International Monetary Fund. Independent Evaluation Office
1. Social protection has become a central concern in the global policy discourse. The global crisis in 2008 triggered job losses and financial turmoil, prompting the Group of Twenty (G-20) to call for actions to “mitigate the social impact,” particularly on the poorest and most vulnerable (G-20, 2009). Attention to social protection has also been raised by recurrent commodity price shocks; by concerns about rising inequality and the implications of increasing trade openness and new technologies for displaced workers and their families; by long-running demographic trends such as aging populations; and by regional social and political stresses such as the “Arab Spring” that brought attention to the need for “inclusive growth.” In 2011, G-20 member countries recognized the importance of “social protection floors”—i.e., nationally-defined guarantees ensuring that all in need have access to essential healthcare and basic income security—and urged international organizations to enhance cooperation on the social impact of economic policies (G-20, 2011). In 2015, world leaders adopted the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), pledging to achieve, by 2030, “nationally appropriate social protection systems and measures for all,” among other things (UN, 2015).
1.1 This 2019 Financial Soundness Indicators Compilation Guide (Guide) provides guidance on the concepts and definitions, data sources and methods for the compilation and dissemination of financial soundness indicators (FSIs). (Table 1.1 contains the set of core and additional FSIs.)
11.1 This chapter provides practical guidance on strategic and management considerations about the compilation of FSIs and dissemination practices, which can be adapted to meet specific country circumstances.
12.1 Financial soundness indicators for a sector may hide variations that could endanger the entire financial system. For example, the sector-wide capital-asset ratio for deposit takers is an average ratio for the system, but it does not reveal whether individual institutions’ capital ratios are clustered around the average value or are spread over a wide range. Moreover, data for highly capitalized deposit takers could offset the data for undercapitalized deposit takers, such that the aggregate ratio may appear robust while masking significant vulnerabilities from weak deposit takers whose failure could lead to contagion throughout the system. For this reason, FSIs need to be supplemented by concentration and distributions measures (CDMs).