER Working Paper No. 5424
Issued in January 1996

http://www.nber.org/papers/w5424

Economic Inequality in the United States

Janet Yellen

2006

http://www.frbsf.org/our-district/press/presidents-speeches/yellen-speeches/2006/november/economic-inequality-in-the-united-states/

http://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/publications/economic-letter/2006/december/economic-inequality-in-the-united-states/

 

 

What’s caused the rise in income inequality in the US?

WEF

2015

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/05/whats-caused-the-rise-in-income-inequality-in-the-us/

 

Worsening American Income: Inequality: Is world trade to blame?

Gary Burtless

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/worsening-american-income-inequality-is-world-trade-to-blame/

 

 

Income inequality in the United States: What do we know and what does it mean? Issues by the Numbers, July 2017

Dr. Daniel Bachman

July 12, 2017

https://dupress.deloitte.com/dup-us-en/economy/issues-by-the-numbers/july-2017/rising-income-inequality-gap-united-states.html

 

 

Top Institutions and Economists Now Say Globalization Increases Inequality

August 20, 2017

Washington Post Blog

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2017/08/globalization-increases-inequality-destabilizes-economies-political-systems.html

Low Interest Rates and Banks’ Profitability : Update July 2017

Low Interest Rates and Banks’ Profitability : Update July 2017

 

Please see my previous posts.

Impact of Low Interest Rates on Bank’s Profitability

Low Interest Rates and Banks Profitability: Update – December 2016

 

Since December 2016, there are several new studies published which study low interest rates and Banks profitability.

 

 

Liberty State economics – a Blog of New York Federal Reserve has published a new column in June 2017.

Low Interest Rates and Bank Profits

 

 

Reduced Viability? Banks, Insurance Companies, and Low Interest Rates

CFA Institute

2016

CFA Institute Blog: Low Interest Rates and Banks

 

 

Changes in Profitability for Primary Dealers since the Financial Crisis

Benjamin Allen

Skidmore College

2017

Changes in Profitability for Primary Dealers since the Financial Crisis

 

 

Deloitte Consulting has published a new report in 2017 on Bank Models viability in environment of low interest rates.

Business model analysis European banking sector model in question

 

THE EFFECT OF NEGATIVE INTEREST RATES ON EUROPEAN BANKING
July 7, 2016
International banker

 

https://internationalbanker.com/banking/effect-negative-interest-rates-european-banking/

 

 

Low interest rates place a strain on the banks

bank of Finland

2016

https://www.bofbulletin.fi/en/2016/2/low-interest-rates-place-a-strain-on-the-banks/

 

 

The profitability of EU banks: Hard work or a lost cause?

KPMG

October 2016

 

https://assets.kpmg.com/content/dam/kpmg/xx/pdf/2016/10/the-profitability-of-eu-banks.pdf

 

 

The influence of monetary policy on bank profitability

Claudio Borio

2017

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/infi.12104/abstract

 

 

Can Low Interest Rates be Harmful: An Assessment of the Bank Risk-Taking Channel in Asia

2014

Asian Development Bank

 

https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/publication/31204/reiwp-123-can-low-interest-rates-harmful.pdf

 

 

Determinants of bank’s interest margin in the aftermath of the crisis: the effect of interest rates and the yield curve slope

Paula Cruz-García, Juan Fernández de Guevara and Joaquín Maudos

 

http://www.uv.es/inteco/jornadas/jornadas13/Cruz-Garcia,%20Fernandez%20and%20Maudos_XIII%20Inteco%20Workshop.pdf

 

 

Dutch Central Bank has published a new study in November of 2016 on Banks’ Profitability and risk taking in a prolonged environment of Low Interest Rates.

Bank profitability and risk taking in a prolonged environment of low interest rates: a study of interest rate risk in the banking book of Dutch banks

 

 

Net interest margin in a low interest rate environment: Evidence for Slovenia

Net interest margin in a low interest rate environment: Evidence for Slovenia

 

Global Financial Stability Report, April 2017: Getting the Policy Mix Right

IMF

2017

IMF Global Financial Stability Report April 2017

 

 

Negative Interest Rates: Forecasting Banks’ Profitability in a New Environment

Stefan Kerbl, Michael Sigmund

Bank of Finland

Negative Interest Rates: Forecasting Banks’ Profitability in a New Environment

 

 

Low Interest Rates and the Financial System

Remarks by Jerome H. Powell
Member Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
at the 77th Annual Meeting of the American Finance Association
Chicago, Illinois
January 7, 2017

https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/powell20170107a.pdf

 

 

Bad zero: Financial Stability in a Low Interest Rate Environment

Elena Carletti  Giuseppe Ferrero

18 June 2017

https://www.dnb.nl/en/binaries/paper%20Carletti_Ferrero_18June2017_tcm47-360758.pdf

Development of Global Trade and Production Accounts: UN SEIGA Initiative

Development of Global Trade and Production Accounts: UN SEIGA Initiative

 

UNSD is developing a handbook on

System of Extended International and Global Accounts (SEIGA)

Statistics to guide policy making has lagged behind dramatic changes in interconnectedness among nations.

  • Financial Globalization
  • Trade Globalization
  • Climate and Environmental Globalization
  • Economic Integration
  • Digital Globalization – Data and Information Flows
  • People Movements Globalization

Efforts are underway to correct data and statistics measurement and collection.

  • OECD/WTO Trade in Value Added
  • EU/EUROSTAT Multi Country Input-Output Tables
  • UN SEEA
  • UN SEIGA
  • UNECE Global Production
  • EUROSTAT FIGARO
  • EUROSTAT IGA

 

From 2014 International Conference on Measurement of Trade and Economic Globalization

Measurement of International Trade and Economic Globalization

Concept Note

In recent years, concerns were raised about the shortcomings of the existing official trade statistics for the purpose of reflecting bilateral economic relations. The high level of import content in exports makes gross bilateral trade statistics unsuitable for bilateral trade negotiations. Trade analysis requires new measures which better reflect the level of interdependencies among countries engaged in global value chains (GVCs). In order to understand the true nature of trade relationships, we need to know what each country along a global value chain contributes to the value of a final product. We also need to know how that contribution is linked to those of other suppliers in other countries coming before and after along the chain, and how much employment and income is generated through this value addition.

The statistical community responded to these concerns through a number of initiatives, such as the UN/Eurostat/WTO Global Forum on Trade Statistics in 2011, the OECD-WTO initiative on Trade in Value-Added launched in 2012, and the 2013 Eurostat report on Global Value Chains. An official response was delivered by bringing the measurement of international trade and economic globalization to the agenda of the UN Statistical Commission in 20131 and again in 20142. The corresponding decisions of the Commission stress the need for a measurement framework and a mechanism for coordination. Specifically, in Decision 44/1063 of its session in 2013, the Commission recognized the need for an overarching measurement framework for international trade and economic globalization, taking into account the existing frameworks and guidelines of the System of National Accounts, Balance of Payments, and the Guidelines on Integrated Economic Statistics, as well as the research and studies done by Eurostat, the OECD, the IMF and various working groups. The Commission also recognized the need for an appropriate mechanism for coordination of the work in this field, ensuring that the functions of the existing expert groups, working groups and task forces are accounted for at the international and regional levels. In the same decision, the Commission agreed to the creation of a “friends of the chair” (FOC) group tasked with preparing a concept paper on the scope and content of the framework, and on the appropriate mechanism for coordination of the work in this area.

The global economy is increasingly structured around GVCs that account for a rising share of international trade, global GDP and employment. GVCs link firms, workers and consumers around the world and often provide a stepping stone for firms and workers in developing countries to integrate into the global economy. A GVC describes the full range of activities that firms and workers perform to bring a product from its conception to end use. This includes activities such as design, production, marketing, distribution and support to the final consumer. The activities that comprise a value chain can be contained within a single firm or divided among different firms. In the context of globalization, the activities that constitute a value chain have generally been carried out in inter-firm networks on a global scale. The dependency structures of the firms in the GVC networks are of crucial importance in order to measure where income, knowledge and employment are generated, and to understand potential risk and vulnerabilities in case of a future financial crisis. Within this changed economic landscape, more complex measures of trade and production are necessary both on micro-and macro-economic level.

In other words, national economies relate to one another in a number of ways be it through trade in goods, trade in services, tourism, foreign direct investment, establishment of foreign affiliates, transfer of knowledge, creation of jobs, redistribution of income, migrant workers, emissions of CO2 or in other ways. A comprehensive way of charting those interdependencies is through a global Supply and Use table (SUT), in which countries connect through imports and exports of goods and services into and out of specific industries. Ideally, the global SUT contains for each international flow an export of a product from an industry of one country into an industry (or into final consumption) of another country, as the corresponding and matching import. In principle, only one global SUT should exist to be used by all national and international agencies for the analysis of trade and globalization. Besides the implicitly mentioned matching of bilateral trade flows (both for goods and services), further refinement may be necessary regarding the use of inputs by type of enterprise for either the domestic or the international market, including the special cases of multi-national enterprises and their foreign affiliates, goods for processing (manufacturing services) and re-exports. Further details on such global SUT were described in a recent paper of the OECD.

Compiling a global SUT requires a very close alignment and harmonization of national SUTs, price statistics and trade statistics. To achieve this in the short term, some practical decisions need to be taken and agreed upon internationally for the creation of a symmetrical and fully balanced bilateral trade matrix at the global level, which would have buy-in, cooperation and endorsement of all concerned countries. This matrix would be built strictly for the purpose of compiling an internationally recognized and accepted SUT. In the longer term, the existing recommendations for international trade statistics would need to be reviewed with the purpose of making them more symmetrical in terms of the reporting of exports and imports, and thus more suitable for the compilation of a global SUT.

A System of International Accounts.

The implications of building a global SUT [for the purpose of deriving, for instance, indicators for Trade in Value Added or Trade in Jobs] are farther reaching than just addressing asymmetries in trade and heterogeneity in firms. The underlying concepts and definitions as basis for measurement of these international statistics would need to be reviewed as well. In terms of the System of National Accounts, the Rest of the World Account would need to be more explicitly defined, especially since a global SUT implies a perfect alignment of international flows, and some international recommendations regarding heterogeneity of firms (where economically relevant). In the longer term, this set of new concepts and definitions could form a System of International Accounts, as the measurement framework for international trade and economic globalization.

 

From The relevance of multi-country input-output tables in measuring emissions trade balance of countries: the case of Spain

Background and statistical context

The latest meeting of the Group of Experts on National Accounts of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE, 7-9 July 2015), was devoted to data collection and compilation methods in respect to global production activities. It was jointly organized with Eurostat and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). The meeting was attended by representatives from more than thirty countries worldwide and representatives from the European Commission (EC), International Monetary Fund (IMF), OECD, the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), United Nations Statistics Division (UNSD) and World Trade Organization (WTO), among others.

According to the experts at this UNECE meeting, in order to measure global production and global value chains it is no longer sufficient to look only at what a firm does, but to also to consider how the firm does its activities and with whom. For instance, linking business statistics and trade statistics on a micro level should provide new dimensions to the data as long as new balancing challenges at the macro level data (e.g. national accounts). Indeed, statisticians have not always been able to keep up to date with business practices and must find ways to be forward looking and provide the information that meets future policy needs. Traditional measures of trade in goods and services have to be progressively supplemented with information on income and financial flows. Foreign direct investment statistics (FDI) should be further developed and complemented with foreign affiliate statistics (FATS) in order to improve their clarity, usefulness and coverage, and to provide better insights into global value chains.

In this respect, the UNECE Report emanating from this meeting supported new global initiatives, such as the extensions to Trade in Value Added and Global Input- Output Tables (OECD), the construction of the European Multi-Country Input-Output Framework (EC and Eurostat) as well as the elaboration of a new Handbook on a System of Extended International and Global Accounts (UNSD).

Hence, there is no doubt that globalization is currently affecting the way statisticians are measuring national production of countries and international statistical organizations are indeed very busy working on it in order to meet the policy needs at the worldwide level. As national accounts and input-output tables became an integral part of the production activities of national statistical institutes in the past, very soon multi-country and international input-output tables will become a crucial statistical tool to measure global production, trade in value added, environmental footprints and/or employment effects of export activities with official statistics (e.g. carbon footprint estimated by Eurostat).

Bearing all this in mind, we would like to illustrate in this paper the usefulness of global/world input-output tables in measuring the greenhouse gas footprints of individual countries and its external emission trade balance with respect to others. Hopefully, these types of indicators will soon become regularly produced in the future by statisticians using official global input-output tables instead of using other databases produced as one-off projects (e.g. World Input-Output Database, WIOD – http://www.wiod.org).

 

From 2016 Meeting of the UN Expert Group on International Trade and Globalization Statistics

Concept Note

Following Decision 46/107 taken by the Statistical Commission at its 46th session in 2015, a handbook on a system of extended international and global accounts will be prepared, which will serve as the measurement framework for international trade and economic globalization. This handbook will build on existing work in this area, in particular by the UNECE, the OECD and Eurostat, and address issues of micro-data linking of business and trade statistics, as well as address the integration of economic, environmental and social dimensions of trade and globalization as an extension of the System of National Accounts 2008 (2008 SNA) and the System of Environmental-Economic Accounting 2012 (SEEA 2012).

The first meeting of the expert group is scheduled to take place on 26-28 January 2016 at the UN headquarters in New York. The Handbook is of course the main topic of discussion at this meeting.

The Handbook will refer to and build upon the work of the Friend of the Chair group, which concluded that improved statistics are necessary and should bring a better understanding of the role of the external sector in an economy, the openness of its domestic and foreign markets and the impact of openness on social, economic and environmental upgrading, including the level and quality of employment. More and better data is needed in developed, emerging and developing economies alike: interconnected economies require interconnected statistics and all economies can benefit from a better understanding of these relationships.

As stated in the 2015 FOC report, policymakers and trade negotiators need to understand the cross-country benefits and risks by being able to “look through” the global value chains and see the specific contributions other countries are making to production networks involving their domestic firms. The GVC approach was suggested by the international statistical community as the preferred way of measuring the interconnectedness of economies with respect to jobs, skills, international competitiveness and the creation of value added, income and jobs. The activities involved in GVCs can be grouped into broad stages of production from upstream research and design, through manufacturing, to downstream logistics, marketing and sales. In a GVC, many of the tasks are “offshored”, either through an enterprise’s own affiliates located in foreign countries or through independent contractors. It is this newly emerged international economic integration of production and trade and their governance that has to be better measured and analyzed, including in respect of the benefits, costs and risks associated with engaging in GVCs.

The Handbook can build upon the recommendations and guidelines provided in UNECE’s Guide to Measuring Global Production. This Guide was released at the end of 2015 and provides valuable insights in the functioning and measurement of global value chains. The Guide provides a typology of global production arrangements and describes the principles of ownership inside a multi-national enterprise, as well as ownership of intellectual property products inside global production. In addition, data source and compilation challenges are addressed with special attention to large and complex enterprises.

The Handbook can also build on work presented at the International Conference on Measurement of Trade and Economic Globalization in Mexico in 2014. For example, it could use the value chain reference model to establish alternative aggregations of basic ISIC categories. Those aggregations can be based on enterprise activities in the offshoring of business functions, the use of intermediate inputs, the kinds of basic classes of goods produced and the variety of end markets. The reason for making those distinctions is that it is not possible, in the current ISIC, to distinguish the significant differences between enterprises that operate domestically and those that operate globally. Harmonization of enterprises into groups of similar make-up could significantly improve the accounting structure of the supply and use tables for the analysis of global value chains; harmonization could be achieved in terms of industry, supply chain position, end markets and the extent of the use of business functions being outsourced.

The OECD expert group on extended Supply-Use Tables addresses the estimation methods of trade in value added. The terms of reference of the group states among others that globalization is rapidly changing long-standing assumptions about the relative homogeneity of the production functions (Input-Output technical coefficients) of units classified to a given industrial activity, which is, implicitly, an underlying assumption used in creating input-output based indicators. The increasing prevalence of new types of firms such as factoryless producers and contract processing firms, and the increasing tendency for horizontal, as opposed to vertical, specialization, particularly for multinational affiliates, has fundamentally challenged these assumptions. Therefore, the OECD expert group is looking for the best ways to breakdown firms by specific characteristics (such as involvement in GVCs) which will make the sub-groups more homogeneous.

A GVC approach seems appropriate for the Handbook on a system of extended international and global accounts, since GVCs cut across geographic borders and bring together those global economic activities, goods and services, which belong together. Measurement of economic interdependencies (involving investment, job creation, income and intellectual property) within and across countries — between upstream design and downstream assembly — requires measurement of GVCs. Similarly, if we want to understand the interdependencies within and across countries for global retailers, financial and nonfinancial service providers, as well as horizontally-integrated enterprises, the GVC is the appropriate organizing framework.

This focus on GVCs has important implications for the unit of measurement and related data collection and estimation procedures. Most of the key decisions made by global manufacturers and global service providers are made at the enterprise rather than the establishment, or plant, level. This implies that for multi-national enterprises data on profits, research and development, transfer pricing, final product pricing, design, financing, advertising, and the rest of the links in GVCs are only available at the global enterprise level.

 

How to Integrate National SUIOTS into Global MCIO tables

globalaccounts

 

Key Terms:

  • SUTs (Supply and Use Tables)
  • GVCs (Global Value Chains)
  • UN SEIGA (System of Extended International and Global Accounts)
  • UN SEEA (System of Environment Economic Accounts)
  • Bilateral Trade Matrix
  • TIVA ( Trade in Value Added)
  • MCIO (Multi Country Input Output Tables)
  • SUIOT ( Supply and Use Input Output Tables)
  • UN SNA (System of National Accounts)
  • UNSD ( United Nations Statistical Division)
  • UNECE ( United Nations Economic Commission for Europe)
  • EUROSTAT ( European Statistics Division)
  • IMF
  • UNCTAD (UN Conference on Trade and Development)
  • WTO ( World Trade Organization)
  • OECD
  • UN ITEGS (International Trade and Economic Globalization Statistics)
  • WIOD ( World Input Output Database)
  • FIGARO (Full International and Global Accounts for Research in

    Input-Output Analysis)

 

 

Key Sources of Research:

 

Global Forum on Trade Statistics
Measuring Global Trade — Do We Have the Right Numbers?

Geneva 2011

https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/statis_e/forum_feb11_e/forum_feb11_e.htm

 

 

Eurostat Seminar: Global value chains and economic globalization:

The Eurostat initiative

Dublin Ireland

Date: 18th April 2013

http://www.cso.ie/en/newsandevents/eventsconferencesseminars/eurostatseminarglobalvaluechainsandeconomicglobalizationtheeurostatinitiative/

 

 

International Conference on Measurement of Trade and Economic Globalization

Organized by UNSD and INEGI in cooperation with OECD, WTO and EUROSTAT

Mexico

2014

International Conference on Measurement of Trade and Economic Globalization

 

 

UN Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) Conference

July 2015 

Geneva

Group of Experts on National Accounts: Measuring Global Production

 

 

UN Conference on developing System of Extended International and Global Accounts

January 2016

New York

System of Extended International and Global Accounts

 

 

 

UN Expert Group on International Trade and Economic Globalization Statistics

Conference November 2016

New York

UN Expert Group on International Trade and Economic Globalization Statistics

 

 

Global Forum on International Trade Statisticsand Economic Globalization

Global Forum on International Trade Statistics and Economic Globalization

 

 

Proposed Outline for a System of Extended International and Global Accounts

 

https://unstats.un.org/unsd/trade/events/2016/newyork-egm/documents/core/Outline%20for%20a%20System%20of%20Extended%20International%20and%20Global%20Accounts%20-%20Oct%202015.pdf

 

 

Meeting of the UN Expert Group on International Trade and Globalization Statistics

 

https://unstats.un.org/unsd/trade/events/2016/newyork-egm/Concept%20Note.pdf

 

 

The relevance of multi-country input-output tables in measuring emissions trade balance of countries: the case of Spain

Teresa Sanz1,∗, Roc ́ıo Yn ̃iguez1 and Jose ́ Manuel Rueda-Cantuche

2016

 

http://www.idescat.cat/sort/sort401/40.1.1.sanz-etal.pdf

 

 

Handbook for a System of Extended International and Global Accounts (SEIGA)

Overview of Major Issues

November 23, 2015 (Revised)

By J. Steven Landefel

 

https://unstats.un.org/unsd/trade/events/2016/newyork-egm/documents/core/Overview%20of%20Major%20of%20Issues%20for%20SEIGA%20-%20Nov%202015.pdf

 

 

Report of the first meeting of the Expert Group on international trade and economic globalization statistics

 

https://unstats.un.org/unsd/statcom/47th-session/documents/BG-2016-23-international-trade-and-economic-globalization-statisitcs-E.pdf

 

 

Background and context

First meeting of the UN Expert Group on international trade and economic globalization statistics,

26-28 January 2016, New York

 

https://unstats.un.org/unsd/trade/events/2016/newyork-egm/presentations/UNSD%20-%20Background%20and%20context.pdf

 

 

Developing A System of Extended International and Global Accounts

Steve Landefeld

 

https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/stats/documents/ece/ces/ge.20/2015/July/Item_5_SEIGA_Presentation_SEIGA_new.pdf

 

 

Measurement framework for international trade and economic globalization

Group of Experts on National Accounts

18-20 May 2016

Geneva, Switzerland

Herman Smith

 

https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/stats/documents/ece/ces/ge.20/2016/Item_4d_UNSD_framework_for_international_trade_and_economic_globalization.pdf

 

 

Conference of European Statisticians

Group of Experts on National Accounts Fourteenth session
Geneva, 7-9 July 2015

 

Distr.: General 14 April 2015
Annotated provisional agenda for the fourteenth session

https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/stats/documents/ece/ces/ge.20/2015/July/Agenda_ENG.pdf

 

 

Measuring International Trade and Economic Globalization

Muscat, Oman, Feb 2016

 

http://gccstat.org/images/gccstat/workshops/IMTSWorkshop-GCCSTAT-UNSD-2016-0-/day1/Pre-Session-UNSD-IT-EconomicGlobalisation.pdf

 

 

Overview of the Implementation of National Accounts at Global Level

United Nations Statistics Division

 

http://www.cepal.org/sites/default/files/events/files/2015-semcn-s2-unsd-ilaria-di-matteo.pdf

 

 

Guide to Measuring Global Production

 

https://unstats.un.org/unsd/trade/events/2016/newyork-egm/documents/background/UNECE%20-%202015%20-%20Draft%20Guide%20to%20Measuring%20Global%20Production%20-%20Sep%202015.pdf

 

 

GLOBAL MULTIREGIONAL INPUT–OUTPUT FRAMEWORKS: AN INTRODUCTION AND

OUTLOOK

Arnold Tukker a b & Erik Dietzenbacher

 

https://unstats.un.org/unsd/trade/events/2016/newyork-egm/documents/background/Tukker%20and%20Dietzenbacher%20-%202013%20-%20Overview%20on%20International%20IO%20Tables.pdf

 

 

TRADE IN VALUE-ADDED: CONCEPTS, METHODOLOGIES AND CHALLENGES (JOINT OECD-WTO NOTE)

 

https://unstats.un.org/unsd/trade/events/2016/newyork-egm/documents/background/OECD-WTO%20-%202012%20-%20Joint%20note%20on%20TiVA.pdf

 

 

OECD EXPERT GROUP ON EXTENDED SUPPLY-USE TABLES

TERMS OF REFERENCE

 

https://unstats.un.org/unsd/trade/events/2016/newyork-egm/documents/background/OECD%20-%202015%20-%20eSUTs_TOR.pdf

 

 

 

GLOBAL VALUE CHAIN ANALYSIS: A PRIMER

Gary Gereffi
&
Karina Fernandez-Stark

https://unstats.un.org/unsd/trade/events/2016/newyork-egm/documents/background/Duke%20-%202011%20-%20GVC_analysis_a_primer.pdf

 

 

CONNECTING LOCAL PRODUCERS IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES TO REGIONAL AND GLOBAL VALUE CHAINS – UPDATE

Penny Bamber, Karina Fernandez-Stark, Gary Gereffi and Andrew Guinn

https://unstats.un.org/unsd/trade/events/2016/newyork-egm/documents/background/Duke%20-%202013%20-%20Developing%20countries%20and%20GVCs.pdf

 

 

Global Value Chain Analysis on Samsung Electronics

 

https://unstats.un.org/unsd/trade/events/2016/newyork-egm/documents/background/Canada%20-%202012%20-%20GVC%20Analysis%20of%20Samsung%20Electronics.pdf

 

 

Global Value Chains in official business statistics

Martin Luppes, Statistics Netherlands

Peter Bøegh Nielsen, Statistics Danmark

https://unstats.un.org/unsd/trade/events/2016/newyork-egm/documents/background/Luppes%20and%20Nielsen%20-%202015%20-%20Global%20Value%20Chains%20in%20official%20business%20statistics.pdf

 

International Corporate Governance Spillovers: Evidence from Cross-Border Mergers and Acquisitions

Rui Albuquerque, Luis Brandao-Marques, Miguel A. Ferreira, Pedro Matos

 

https://unstats.un.org/unsd/trade/events/2016/newyork-egm/documents/background/IMF%20-%202013%20-%20International%20Corporate%20Governance%20Spillovers.pdf

 

 

Trade Linkages, Balance Sheets, and Spillovers: The Germany-Central European Supply Chain

Selim Elekdag and Dirk Muir

https://unstats.un.org/unsd/trade/events/2016/newyork-egm/documents/background/IMF%20-%202013%20-%20Trade%20Linkages,%20Balance%20Sheets,%20and%20Spillovers.pdf

 

 

THE PRODUCTIVITY ADVANTAGE AND GLOBAL SCOPE OF U.S. MULTINATIONAL FIRMS

Raymond Mataloni, Jr.

 

https://unstats.un.org/unsd/trade/events/2016/newyork-egm/documents/background/US%20Census%20-%202011%20-%20US%20Multinationals.pdf

 

 

Effects of the Crisis on the Automotive Industry in Developing Countries

A Global Value Chain Perspective

Timothy J. Sturgeon Johannes Van Biesebroeck

https://unstats.un.org/unsd/trade/s_geneva2011/refdocs/RDs/Automotive%20Industry%20and%20Crisis%20(Sturgeon%20-%20Jun%202010).pdf

 

 

Value chains, networks and clusters: reframing the global automotive industry

 

Timothy Sturgeon  Johannes Van Biesebroeck and Gary Gereffi

https://unstats.un.org/UNSD/trade/s_geneva2011/refdocs/RDs/Automotive%20Industry%20(Sturgeon%20-%20Apr%202008).pdf

 

 

The PhiliPPines in the aUtoMotiVe global ValUe chain

2016

http://www.cggc.duke.edu/pdfs/2016_Philippines_Automotive_Global_Value_Chain.pdf

 

 

Upgrading and restructuring in the global apparel value chain: why China and Asia are outperforming Mexico and Central America

Stacey Frederick

Gary Gereffi

2011

http://dukespace.lib.duke.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/10161/10701/2011-08-03_Frederick%20&%20GEREFFI_apparel%20article%20-%20China%20&%20Mexico.pdf;sequence=1

 

 

Combining the Global Value Chain and global I-O approaches

Discussion paper

Dr. Stacey Frederick

2014

 

https://unstats.un.org/unsd/trade/events/2014/mexico/2014-09-29_Frederick,%20Stacey_Combining%20GVC%20and%20global%20I-O%20approaches.pdf

 

 

Sewing Success?

Employment, Wages, and Poverty following the End of the Multi-fibre Arrangement

Editors
Gladys Lopez-Acevedo Raymond Robertson

2012

 

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTPOVERTY/Resources/SewingSuccess_FullReport.pdf

 

 

A measurement framework and a narrative on global value chains and economic globalization

Merja Hult and Pekka Alajääskö

Timothy J. Sturgeon

http://www.statistics.gov.hk/wsc/STS024-P1-S.pdf

 

 

TRADE INTERCONNECTEDNESS: THE WORLD WITH GLOBAL VALUE CHAINS

IMF

2013

 

https://www.imf.org/external/np/pp/eng/2013/082613.pdf

 

 

Global Value Chains

https://www.oecd.org/sti/ind/global-value-chains.htm

 

 

Global value chains

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Global_value_chains

 

 

GLOBAL VALUE CHAINS AND Development

INVESTMENT AND VALUE ADDED TRADE IN THE GLOBAL ECONOMY

 

http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/diae2013d1_en.pdf

 

 

 

Competing in Global Value Chains

EU Industrial Structure Report 2013

 

http://sev4enterprise.org.gr/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/EKTHESEIS-6.pdf

 

 

Global Value Chains: Development Challenges and Policy Options

Proposals and Analysis

December 2013

http://e15initiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/E15-Global-Value-Chains-Compliation-Report-FINAL.pdf

 

 

Global Value Chains: The New Reality of International Trade

Sherry Stephenson

December 2013

http://e15initiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/E15-GVCs-Stephenson-Final.pdf

 

 

World Investment Report 2013: Global Value Chains: Investment and Trade for Development

2013

 

http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/wir2013_en.pdf

 

 

Global Production Networks: Theorizing Economic Development in aninterconnected world

By Neil M. Coe, Henry Wai-Chung Yeung

 

 

TRADE IN VALUE ADDED (TIVA) INDICATORS GUIDE TO COUNTRY NOTES

https://www.oecd.org/sti/ind/TiVA_2015_Guide_to_Country_Notes.pdf

 

 

 

TRADE IN VALUE-ADDED: CONCEPTS, METHODOLOGIES AND CHALLENGES

(JOINT OECD-WTO NOTE)

 

http://www.oecd.org/sti/ind/49894138.pdf

 

 

Global value chains in a changing world

Edited by Deborah K. Elms and Patrick Low

WTO 2013

 

https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/aid4tradeglobalvalue13_e.pdf

 

 

GLOBAL VALUE CHAINS IN A POSTCRISIS WORLD

Olivier Cattaneo, Gary Gereffi, and Cornelia Staritz

2010

 

https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/2509/569230PUB0glob1C0disclosed010151101.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

 

 

Making Global Value Chains Work for Development

Daria Taglioni

Deborah Winkler

Currency Credit Networks of International Banks

Currency Credit Networks of International Banks

During the Global Financial Crisis, institutions which were monitoring and regulating Banking systems realized that there are gaps in data to get a better understanding of cross border lending by Banks.

Bank of International Settlement BIS collects and publishes following datasets:

  • Consolidated Banking Statistics (CBS)
  • Locational Banking Statistics (LBS)

 

From US Banks’ International Balance Sheet Linkages: A Data Survey

International financial linkages are mostly established through banks’ lending and borrowing across the borders. Still, very little is known on the actual geographical composition of banks’ foreign balance sheet positions due to the fact that existing bilateral banking statistics is rather incomplete and scant both at the aggregate and micro level ( (Cerutti, et al., 2011); (Fender & Patrick, 2009); (McGuire & von Peter, 2009)). At the micro level, in particular, bilateral positions of banks by location of counterparty are neither collected by the regulator nor available from commercial databases (Herrero & Martinez Peira, 2007).

At the macro level, the Consolidated Banking Statistics (CBS) published by the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) is the most complete data source publicly available on aggregate bilateral claims of banks, available on a comparable cross-country basis and collected according to the nationality principle1. The CBS is best suited to assess country risk, as it reports gross claims of home and worldwide offices reported by national banks to individual foreign countries.

The consolidation within the CBS, however, does not allow to quantify gross cross-border bilateral positions that banks have vis-à-vis their foreign affiliates. Important direct linkages can, indeed, arise through cross-border positions with banks’ foreign-related entities, such as branches or subsidiaries, especially in those countries, such as the US, where foreign-related offices are the largest foreign counterparties of domestic banks.

Moreover, bilateral banking liabilities are not publicly available within the CBS preventing the assessment of other important macro risks arising from international banking activity, most notably funding and global systemic risks. The Committee on the Global Financial System (CGFS) at the the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) has recently announced that the latter limitation is being tackled in the new reporting regime in which banks must disclose also bilateral liabilities a consolidated basis with details of the instrument type (CGFS, 2012). The BIS also collects unconsolidated positions (i.e. both assets and liabilities) of banks located in a given country on all foreigners in the Locational Banking Statistics (LBS), in which bilateral positions are not publicly disclosed2. For the US, however, bilateral foreign unconsolidated banking assets and liabilities are available from the Treasury International Capital System (TICS)3. Coherent to the balance of payment residency principle, the reporting institutions are branches of foreign banks residing in the US which report their positions vis-à-vis all foreigners by foreign country, including related-offices.

Residency-based statistics is ill-suited to assess bi-lateral linkages of US banks as confounding resident foreign and domestic banks does not allow to disentangle the different lending conducts and funding structures4. Also, the foreign counterparty includes foreign branches and subsidiaries of domestic banks as well as parents, branches and subsidiaries of foreign banks resident in the US, hindering a full understanding of the geography of banks’ funding, liquidity and capital allocation.

The aim of this paper is to review all the available data at the macro level in order to both draw a map of the bilateral international balance sheet positions of US banks by counterparty country and stress the data limitations and gaps. Firstly, this paper presents an extensive survey of all available bilateral macro data on international linkages created by US banks’ balance sheets. This investigation details the components and measurements (consolidated vs. unconsolidated data collection) of external positions of US banks. The survey is mainly based on the statistics provided by the Country Exposure Lending Survey (CELS) published by the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC), upon which the BIS CBS for the US is based, and the US Banking claims and liabilities statistics published by the Treasury International Capital System (TICS). The second part of the paper discusses how data gaps might distort the measurement of important bilateral linkages and suggests how these limitations might be tackled by future research.

In the literature can be found a few papers that bring together existing available datasets to evaluate bi-lateral financial linkages, such as the works by (Lane & Milesi-Ferretti, 2011), (Milesi- Ferretti, et al., 2010) and (Cerutti, 2013). The latter study, in particular, estimates the linkages created by banks’ balance sheet by combining BIS CBS with foreign office data available commercially at the micro-level with the intent of measuring foreign rollover risks.

In this paper it is stressed that consolidated and unconsolidated banking statistics should both include a vis-à-vis country dimension, other than a sectoral and instrument-type segmentation. Moreover, statistics should be segmented enough to allow mapping unconsolidated to consolidated data. In particular, consolidated banking statistics should differentiate claims booked from domestic offices to those from branches and subsidiaries, possibly by host country. Unconsolidated statistics, should disentangle positions booked from domestic banks and foreign banks and vis-à-vis related- offices, possibly identifying the nationality foreign banks. While the statistics enhancements of the CGFS are definitely going towards this direction, this paper suggests that more detailed information should be collected on the funding structure of foreign-related offices, disentangling, when possible, branches by subsidiaries by host country.

 

An overview of bi-lateral foreign exposure of US banks

The linkages created by banks via their international balance sheet positions can be assessed on either a consolidated or unconsolidated basis.

The BIS provides the framework to collect international banking claims on a consolidated basis. The Consolidated Banking Statistics (CBS) provides very useful scope for assessing country risk as its concern is to measure the exposure of the banking sector of a given country i on a foreign country j on a nationality basis: banks are grouped according to their nationality so that all branches of banks with nationality i located worldwide report their positions vis-à-vis the residents of a given country j. Total foreign exposure, namely foreign claims, of the banking sector in i on country j is obtained by summing the consolidated cross-border claims on unaffiliated foreigners in j and local claims of foreign offices established in j. The BIS publishes bilateral foreign claims for the reporting county vis-à-vis the rest of the world by country of location of the counterparty on a quarterly basis. For the US case, more detailed data is available from the Country Exposure Lending Survey (CELS) published by the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC), upon which the BIS CBS for the US is based.

Banks’ foreign exposure evaluated on an unconsolidated (or locational) basis, on the other hand, complies with the balance of payments principles. Banks are grouped according to their residency so that in a given country i the reporting banks are all those institutions operating in i, including the resident branches of foreign banks. Total foreign exposure is here calculated by measuring unconsolidated cross-border claims only, i.e. claims on all those counterparties which are not domestically located, including related offices. The BIS collects quarterly statistics on unconsolidated banking assets and liabilities, that is, the Locational Banking Statistics (LBS), for a large set of reporting countries, reporting positions broken down by currency, counterparty sector and nationality of banks. Although the BIS collects unconsolidated banking statistics by country of location of the counterparty (i.e. vis-à-vis country dimension), this information is not publicly disclosed hindering a geographical mapping of the counterparties of reporting banks. For the case of US, however, this bilateral assets and liabilities of banks on an unconsolidated basis are published by the US Treasury within the Treasury International Capital System (TICS), upon which the BIS LBS for the US is based.

 

Data Gaps identified during the GFC have been corrected to some extent.  New improved data sets became available in 2015.  Based on this new data, several new papers have been published by BIS.

 

From Enhanced data to analyse international banking

Banks have become larger and more complex over the past 25 years, offering multiple services and products through operations spanning the globe. Some rely heavily on wholesale or non-deposit sources of funding, often from non-bank financial intermediaries about whom information is sparse. Such changes in the international financial system were not well captured in historical data (BIS (2011)). This made it hard to analyse where, in which instruments and on which side of banks’ balance sheets vulnerabilities might emerge, and harder still to assess how vulnerabilities in one part of the financial system might affect other parts. In 2012, the Committee on the Global Financial System (CGFS), which oversees the collection of the BIS international banking statistics (IBS), approved a major set of enhancements to the IBS aimed at filling long-standing data gaps and better capturing the new financial landscape (CGFS (2012)). To a large extent, the enhancements were informed by the Great Financial Crisis of 2007–09, which revealed critical gaps in the information available to monitor and respond to financial stability risks.2 The basic thrust of the enhancements is twofold. First, they expand the coverage of banks’ balance sheets to include their domestic positions, not just their international activities. Second, they provide more information about the sector of banks’ counterparties, in particular banks’ exposures to and reliance on funding from non-bank financial counterparties. The remainder of this feature explains the enhancements in more detail and discusses a few analytical uses of the new data.

 

Overview of the enhancements

The IBS comprise two data sets – the locational banking statistics (LBS) and the consolidated banking statistics (CBS) – each collected using a different methodology. Jointly, they are a key source of information for assessing risks to financial stability, understanding banks’ role in the transmission of shocks across borders, and monitoring changes in internationally active banks’ business models. The principal use of the LBS is to analyse capital flows between countries. They capture the positions of banking offices located in 44 reporting countries on counterparties resident in each of over 200 countries. The LBS are collected following the same principles as national accounts and balance of payments, meaning that their compilation is based on the residence of entities and the data are not adjusted for intragroup or intrasector links. The CBS provide measures of internationally active banks’ country risk exposures. In contrast to the LBS, the CBS are compiled on a nationality basis, using the consolidated approach followed by banking supervisors. The business of offices that are part of the same banking group is consolidated and reported by the country where the controlling parent entity is located.3 Table 1 summarises the breakdowns reported in each data set, and a companion piece in this Review describes the LBS and CBS in more detail. The enhancements approved by the CGFS focused on five areas. First, in both the LBS and the CBS, the coverage of banks’ balance sheets was extended to domestic positions; previously, the data sets captured only banks’ international business. In the LBS, banks are now asked to report their local positions – positions against residents of the country where they are located – in local currency, to complement the existing data on local positions in foreign currencies.4 In the CBS, since end-2013, internationally active banks have reported their worldwide consolidated claims on residents of their home country – the country where the bank’s controlling parent is headquartered. Second, in the CBS, data for the funding side of banks’ consolidated balance sheets were introduced. Previously, very little liability-related information was collected in the CBS: only the local liabilities of banks’ foreign affiliates, and only those denominated in local currency. Since end-2013, banks have reported their total liabilities on a consolidated basis, with a breakdown by instrument.5 They also report their total equity, selected capital measures, and total assets (comprising financial and non-financial assets).

Third, in both the LBS and the CBS, the sectoral breakdown of counterparties was improved. The main improvement was to distinguish between non-bank financial counterparties and non-financial counterparties; previously, the two sectors were grouped together as non-bank entities.6 Banks are also asked to distinguish between different non-financial counterparties: non-financial corporations, households and governments. However, the reporting of the latter breakdown is encouraged, not required, and thus is incomplete (as discussed below). In the LBS, the breakdown of counterparties classified as banks was also improved. Since end- 2013, banks have reported different types of bank counterparties – related banking offices (or intragroup affiliates), unrelated banks and central banks – by residence of the counterparty.7 Fourth, the LBS were refined to provide more granular information by nationality of the reporting bank. In particular, since end-June 2012, four dimensions of data have been jointly reported: the residence and nationality of the reporting bank, the residence of the counterparty, and the currency in which positions are denominated. Previously, no more than three of the four dimensions were jointly reported in either the CBS or LBS (Table 2). Box 1 explains how these new data help clarify the geography of banks’ operations. The more granular information by nationality of the reporting bank is often composed of data reported by very few banks. For example, there are many banks in the United Kingdom that have claims on South Africa, and there are several Australian banks that have offices in the United Kingdom, but there may be only one or two Australian banks in the United Kingdom that have claims on South Africa. If an aggregate comprises data from only one or two banks, then its disclosure risks revealing proprietary information about those banks’ activities. Consequently, reporting authorities classify a significant part of the enhanced data that they report to the BIS as confidential. Such data cannot be disclosed by the BIS, but they can serve as building blocks in the construction of published aggregates that combine data from many reporting countries. While the enhancements made the residence and nationality of reporting banks and the residence of counterparties available simultaneously in the LBS, they did not make the distinction between data by residence and nationality redundant. In particular, the instrument breakdown – loans and deposits, debt securities and other instruments – continues to be reported only for LBS by residence (Table 2). The enhancements also refined the IBS in a number of smaller ways. Banks reporting the LBS are now encouraged to provide an expanded currency breakdown. To complement the LBS by nationality of reporting bank, data by type of bank – branch or subsidiary – are also reported, although without a detailed counterparty country breakdown of cross-border positions. In addition, the quality of the data was improved through closer alignment of reporting practices with the guidelines. For example, authorities in some reporting countries refined sectoral or other classifications. Such methodological changes have sometimes led to significant changes in reported outstanding positions. Finally, the BIS comprehensively revised the tables presenting the IBS so as to include data collected as part of the enhancements (Box 2). The enhancements also prompted the BIS to revisit the way in which some aggregates are calculated or presented, resulting in changes to previously published data (Box 3).

 

From Enhanced data to analyse international banking

06-tab1

 

From Enhanced data to analyse international banking

06-tab2

 

From Enhanced data to analyse international banking

06-graa

 

From Recent enhancements to the BIS statistics

Locational banking statistics by reporting country

One of the enhancements to the international banking statistics (IBS) agreed by the Committee on the Global Financial System following the Great Financial Crisis of 2007–09 was to make the IBS more widely available (CGFS (2012)). The new tables and data published by the BIS in September 2015 were an important step in that direction (Avdjiev et al (2015)). The BIS and central banks continue to work towards publishing more data and improving the tools for accessing them.

Concurrently with this Quarterly Review, the BIS has started publishing more details at the reporting country level from the locational banking statistics (LBS), in particular the claims and liabilities of banks in individual reporting countries on counterparties in more than 200 countries. Previously, the BIS had made public only two types of aggregates in the LBS: the positions of banks in all reporting countries on counterparties in individual countries (Table A6 in the BIS Statistical Bulletin and the BIS Statistics Explorer), and the positions of banks in individual reporting countries on all counterparties abroad (Table A5). The BIS now discloses a matrix of reporting countries and counterparty countries, for the full history of the LBS. For example, whereas previously only the cross-border claims of all LBS-reporting banks on borrowers in China were published, now the location of those reporting banks is also disclosed. This information shows that, at end-March 2016, banks in Hong Kong SAR were the main creditors, accounting for 42% of cross-border claims on China’s mainland borrowers, followed by banks in Chinese Taipei with 9%.

Such geographical details can be used to analyse how shocks might propagate across sectors and borders. For example, they can help track how funds are transferred from sources in one country via banks to users in another. They can also shed light on the complexity of banks’ international operations.

When undertaking such analysis, it is very important to distinguish between the unconsolidated office-level view in the LBS and the consolidated group-level view in the consolidated banking statistics (CBS). The LBS capture the positions of banking offices located in a given country, following the same residency principles as national accounts and balance of payments. By contrast, the CBS capture the worldwide positions of banking groups headquartered in that country, using the consolidated approach followed by banking supervisors. Accordingly, the principal use of the LBS is to analyse capital flows between countries, whereas the CBS provide measures of banks’ country risk exposures.3

The published matrix of reporting countries and counterparty countries covers the cross-border positions of banks located in up to 29 LBS-reporting countries on counterparties in more than 200 countries. As many as eight series are publicly available in the LBS for each reporting-counterparty country pair: total claims and liabilities on counterparties in all sectors and the non-bank sector, and the same details for the instrument component loans and deposits. Selected series are published in Table A6 of the BIS Statistical Bulletin, and all the data can be downloaded from the BIS Statistics Explorer, the BIS Statistics Warehouse or in a single CSV file. A matrix of reporting countries and counterparty countries is also published for the CBS, in Table B4 of the BIS Statistical Bulletin.

 

Table below shows stock positions in different currencies by location and by sector.

From Currency networks in cross-border bank lending

crossborder3

 

From Currency networks in cross-border bank lending

At end-2014, the outstanding stock of BIS IBS cross-border bank claims totalled $28.5 trillion. Using the new dimensions in the Stage 1 data, we can simultaneously identify the nationality of the lending bank and the location of the borrower for 92% ($26.2 trillion) of the global total. Nearly three quarters ($19.3 trillion) of the bilaterally-identified claims represented lending by banks from advanced economies (AEs) to borrowers in AEs (Table 2). The second largest component of global crossborder bank lending was the one from AE banks to offshore centres – it stood at $3.5 trillion (or 13% of the global aggregate). “AE-to-EME” lending (ie lending by AE banks to EME borrowers) was also substantial – it amounted to $2.3 trillion (or 9% of global cross-border lending). Meanwhile, cross-border lending by EME banks, which has been growing rapidly over the past few years, stood at $1.1 trillion or around 4% of global cross-border claims. It was fairly evenly distributed among borrowers from AEs ($395 billion), EMEs ($351 billion) and offshore centres ($205 billion).

Currency networks

More than three-quarters of global cross-border claims were accounted for by lending in two major currencies: the US dollar and the euro. Claims denominated in US dollars alone equalled $13.0 trillion, or 45% of the global total. Meanwhile, crossborder lending denominated in euros stood at $9.0 trillion, or 31% of the global aggregate. The third largest currency denomination, the Japanese yen accounts for only around 5% of the global total. At the aggregate level, the above currency shares are remarkably stable across counterparty sectors (Table 3). The US dollar shares of global cross-border lending to banks (46%) and non-banks (45%) are virtually the same. The same is true for the respective euro shares, with both at 31%. In the case of yen, the difference is more pronounced: cross-border lending to non-banks (6.4%) is almost twice as high as interbank lending (3.6%).

The variation in the currency composition of cross-border lending across locations is considerably larger (Table 3). In terms of lending to advanced economies, the US dollar and euro shares are roughly equal at 41% and 39%, respectively. Approximately half of US dollar-denominated bank lending to advanced economies is accounted for by cross-border claims on residents of the United States ($4.1 trillion). Similarly, the majority ($5.7 trillion) of euro-denominated cross-border bank lending is directed towards borrowers in the euro area – and most ($3.8 trillion) of that amount represents intra-euro area cross-border claims. Outside the United States and the euro area, the US dollar and the euro still dominate lending to advanced economies, albeit with somewhat smaller shares (36% and 25%, respectively).

Lending to EMEs tends to be primarily denominated in US dollars as well. The proportion of cross-border claims on EMEs denominated in US dollars (47%) is more than four times higher than that of the euro (11%). Nevertheless, the aggregate EME numbers mask considerable variations across regions. The US dollar accounts for the majority of the claims on Latin America and on Africa and the Middle East (73% and 61%, respectively). Yet, it accounts for less than half (41%) of the lending to emerging Asia and less than a third (30%) of the lending to emerging Europe. In fact, emerging Europe is the only EME region where the euro is the leading currency with around 41% of all claims. The share of yen is negligible at around 1% of lending to all four EME regions.

The dominance of the US dollar is most pronounced in cross-border claims on offshore centres with a share of nearly two thirds (63%) of the total. Conversely, the respective share for the Japanese yen is merely 11%. The share of the euro is even smaller at 8%.

 

From Drivers of cross-border banking since the Global Crisis

Since the Global Crisis, international credit markets have become more segmented. Figure 1 illustrates the development of cross-border bank claims over the last years; after a continuous and steep increase, the Crisis has led to a retrenchment in cross-border bank lending. Yet, international lending has evolved heterogeneously across regions. While cross-border lending to developing and emerging economies has increased again, foreign bank claims to developed countries have rather continued to decrease.

Even if part of the retrenchment in cross-border bank claims was cyclical, part of the adjustment seems to be structural as the economic recovery did not go along with a notable increase in total foreign bank claims.

What role do policy changes play for adjustments in cross-border bank claims?

The adjustments in international bank lending have led to a debate on how recent policy interventions have affected international capital flows in the aftermath of the crisis.

  • On the one hand, different observers stress the role of changes in financial regulation for the international activities of banks.

After the experiences of the recent Crisis, national regulators may aim at a lower degree of banking globalisation to facilitate the resolution of large, internationally active banks, and hence to better protect taxpayers from potential losses (The Economist 2012). Using bank-level data for the UK banking sector, Rose and Wieladek (2011) have analysed the implications of bank nationalisations for international lending. They present evidence that foreign banks that profited from government support have cut back their lending to the UK. Thus, part of the retrenchment in international bank lending may be due to increased financial protectionism since the crisis.

  • On the other hand, the effects of monetary policy on capital flows – especially to emerging markets – have been intensely debated.

Among others, Bernanke (2013) has pointed out that in an environment of low interest rates, banks may tend to lean their foreign activities towards higher-yielding markets. Nier and Saadi Sedik (2014) point out that managing the large and volatile capital inflows since the Crisis has been costly for emerging markets.

In a recent study (Bremus and Fratzscher 2014), we add to this debate by investigating the effects of policy-related drivers of changes in cross-border bank lending since the Global Crisis.

  • The first question we address is how shifts in banking regulations have affected international bank lending in the wake of the Crisis.

As illustrated by Figure 2, bank capital regulation has, on average, become stricter since the Crisis. In general, tighter regulatory requirements may have different implications for banks’ international lending business. An increase in capital requirements in the source country of cross-border credit may lead to a reduction in credit outflows if banks cut back risky foreign lending activities in order to deleverage. However, stricter regulations in the source country could also lead to an increase in foreign lending activities to countries where regulation is more lenient. Using data from the pre-crisis period, Houston et al. (2012) indeed find that differences in banking regulation are important push and pull factors of cross-border bank lending; banks are attracted by countries with a less restrictive regulatory environment.

In order to study policy-related drivers of changes in international lending between the pre- and the post-Crisis period, we use bilateral credit data for 46 countries from the Bank for International Settlements for the period 2005-2012.[1] Information on capital stringency, supervisory power, and supervisory independence is available from Barth et al. (2013). Following the literature, the years until 2007 can be classified as the ‘pre-crisis’ period, while the years as of 2010 are classified as the ‘post-crisis’ phase. We use a cross-sectional regression model where all variables are expressed as the change between the average across 2005-2007 and the average across 2010-2012.

  • Our results indicate that regulatory policy has been an important driver of adjustments in cross-border banking since the Global Crisis.

Source countries of bilateral credit which have seen a larger increase in supervisory power or independence have extended more cross-border credit. Put differently, the more independent or powerful supervisors got, the less severe was the reduction in cross-border credit in the aftermath of the Crisis. Another interpretation for this result is that stricter regulation in the source country has led to more cross-border lending due to regulatory arbitrage.

With respect to bank capital regulation, the estimation results are similar when the whole country sample is considered. Yet, the larger the differential in capital stringency between the source and the recipient country of cross-border credit in the Eurozone got, the lower the increase (or the larger the reduction) in cross-border lending between these countries.

  • In a second part, we examine which role expansionary monetary policy – as measured by reserve deposits of commercial banks held at central banks – has played for bilateral cross-border lending.

Aggregate reserves at central banks reflect the size of monetary policy interventions (Keister and McAndrews 2009). The more accommodative monetary policy has been since the Crisis, the larger was the increase in total reserves. The estimation results reveal that a larger expansion in source countries’ reserve deposits have come along with smaller reductions (or, larger increases) in credit outflows. Hence, the findings suggest that monetary policy has mitigated credit market fragmentation in the aftermath of the Global Crisis.

Concluding remarks

Our results show that regulatory and monetary policy changes have been important drivers of adjustments in cross-border bank lending since the crisis. While expansionary monetary policy measures have mitigated credit market fragmentation, regulatory policy changes have had mixed effects, depending on the measure and region considered.

More independent and powerful supervisory authorities tend to promote international lending. Our findings indicate that capital regulation should be adjusted in a harmonised and transparent way in order to avoid distortionary lending behaviour, especially in the Eurozone.

 

From The currency dimension of the bank lending channel in international monetary transmission

In this paper, we add to the existing literature on the cross-border bank lending channel of monetary policy by examining how the use of a currency in cross-border lending transmits monetary policy-induced monetary shocks across countries. We do so by using new and unique data on bilateral cross-border lending flows across a wide array of source banking systems and target countries, broken down by currency denomination (USD, EUR and JPY).

We obtain three main results.

First, monetary policy-induced monetary shocks in a currency significantly affect cross-border bank lending flows in that currency, even when neither the lending banking system nor the borrowing country uses that currency as their own. This is what we call the currency dimension of the bank lending channel.

Second, we find that this currency dimension of the bank lending channel works primarily through lending to non-banks.

Third, we find that these currency effects work similarly across the three main currencies, that is, the transmission effects are present in EUR and JPY-lending as much as in USD-lending. All these results are robust across our various specifications, including IV estimations.26

We hope that our results will help policymakers and researchers gain further insight into how the global use of currencies transmits monetary policy shocks through the international banking system. In particular, our results suggest that when policymakers in borrowing countries think about external spillovers to their economies they should explicitly consider the currency denomination of the cross-border claims.

 

 

 

KeySources of Research:

 

Estimating Global Bank Network Connectedness

Mert Demirer Laura Liu

.Francis X. Diebold Kamil Ylmaz

 

2017

 

http://www.ssc.upenn.edu/~fdiebold/papers2/DDLYpaper.pdf

 

 

A network analysis of global banking: 1978–2009

Camelia Minoiu and Javier A. Reyes

2011

 

https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2011/wp1174.pdf

 

 

Global Banks and Transmission

2013

https://www.fdic.gov/bank/analytical/cfr/bank_research_conference/annual_13th/Goldberg.pdf

 

 

Crisis Transmission in the Global Banking Network

Galina Hale

Tu ̈mer Kapan

Camelia Minoiu

December 31, 2014

 

https://www.bis.org/events/confresearchnetwork1510/hale_paper.pdf

 

 

Currency networks in cross-border bank lending

Stefan Avdjiev and Előd Takáts

September 2015

https://www.bis.org/events/confresearchnetwork1510/takats_paper.pdf

 

 

Monetary policy spillovers and currency networks in cross-border bank lending

by Stefan Avdjiev and Előd Takáts

March 2016

 

http://www.bis.org/publ/work549.pdf

 

 

 

WITHDRAWAL FROM CORRESPONDENT BANKING

WHERE, WHY, AND WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT

2015

 

http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/113021467990964789/pdf/101098-revised-PUBLIC-CBR-Report-November-2015.pdf

 

 

Correspondence course: Charting a future for US-dollar clearing and correspondent banking through analytics

2015

 

https://www.pwc.com/us/en/risk-assurance-services/publications/assets/pwc-correspondent-banking-whitepaper.pdf

 

 

Correspondent banking

July 2016

 

http://www.bis.org/cpmi/publ/d147.pdf

 

 

The Withdrawal of Correspondent Banking Relationships: A Case for Policy Action

Michaela Erbenová, Yan Liu, Nadim Kyriakos-Saad, Alejandro López-Mejía, Giancarlo Gasha, Emmanuel Mathias, Mohamed Norat, Francisca Fernando, and Yasmin Almeida

2016

 

https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sdn/2016/sdn1606.pdf

 

 

FSB action plan to assess and address the decline in correspondent banking

End-2016 progress report and next steps

 

19 December 2016

 

http://www.fsb.org/wp-content/uploads/FSB-action-plan-to-assess-and-address-the-decline-in-correspondent-banking.pdf

 

 

Improving the BIS international banking statistics

http://www.bis.org/publ/cgfs47.pdf

 

 

Enhancements to the BIS international banking statistics

Stefan Avdjiev, Patrick McGuire and Philip Wooldridge

2014

https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/bop/2014/pdf/14-25.pdf

 

 

Enhanced data to analyse international banking

Stefan Avdjiev Patrick McGuire Philip Wooldridge

2015

 

https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/bop/2015/pdf/15-11a.pdf

 

 

 

Recent enhancements to the BIS statistics

BIS Quarterly Bulletin September 2016

http://www.bis.org/publ/qtrpdf/r_qt1609.htm

 

 

 

Enhancements to the International Banking Statistics

By John Lowes and David Osborn

2015

 

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/statistics/Documents/ms/articles/art2may15.pdf

 

 

Toward a global risk map

Stephen G Cecchetti, Ingo Fender and Patrick McGuire1

Revised Draft May 2010

 

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ed86/7c8a4bf13bf32eab3fbe47da80875f22fedf.pdf

 

 

Bilateral Financial Linkages and Global Imbalances: a View on the Eve of the Financial Crisis

Gian Maria Milesi-Ferretti

Francesco Strobbe

Natalia Tamirisa

This Draft: May 13, 2011

 

http://www.cepr.org/sites/default/files/Milesi-Ferretti_Bilateral%20Financial%20Linkages%20and%20Global%20Imbalances.pdf

 

 

Cross-border financial linkages: Identifying and measuring vulnerabilities

 

 

 

Global banks turning more local: Improved host countries’ financial stability

Gaston Gelos, Frederic Lambert

17 May 2015

http://voxeu.org/article/global-banks-turning-more-local

 

 

Drivers of cross-border banking since the Global Crisis

Franziska Bremus, Marcel Fratzscher

28 January 2015

http://voxeu.org/article/drivers-cross-border-banking-global-crisis

 

 

Systemic Risks in Global Banking What Available Data Can Tell Us and What More Data Are Needed?

Eugenio Cerutti, Stijn Claessens, and Patrick McGuire

 

http://www.nber.org/chapters/c12557.pdf

 

 

US Banks’ International Balance Sheet Linkages: A Data Survey

Carmela D’Avino

2014

 

https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/69422/1/MPRA_paper_69422.pdf

 

 

G20 Agenda towards a More Stable and Resilient International Financial Architecture

2016

 

http://www.g20.utoronto.ca/2016/g20-international-financial-architecture.pdf

 

 

Cross-Border Interbank Networks, Banking Risk and Contagion

Lena Tonzer

2013

 

http://www.fiw.ac.at/fileadmin/Documents/Publikationen/Working_Paper/N_129-Tonzer.pdf

 

 

Developments in a Cross-Border Bank Exposure “Network”

Masazumi Hattori

Yuko Suda

2007

 

https://www.boj.or.jp/en/research/wps_rev/wps_2007/data/wp07e21.pdf

 

 

Systemic Risks in Global Banking: What Available Data Can Tell Us and What More Data are Needed?

By Eugenio Cerutti, Stijn Claessens and Patrick McGuire

April 18, 2012

 

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/6798726.pdf

 

 

Globalisation and Financial Stability Risks: Is the Residency-Based Approach of the National Accounts Old-Fashioned?

Bruno Tissot

 

http://www.iariw.org/dresden/btissot.pdf

 

 

The currency dimension of the bank lending channel in international monetary transmission

Elod Takats and Judit Temesvary

2017-001

 

https://www.federalreserve.gov/econresdata/feds/2017/files/2017001pap.pdf

 

 

Banks and Cross-Border Capital Flows: Policy Challenges and Regulatory Responses

Committee on International Economic Policy and Reform

 

 

 

How the interactions of monetary and regulatory policies may have been ahead of the anti-globalisation backlash
Kristin Forbes, Dennis Reinhardt, Tomasz Wieladek

23 December 2016

http://voxeu.org/article/banking-deglobalisation-spillovers-and-interactions-monetary-and-regulatory-policies

 

 

European bank deleveraging and global credit conditions
Erik Feyen, Ines Gonzalez del Mazo

12 May 2013

http://voxeu.org/article/european-bank-deleveraging-and-global-credit-conditions