You are looking at 1 - 4 of 4 items for :

  • Type: Journal Issue x
  • General Financial Markets: General (includes Measurement and Data) x
  • Investment & securities x
  • Monetary Policy x
  • Public Economics x
  • Financial and monetary sector x
  • International Economics x
  • Public Administration; Public Sector Accounting and Audits x
Clear All Modify Search
International Monetary Fund. Monetary and Capital Markets Department
The Financial Sector Assessment Program (FSAP) carried out a focused review of the non-banks in the United Kingdom and systemic liquidity. It reviewed five areas: (i) The overall NBFI system, its links to banks and the rest of the world; (ii) NBFI direct lending to the U.K. economy; (iii) Sterling investment funds (OEFs, AIFs, and MMFs); (iv) CCPs; and (v) Systemic liquidity. The NBFIs are defined as all non-deposit-taking corporations, listed in Figure 1, and with the following limited coverage: Pension Funds and Insurance Companies are covered to the extend they lend to the economy and interact with CCPs; Investment funds only to the extent of Sterling Funds; and broker-dealers only to the extent they interact with CCPs. Regulatory aspects of NBFIs are covered in a parallel Technical Note (TN).
International Monetary Fund. Statistics Dept.
At the request of the Central Bank of Uruguay (BCU), and with the support of the International Monetary Fund’s (IMF’s) Western Hemisphere Department (WHD), a monetary and financial statistics (MFS) technical assistance (TA) mission from the IMF’s Statistics Department (STA) visited Montevideo during February 3-14, 2020. The main objectives of the mission were to: (i) review available source data for other financial corporations (OFC); in particular, insurance corporations (IC), pension funds (PF), and credit administration companies (CAC); and (ii) compile standardized monetary statistics for OFC (report form SRF 4SR) in line with the 2016 Monetary and Financial Statistics Manual and Compilation Guide (MFSMCG). The officials met during the mission are listed in Appendix I.
Ms. Yevgeniya Korniyenko and Ms. Elena Loukoianova
The paper examines the impact of unconventional monetary policy measures (UMPMs) implemented since 2008 in the United States, the United Kingdom, Euro area and Japan— the Systemic Four—on global monetary and liquidity conditions. Overall, the results show positive significant relationships. However, there are differences in the impact of the UMPMs of individual S4 countries on these conditions in other countries. UMPMs of the Bank of Japan have positive association with global liquidity but negative association with securities issuance. The quantitative easing (QE) of the Bank of England has the opposite association. Results for the quantitative easing measures of the United States Federal Reserve System (U.S. Fed) and the ECB UMPMs are more mixed.
Kotaro Ishi, Mr. Kenji Fujita, and Mr. Mark R. Stone
What is the case for adding the unconventional balance sheet policies used by major central banks since 2007 to the standard policy toolkit? The record so far suggests that the new liquidity providing policies in support of financial stability generally warrant inclusion. As the balance sheet policies aimed at macroeconomic stability were used only by a small number of highly credible central banks facing a lower bound constraint on conventional interest rate policy, they are not relevant for most central banks or states of the world. Best practices of these policies are documented in this paper.