You are looking at 1 - 10 of 52 items for :

  • Type: Journal Issue x
  • Public financial management (PFM) x
  • Financing Policy; Financial Risk and Risk Management; Capital and Ownership Structure; Value of Firms; Goodwill x
Clear All Modify Search
Sophia Chen and Do Lee
We provide broad-based evidence of a firm size premium of total factor productivity (TFP) growth in Europe after the Global Financial Crisis. The TFP growth of smaller firms was more adversely affected and diverged from their larger counterparts after the crisis. The impact was progressively larger for medium, small, and micro firms relative to large firms. It was also disproportionally larger for firms with limited credit market access. Moreover, smaller firms were less likely to have access to safer banks: those that were better capitalized banks and with a presence in the credit default swap market. Horseraces suggest that firm size may be a more important and robust vulnerability indicator than balance sheet characteristics. Our results imply that the tightening of credit market conditions during the crisis, coupled with limited credit market access especially among micro, small, and medium firms, may have contributed to the large and persistent drop in aggregate TFP.
Thilo Kroeger, Anh Thi Ngoc Nguyen, Yuanyan Sophia Zhang, Pham Dinh Thuy, Nguyen Huy Minh, and Duong Danh Tuan
The paper uses firm-level data to assess the financial health of the Vietnamese non-financial corporate sector on the eve of pandemic. Our analysis finds that smaller domestic firms were particularly vulnerable even by regional comparison. A sensitivity analysis suggests that the COVID-19 shock will have a substantial impact on firms’ profitability, liquidity and even solvency, particularly in the hardest hit sectors that are dominated by SMEs and account for a sizeable employment share, but large firms are not immune to the crisis. Risks of default can propagate more broadly through upstream and downstream linkages to industries not directly impacted, with stresses potentially translating into an increase in corporate bankruptcies and bank fragility. Policy measures taken in the immediate aftermath of the crisis have helped alleviate liquidity pressures, but the nature of policy support may have to pivot to support the recovery.
International Monetary Fund. Secretary's Department


The audited consolidated financial statements of the International Monetary Fund as of April 30, 2020 and 2019

International Monetary Fund. Monetary and Capital Markets Department
The Norwegian financial system has a long history of incorporating new technology. Norway is at the forefront of digitization and has tight interdependencies within its financial system, making it particularly vulnerable to evolving cyber threats. Norway is increasingly a cashless society, with surveys and data collection suggesting that only 10 percent of point-of-sale and person-to-person transactions in 2019 were made using cash.1 Most payments made in Norway are digital (e.g., 475 card transactions per capita per annum)2 and there is an increase in new market entrants providing a broad range of services. Thus, good cybersecurity is a prerequisite for financial stability in Norway.
International Monetary Fund. Monetary and Capital Markets Department
COVID-19 pandemic: The Financial Sector Assessment Program (FSAP) work was conducted prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, so this Technical Note (TN) does not assess the impact of the crisis or the recent crisis-related policy measures. Nonetheless, given the FSAP’s focus on vulnerabilities and policy frameworks, the findings and recommendations of the TN remain pertinent. The Danish Financial Supervisory Authority (DFSA) has improved standards in its oversight of banking and insurance sectors since the last FSAP. Nevertheless, risks persist, both in traditional forms, and new areas, such as cyber risk, AML, and innovative market entrants. This note, selects topics to meet evolving supervisory challenges and the expectation that the international supervisory standards themselves will likewise continue to rise.
Rama Cont, Artur Kotlicki, and Ms. Laura Valderrama
The traditional approach to the stress testing of financial institutions focuses on capital adequacy and solvency. Liquidity stress tests have been applied in parallel to and independently from solvency stress tests, based on scenarios which may not be consistent with those used in solvency stress tests. We propose a structural framework for the joint stress testing of solvency and liquidity: our approach exploits the mechanisms underlying the solvency-liquidity nexus to derive relations between solvency shocks and liquidity shocks. These relations are then used to model liquidity and solvency risk in a coherent framework, involving external shocks to solvency and endogenous liquidity shocks arising from these solvency shocks. We define the concept of ‘Liquidity at Risk’, which quantifies the liquidity resources required for a financial institution facing a stress scenario. Finally, we show that the interaction of liquidity and solvency may lead to the amplification of equity losses due to funding costs which arise from liquidity needs. The approach described in this study provides in particular a clear methodology for quantifying the impact of economic shocks resulting from the ongoing COVID-19 crisis on the solvency and liquidity of financial institutions and may serve as a useful tool for calibrating policy responses.