Slowdown in Global Investment (FDI) Flows

Slowdown in Global Investment (FDI) Flows

 

 

From Determinants of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI)

Foreign direct investment (FDI) is a major component of globalization, together with international trade. Its operation is made possible by movements of factors across countries, in particular, capital. By definition, FDI involves long-term cross-country commitments. According to International Monetary Fund (IMF), FDI entails the establishment of a “lasting interest” by a resident entity of one economy in an enterprise located in another economy (International Monetary Fund, 1993). Lasting interest implies a long-term relationship between the foreign investor and the overseas enterprise where the said investor holds significant influence over management. The IMF defines a direct investment enterprise as one in which a foreign investor holds at least 10% of the ordinary shares or voting power (International Monetary Fund, 1993). The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD, 1996, p. 10) classifies enterprises of direct foreign investors into three groups: subsidiaries, in which a nonresident investor holds more than 50% of the ownership; associates, in which a nonresident investor’s shares range between 10 and 50%; and branches, which are unincorporated enterprises owned by a nonresident investor, wholly or jointly. Obviously, such definitions and the resultant measurements leave ambiguities and imprecisions. However, they do help maintain relative consistency in cross-country comparisons.

From 1995 to 2015, the world saw a dramatic increase in FDI. The FDI inflows in 2015 were 8.6 times those in 1995, an increase from about 0.2 trillion USD in 1995 to about 1.8 trillion USD in 2015. While FDI inflows to developed countries increased 8.6-fold, those to developing countries and transitional economies increased 23 times. In 1995, FDI inflows to developing and transitional economies were 17% of the world total, and in 2015 they accounted for 45%. FDI flows to OECD countries peaked in 2007, at about 1.3 trillion USD. Between 2013 and 2014, for the first time, developing countries received more FDI than developed countries (UNCTAD, 2016), though the developed world recaptured the position as the largest FDI recipient in 2015 (see Figure 1).

There is an ever-growing body of literature on FDI. As Markusen (2008) demonstrated, three strands of relevant literature exist:

  • the international business approach that is oriented toward the rationale of individual firms,
  • the macroeconomic approach that focuses on aggregate flows of FDI without making a distinction between direct and portfolio investments,
  • and the international trade theory approach, which increasingly moves closer to the international business approach, combining firm-level FDI analysis with aggregate analysis of capital flows.

 

 

From UNCTAD World Investment Report 2017

FDI2

 

 

Key Sources of Research:

 

2017 AT Kearney FDI Confidence Index

http://www.iberglobal.com/files/2017/fdi_index_atkearney.pdf

 

UNCTAD World Investment Report 2017

http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/wir2017_en.pdf

 

 

Recent Developments in Trade and Investment

Pierre Sauvé
Trade and Competitiveness Global Practice
World Bank Group
MIKTA Workshop on Trade and Investment
Session 2
Geneva, 20 March 2017

https://www.wto.org/english/forums_e/business_e/pierre_sauve_world_bank.pdf

 

 

OECD FDI Data

https://data.oecd.org/fdi/fdi-flows.htm

 

 

UNCTAD FDI Data

http://unctad.org/en/Pages/DIAE/FDI%20Statistics/Interactive-database.aspx

 

 

GLOBAL FDI FLOWS SLIP IN 2016, MODEST RECOVERY EXPECTED IN 2017

http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/webdiaeia2017d1_en.pdf

 

 

Cross border mergers make India favoured FDI route: UNCTAD

June 2017

 

http://www.deccanchronicle.com/business/economy/080617/cross-border-mergers-make-india-favoured-fdi-route-unctad.html

 

 

Cross-border M&As push global FDI flows to $1.76 trillion

June 2016

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/business/cross-border-mas-push-global-fdi-flows-to-1-76-trillion/articleshow/52860326.cms

 

 

OECD Bilateral FDI Data

http://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx?DataSetCode=FDI_FLOW_PARTNER

 

 

UNCTAD Bilateral FDI Data

http://unctad.org/en/Pages/DIAE/FDI%20Statistics/FDI-Statistics-Bilateral.aspx

 

 

World Bank FDI Database

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/BX.KLT.DINV.CD.WD

 

 

FDI Markets

https://www.fdimarkets.com

 

 

FDI Reports

http://www.fdireports.com/home/index.cfm?CFID=16605395&CFTOKEN=534deb8f9bfff240-CA8D9CBD-9042-6C79-7D3F0DD68E9B6616&jsessionid=2030aa76f30310567d2372163935674e554c

 

 

Determinants of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI)

Yi Feng

Online Publication Date: Jun 2017

http://politics.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228637-e-559?print=pdf

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

 

 

Balance Sheets, Financial Interconnectedness, and Financial Stability – G20 Data Gaps Initiative

Balance Sheets, Financial Interconnectedness, and Financial Stability – G20 Data Gaps Initiative

 

From G-20 Data Gaps Initiative II: Meeting the Policy Challenge

In 2009, the G-20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors (FMCBG) endorsed 20 recommendations to address data gaps revealed by the global financial crisis. The initiative, aimed at supporting enhanced policy analysis, is led by the Financial Stability Board (FSB) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The Inter-Agency Group on Economic and Financial Statistics (IAG)1 plays the global facilitator role to coordinate and monitor the implementation of the DGI recommendations.

The financial crisis which started in 2007 with problems in the U.S. subprime market, spread to the rest of the world becoming the most severe global crisis since the Great Depression. One difference between the global financial crisis and earlier post-war crises was that the crisis struck at the heart of the global financial system spreading throughout the global economy. This required global efforts for recovery. As one element of the global response, in October 2009, the G-20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors (FMCBG) endorsed a DGI led by the Financial Stability Board (FSB) Secretariat and the IMF Staff. DGI was launched as an overarching initiative of 20 recommendations to address information gaps revealed by the global financial crisis.

Following the global financial crisis, in 2008, the G-20 leaders, at their meeting in Washington,9 committed to implement a fundamental reform of the global financial system to strengthen financial markets and regulatory regimes so as to avoid future crises.10 As part of the reform agenda, the FSB was established in April 2009 as the successor to the Financial Stability Forum (FSF) and started working as the central locus of coordination to take forward the financial reform program as developed by the relevant bodies. The obligations of members of the FSB were set to include agreeing to undergo periodic peer reviews, using among other inputs IMF/World Bank Financial Sector Assessment Program (FSAP) reports. The G-20 leaders noted the importance of global efforts in implementing the global regulatory reform so as to protect against adverse cross-border, regional and global developments affecting international financial stability.

The components of the G-20 regulatory reform agenda complement each other with an ultimate goal of strengthening the international financial system. The DGI has been an important element of this agenda as the regulatory reform agenda items mostly require better data. The collection of data on Global Systemically Important Banks’ (G-SIBs) exposures and funding dependencies is among the steps towards addressing the “too-big-to-fail” issue by reducing the probability and impact of G-SIBs’ failing. The FSB work on developing standards and processes for global data collection and aggregation on securities financing transactions aims to improve transparency in securitization towards the main goal of reducing risks related to the shadow banking system. Over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives markets including Credit Default Swap (CDS) were brought under greater scrutiny towards the main goal of making derivatives markets safer following the global crisis. DGI supported this goal by improving information in CDS markets. A number of other G-20 initiatives have strong links with the DGI project including the FSB work on strengthening the oversight and regulation of the shadow banking system; and on the work on global legal entity identifiers (LEI)11 which contribute to the robustness of the data frameworks with a more micro focus. The changing global regulatory reforms particularly the implementation of Basel III was also taken into consideration in the development of the DGI.

Surveillance Agenda

The importance of closing the data gaps hampering the surveillance of financial systems was also highlighted as part of the IMF’s 2014 Triennial Surveillance Review (TSR).12 The 2014 TSR emphasized that due to growing interconnectedness across borders, financial market shocks will continue to have significant spillovers via both capital flows and shifts in risk positions. Also, new dimensions to interconnectedness will continue to emerge such as through the potential short-run adverse spillovers generated by the financial regulatory reforms. To this end, the TSR recommended improving information on balance-sheets and enriching flow-of funds data. The IMF has overhauled its surveillance to make it more risk-based. To this end, the IMF Managing Director’s Action Plan for Strengthening Surveillance following the 2014 TSR13 underlined that the IMF will revive and adapt the Balance Sheet Approach (BSA) to facilitate a more in-depth analysis of the impact of shocks and their transmission across sectors, and possibly initiate the global flow of funds to better reflect global interconnections (Box 1). This work requires data from the DGI as it will help support the IMF’s macro-financial work including in the key exercises and reports (i.e., Early Warning Exercise, FSAP, and GFSR).

Global Flow of Funds

Through the use of internationally-agreed statistical standards, data on cross-border financial exposures (IBS, CPIS, and Coordinated Direct Investment Survey (CDIS)) can be linked with the domestic sectoral accounts data to build up a comprehensive picture of financial interconnections domestically and across borders, with a link back to the real economy through the sectoral accounts. This work is known as the “Global Flow of Funds (GFF).”14 The GFF project is mainly aimed at constructing a matrix that identifies interlinkages among domestic sectors and with counterpart countries (and possibly counterpart country sectors) to build up a picture of bilateral financial exposures and support analysis of potential sources of contagion. The concept of the GFF was first outlined in the Second Progress Report on the G-20 Data Gaps Initiative and initiated in 2013 as part of a broader IMF initiative aimed at strengthening the analysis of interconnectedness across borders, global liquidity flows and global financial interdependencies. In the longer term, the GFF matrix is intended to support regular monitoring of bilateral cross-border financial positions through a framework that highlight risks to national and international financial stability. IMF Staff is working towards developing a GFF matrix starting with the largest global economies.

 

How Does the DGI Address the Surveillance Agenda?

As noted above, in the wake of the 2014 TSR the IMF Managing Director published an Action Plan for Strengthening Surveillance. Among the actions to be taken was that “The Fund will revive and adapt the balance sheet approach to facilitate a more in-depth analysis of the impact of shocks and their transmission across sectors.” This responded to a call from outside experts David Li and Paul Tucker in their external study for the 2014 TSR on risks and spillovers.37

Sectoral Analysis

Even though the 2007/2008 crisis emerged in the financial sector, given its intermediary role, the problems in the financial sector also affected other sectors of an economy. To this end, analysis of balance sheet exposures is essential given the increasingly interconnected global economy. As it is pointed out in the IMF TSR 2014, the use of balance sheets to identify sources of vulnerability and the transmission of shocks, could have helped detect risks associated with European banks’ reliance on U.S. wholesale funding to finance structured products. In June 2015, the IMF set out the way forward in a paper for the IMF Executive Board on Balance Sheet Analysis in Surveillance. 38 Sectoral accounts and balance sheet data are essential, including from-whom to-whom data, in providing the context for an assessment of the links between the real economy and financial sectors. The sectoral balance sheets of the SNA is seen as the overarching framework for balance sheet analysis as the IMF Executive Board paper makes clear. Further, the paper sets out a data framework for such analysis.39 Putting the sectoral balance sheets of the SNA in a policy context, the IMF has developed a BSA, which compiles all the main balance sheets in an economy using aggregate data by sector. The BSA is based on the same conceptual principles as the sectoral accounts, providing information on a from-whom-to-whom basis with an additional focus on vulnerabilities arising from maturity and, currency mismatches as well as the capital structure of economic sectors.

While currently not that many economies compile from-whom-to-whom balance sheet data, BSA data can be compiled from the IMF’s Standardized Report Forms, IIP, and government balance sheet data—a more limited set of data than needed to compile the sectoral accounts. The DGI-2 recommendations address key data gaps that act as a constraint on a full-fledged balance sheet analysis. The DGI recommends addressing such gaps through improving G-20 economies’ dissemination of sectoral accounts and balance sheets building on 2008 SNA, including for the non-financial corporate and household sectors. (Annex 1, Recommendation II.8) Given the multifaceted character of the datasets, implementation of this recommendation is challenging and progress has been slow. However, all G-20 economies agree on the importance of having such information and have plans in place to make it happen.

Understanding Cross-border Financial Interconnections

The crisis emphasized the fact that it is not possible to isolate the problems in a single financial system as shocks propagate rapidly across the financial systems. Indeed, the IMF, since 2010, has been identifying jurisdictions with systemically important financial sectors based on a set of relevant and transparent criteria including size and interconnectedness. Within this identification framework, cross-border interconnectedness is considered an important complementary measure to the size of the economy: it captures the systemic risk that can arise through direct and indirect interlinkages among financial sectors in the global financial system (i.e., the risk that failure or malfunction of a national financial system may have severe repercussions on other countries or on overall systemic stability.48 The 2014 TSR summed up the issue succinctly in its Executive Summary: “Risks and spillovers remain first-order issues for the world economy and should be central to Fund surveillance. Recent reforms have made surveillance more risk-based, helping to better capture global interconnections. Experience so far also points to the need to build a deeper understanding of how risks map across countries, and how spillovers can quickly spread across sectors to expose domestic vulnerabilities.”49 Four existing datasets that include key information on cross-country financial linkages are the IIP, BIS IBS, IMF CPIS and IMF CDIS. Together these datasets provide a comprehensive picture of cross-border financial interconnections. This picture is especially relevant for policy makers as financial connections strengthen across border and domestic conditions are affected by financial developments in other economies to whom they are closely linked financially. DGI-2 focuses on improving the availability and cross-country comparability of these datasets (Annex1, Recommendations II.10, 11, 12 and 13). The well-known IIP is a key data source to understanding the linkages between the domestic economy and the rest of the world by providing information on both external assets and liabilities of the economy with a detailed instrument breakdown. However, the crisis revealed the need for currency and more detailed sector breakdowns, particularly for the other financial corporations (OFCs) sector. Consequently, as part of the DGI, the IIP was enhanced to support these policy needs. Significant progress has also been made in ensuring regular reporting of IIP along with the increase in frequency of reporting from annual to quarterly. By end-2015 virtually all G-20 economies reported quarterly IIP data. The IBS have been a key source of data for many decades providing information on aggregate assets and liabilities of internationally active banking systems on a quarterly frequency. The CPIS data, while on an annual frequency, provided significant insights into portfolio investment assets. That said, both datasets had limitations in terms of country coverage and granularity. CPIS also needed to be improved in terms of frequency and timeliness. To this end, the DGI supported the enhancements in these datasets.

 

Key Terms:

  • G-20 Data Gaps Initiative (DGI)
  • Financial Stability Board (FSB)
  • The Inter-Agency Group on Economic and Financial Statistics (IAG)
  • Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors (FMCBG)
  • Financial Stability Forum (FSF)
  • Global Systemically Important Banks (G-SIBs)
  • Over-the-counter (OTC)
  • Credit Default Swap (CDS)
  • Global legal entity identifiers (LEI)
  • IMF Triennial Surveillance Review (TSR)
  • IMF Balance Sheet Approach (BSA)
  • IMF Global Flow of Funds (GFF)
  • IMF IIP (International Investment Positions)
  • BIS IBS (International Banking Statistics)
  • IMF CPIS (Coordinated Portfolio Investment Survey)
  • IMF CDIS (Coordinated Direct Investment Survey)
  • IMF GFSR ( Global Financial Stability Report)

 

Other Related Terms:

  • Global Systemically Important Financial Institutions (G-SIFIs )
  • GLOBAL SYSTEMICALLY IMPORTANT INSURERS (G-SIIS)
  • Systemically Important Financial Market Utilities (G-FMUs)
  • Nonbank Financial Companies (G-SINFC)
  • Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC)

     

The IAG members are

  • BIS (Bank of International Settlements)
  • G20 (Group of 20 Nations)
  • IMF (International Monetary Fund)
  • OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development)
  • ECB (European Central Bank)
  • World Bank
  • Eurostat (European Statistics/Directorate-General of the European Commission)
  • UN (United Nations)

 

From G-20 Data Gaps Initiative II: Meeting the Policy Challenge

balancesheets

From G-20 Data Gaps Initiative II: Meeting the Policy Challenge

dgi

 

Progress of DGI ((DGI-I and DGI-II)

From G-20 Data Gaps Initiative II: Meeting the Policy Challenge

The first phase of the DGI was successfully concluded in September 2015 and the second phase of the initiative (DGI-2) was endorsed by the G-20 FMCBG. The key objective of the DGI-2 is to implement the regular collection and dissemination of comparable, timely, integrated, high quality, and standardized statistics for policy use. DGI-2 encompasses 20 new or revised recommendations, focused on datasets that support: (i) monitoring of risk in the financial sector; and (ii) analysis of vulnerabilities, interconnections and spillovers, not least cross-border.

Following the significant progress in closing some of the information gaps identified during the global financial crisis of 2007/08, the G-20 FMCBG endorsed, in September 2015, the closing of DGI-1. During the six-year implementation of DGI-1, significant achievements were obtained, particularly regarding the development of conceptual frameworks, as well as enhancements in some statistical collection and reporting. Regarding the latter, more work is needed for the implementation of some recommendations, especially in seven high-priority areas across G-20 economies, notably in government finance statistics and sectoral accounts and balance sheets.

In September 2015, the G-20 FMCBG also endorsed the launch of the second phase of the DGI. The main objective of DGI-2 is to implement the regular collection and dissemination of reliable and timely statistics for policy use. Its twenty recommendations are clustered under three main headings: (1) monitoring risk in the financial sector, (2) vulnerabilities, interconnections and spillovers, and (3) data sharing and communication of official statistics. The DGI-2 maintains the continuity with the DGI-1 recommendations while setting more specific objectives with the intention for the G-20 economies to compile and disseminate minimum common datasets for these recommendations. The DGI-2 also includes new recommendations to reflect the evolving users’ needs. Furthermore, the DGI-2 aims at strengthening the synergies with other relevant global initiatives.

The DGI-2 facilitates closing data gaps that are policy-relevant. By achieving its main objective, the DGI-2 will be instrumental in closing gaps in policy-relevant data. Most of the datasets covered by the DGI-2 are particularly relevant for meeting the emerging macro- financial policy needs, including the analysis of international positions, global liquidity, foreign currency exposures, and capital flows volatility.

The DGI-2 introduces action plans that set out specific “targets” for the implementation of its twenty recommendations through the five-year horizon of the initiative. The action plans acknowledge that countries may be at different stages of statistical development and take into account national priorities and resource constraints. The DGI-2 intends to bring the G-20 economies at higher common statistical standards through a coordinated effort; however, flexibility will be considered in terms of intermediate steps to achieve the targets based on national priorities, resource constraints, emerging data needs, and other considerations.

 

 

 

Key Sources of Research:

 

Second Phase of the G-20 Data Gaps Initiative (DGI-2) Second Progress Report

 

Prepared by the Staff of the IMF and the FSB Secretariat September 2017

Click to access 092117.pdf

http://www.imf.org/external/ns/cs.aspx?id=290

 

 

 

Second Phase of the G-20 Data Gaps Initiative (DGI-2) First Progress Report

 

Prepared by the Staff of the IMF and the FSB Secretariat September 2016

 

Click to access 090216.pdf

 

 

Sixth Progress Report on the Implementation of the G-20 Data Gaps Initiative

 

Prepared by the Staff of the IMF and the FSB Secretariat September 2015

 

Click to access The-Financial-Crisis-and-Information-Gaps.pdf

 

 

Fifth Progress Report on the Implementation of the G-20 Data Gaps Initiative

 

Prepared by the Staff of the IMF and the FSB Secretariat September 2014

Click to access 5thprogressrep.pdf

 

 

Fourth Progress Report on the Implementation of the G-20 Data Gaps Initiative

 

Prepared by the Staff of the IMF and the FSB Secretariat September 2013

 

Click to access 093013.pdf

 

 

 

Progress Report on the G-20 Data Gaps Initiative: Status, Action Plans, and Timetables

 

Prepared by the Staff of the IMF and the FSB Secretariat September 2012

Click to access 093012.pdf

 

 

 

Implementation Progress Report

 

Prepared by the IMF Staff and the FSB Secretariat June 2011

Click to access 063011.pdf

 

 

 

Progress Report Action Plans and Timetables

 

Prepared by the IMF Staff and the FSB Secretariat May 2010

 

Click to access 053110.pdf

 

 

 

Report to the
G-20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors

 

Prepared by the IMF Staff and the FSB Secretariat October 29, 2009

 

Click to access 102909.pdf

 

 

 

G-20 Data Gaps Initiative II: Meeting the Policy Challenge

by Robert Heath and Evrim Bese Goksu

2016

Click to access wp1643.pdf

 

 

 

Why are the G-20 Data Gaps Initiative and the SDDS Plus Relevant for Financial Stability Analysis?

Robert Heath

Click to access wp1306.pdf

 

 

 

Toward the Development of Sectoral Financial Positions and Flows in a From-Whom-to-Whom Framework

Manik Shrestha

 

Click to access c12835.pdf

 

 

An Integrated Framework for Financial Positions and Flows on a From-Whom-to- Whom Basis: Concepts, Status, and Prospects

Manik Shrestha, Reimund Mink, and Segismundo Fassler

 

Click to access wp1257.pdf

 

 

Financial investment and financing in a from-whom-to-whom framework

Mink, Reimund

Click to access 2011_dublin_61_01_mink.pdf

 

 

Users Conference on the Financial Crisis and Information Gaps

Conference co-hosted by The International Monetary Fund and The Financial Stability Board

2009

http://www.imf.org/external/np/seminars/eng/2009/usersconf/index.htm

 

 

A Status on the Availability of Sectoral Balance Sheets and Accumulation Accounts in Advanced Economies not Represented by Membership in the G-20

2011

 

Click to access g20a.pdf

 

 

A Status on the Availability of Sectoral Balance Sheets and Accumulation Accounts in G-20 Economies

2011

 

Click to access g20b.pdf

 

 

AN UPDATE ON THE IMF-OECD CONFERENCE ON STRENGTHENING SECTORAL POSITION AND FLOW DATA IN THE MACROECONOMIC ACCOUNTS

FEBRUARY 28 – MARCH 2, 2011

 

http://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=COM/STD/DAF(2010)21&docLanguage=En

 

 

The Balance Sheet Approach:
Data Needs, Data at Hand, and Data Gaps (August 2009)

 

Alfredo Leone, Statistics Department, International Monetary Fund

 

Click to access leone_paper.pdf

 

 

Development of financial sectoral accounts

New opportunities and challenges for supporting financial stability analysis

by Bruno Tissot

2016

 

Click to access ifcwork15.pdf

 

 

A Flow-of-Funds Perspective on the Financial Crisis Volume I: Money, Credit

edited by B. Winkler, A. van Riet, P. Bull, Ad van Riet

 

 

A Flow-of-Funds Perspective on the Financial Crisis Volume II: Macroeconomic

edited by B. Winkler, A. van Riet, P. Bull

 

 

Financial investment and financing in a from-whom-to-whom framework

Mink, Reimund

2011

Click to access 650287.pdf

 

 

Expanding the Integrated Macroeconomic Accounts’ Financial Sector

By Robert J. Kornfeld, Lisa Lynn, and Takashi Yamashita

2016

Click to access 0116_expanding_the_integrated_macroeconomic_accounts_financial_sector.pdf

 

 

Using the Balance Sheet Approach in Surveillance: Framework, Data Sources, and Data Availability

Johan Mathisen and Anthony Pellechio

2006

Click to access wp06100.pdf

 

 

Balance Sheet Analysis: A New Approach to Financial Stability

Surveillance

By Jean Christine A. Armas

2016

 

Click to access EN16-01.pdf

 

 

USING THE BALNCE SHEET APPROACH IN FINANCIAL STABILITY SURVEILLANCE:
Analyzing the Israeli economy’s resilience to exchange rate risk

 

Click to access JFS2007_HaimLevy_pres.pdf

Click to access dp0701e.pdf

 

 

 

A Balance Sheet Approach to Financial Crisis

Mark Allen, Christoph Rosenberg, Christian Keller, Brad Setser, and Nouriel Roubini

2002

Click to access wp02210.pdf

 

 

THE BALANCE SHEET APPROACH TO FINANCIAL CRISES IN EMERGING MARKETS

Giovanni Cozzi and
Jan Toporowski

2006

Click to access wp_485.pdf

 

 

Balance-sheets. A financial/liability approach

Bo Bergman

2015

 

Click to access bergman_paper.pdf

 

 

Understanding Financial Crisis Through Accounting Models

Dirk J Bezemer

2009

Click to access Bezemer_-_No_one_show_this_comming.pdf

 

 

 

Schumpeter Might Be Right Again: The Functional Differentiation of Credit

Dirk J. Bezemer
University of Groningen

Click to access the_functional_differentiation_of_credit.pdf

 

 

Causes of Financial Instability: Don’t Forget Finance

Dirk J. Bezemer

April 2011

 

Click to access wp_665.pdf

 

 

THE ECONOMY AS A COMPLEX SYSTEM: THE BALANCE SHEET DIMENSION

DIRK J BEZEMER

2012

Click to access ACS_1250047_1st_Prf.pdf

 

 

Did Credit Decouple from Output in the Great Moderation?

Maria Grydaki and Dirk Bezemer

June 2013

Click to access MPRA_paper_47424.pdf

 

 

 

Towards an ‘accounting view’ on money, banking and the macroeconomy: history, empirics, theory

Dirk J. Bezemer

2016

Click to access Camb._J._Econ.-2016-Bezemer-1275-95.pdf

 

 

Modelling systemic financial sector and sovereign risk

Dale F. Gray anD anDreas a. Jobst

2011

 

Click to access Gray_2.pdf

 

 

BALANCE SHEET ANALYSIS IN FUND SURVEILLANCE

2015

Click to access 061215.pdf

Click to access 071315.pdf

 

 

The role of external balance sheets in the financial crisis

Yaser Al-Saffar, Wolfgang Ridinger and Simon Whitaker

2013

 

Click to access fs_paper24.pdf

 

 

Global Conferences on DGI

June 2, 2016

http://www.imf.org/external/np/seminars/eng/dgi/

 

 

CAPITAL FLOWS AND GLOBAL LIQUIDITY

IMF Note for G20 IFA WG

February 2016

 

Click to access P020160811536051676178.pdf

 

 

Introduction to Balance of Payments and International Investment Position Manual, 6th Edition and BPM6 Compilation Guide

Click to access Link3_766_105.pdf

 

 

Introduction: ‘cranks’ and ‘brave heretics’: rethinking money and banking after the Great Financial Crisis

Geoffrey Ingham Ken Coutts Sue Konzelmann

Camb J Econ (2016) 40 (5): 1247-1257.

 

 

Network Analysis of Sectoral Accounts: Identifying Sectoral Interlinkages in G-4 Economies

by Luiza Antoun de Almeida

2016

Click to access wp15111.pdf

 

 

2014 TRIENNIAL SURVEILLANCE REVIEW—EXTERNAL STUDY—RISKS AND SPILLOVERS

Prepared By David Daokui Li and Paul Tucker

 

Click to access 073014e.pdf

Click to access 14-10.pdf

 

 

 

2014 TRIENNIAL SURVEILLANCE REVIEW—OVERVIEW PAPER

 

Click to access 073014.pdf

http://www.imf.org/external/np/spr/triennial/2014/

 

 

Measuring Global Flow of Funds and Integrating Real and Financial Accounts: Concepts, Data Sources and Approaches

Nan Zhang (Stanford University)

2015

Click to access zhang.pdf

 

 

Cross-border financial linkages: Identifying and measuring vulnerabilities

 

Philip R. Lane

2014

 

Click to access PolicyInsight77.pdf

 

 

Global Flow of Funds: Mapping Bilateral Geographic Flows

Authors1: Luca Errico, Richard Walton, Alicia Hierro, Hanan AbuShanab, Goran Amidzic

 

2013

Click to access STS083-P1-S.pdf

 

Global-Flow-of-Funds Analysis in a Theoretical Model -What Happened in China’s External Flow of Funds –

 

Nan Zhang

 

Click to access 08GFOF.pdf

 

 

Mapping the Shadow Banking System through a Global Flow of Funds Analysis

Hyun Song Shin

Princeton University

Click to access Hyun-Song-Shin2.pdf

 

 

The Composition of the Global Flow of Funds in East Asia

 

Nan Zhang

 

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.534.757&rep=rep1&type=pdf

 

 

What Has Capital Flow Liberalization Meant for Economic and Financial Statistics?

Robert Heath

2015

Click to access 41aac8864e53b6176f7b3b7df22aba05ac0e.pdf

 

 

Global flows in a digital age: How trade, finance, people, and data connect the world economy

McKinsey & Company Report

2014

 

 

Managing global finance as a system

Speech given by

Andrew G Haldane, Chief Economist, Bank of England

At the Maxwell Fry Annual Global Finance Lecture, Birmingham University 29 October 2014

Click to access speech772.pdf