Abstract

In response to the recent crises, many institutions have initiated or intensified work on developing macroprudential indicators and macroprudential analysis capabilities. A selection of these efforts is summarized in this section. The statistical frameworks that are in place in some of the institutions are discussed in Appendix I.

In response to the recent crises, many institutions have initiated or intensified work on developing macroprudential indicators and macroprudential analysis capabilities. A selection of these efforts is summarized in this section. The statistical frameworks that are in place in some of the institutions are discussed in Appendix I.

International and Multilateral Institutions

European Central Bank

Upon the request of the European Central Bank (ECB) Banking Supervision Committee (BSC), the ECB’s Working Group on Financial Fragility has carried out preliminary work on MPIs. This working group separated potential indicators into three categories: (1) systemic indicators of the health of the banking system, (2) macroeconomic factors that influence the banking system, and (3) contagion factors. With regard to the first category, it proposed the monitoring of the following variables: lending behavior, competitive conditions, liquidity situation, exposure concentrations, asset quality, profitability, capital buffers, and market assessments. The macroeconomic indicators suggested as factors that influence the banking system were income development, leverage (financial fragility), debt burden, asset prices, monetary conditions, and the external position.51

The BSC has recently established the Working Group on Macroprudential Analysis. The mandate of the working group is to develop a framework for macroprudential analysis following the approaches of several Scandinavian countries (explained below). Based on this framework, the group is to draft a report on European Union (EU)-wide MPIs that would serve as a basis for BSC discussion of the soundness and characteristics of the EU banking systems. The framework would draw on economic statistics as well as supervisory insights. Currently there are no plans to make the results of the exercise public. The BSC also operates the Cooperative Forum on Early Warning Systems, with voluntary participation by interested EU member states. Even though these projects are facilitated by the relatively high degree of harmonization of standards within the EU, comparability of indicators among member states is complicated by, among other factors, remaining differences in accounting and provisioning norms.

World Bank

The World Bank has been conducting Financial Sector Assessments (FSAs) for a number of countries where it is involved in financial sector work and where financial sector issues are considered particularly relevant to the World Bank’s lending decisions. These assessments are focused on both stability and developmental aspects of the financial sector and contain an analysis of a range of MPIs, both macro-economic indicators as well as banking indicators. The latter are drawn primarily from public data (published accounts). In order to avoid overlap and duplication of work in this area, the IMF and the World Bank have recently established a joint framework for comprehensive assessments of financial sectors, the FSAP.52

In addition to the more qualitative FSAs, the Country Credit Risk Department of the World Bank uses various risk-rating models in order to determine the likelihood of default of its borrowers. These models include a checklist model that is more complex but otherwise very similar to the ones used by rating agencies and investment banks. The main areas covered by this model are (I) structural and macroeconomic indicators of economic performance and external vulnerability, (2) external debt and its sustainabilily, (3) political risk and policy performance, and (4) World Bank exposure and history of debt service to the Bank.

The Country Credit Risk Department is also the secretarial of the Short-Term Risk Monitoring Group of the World Bank. This group is responsible for assessing and monitoring countries that are vulnerable to political, economic, or financial crises in the near term. The group reports to the senior management of the World Bank on both vulnerable countries and trends in the global economy and financial markets on a monthly basis. A country’s vulnerability to domestic or exogenous shocks is assessed using macroeconomic and policy performance indicators (including indices developed by some of the World Bank’s regional departments), financial market indicators, and qualitative assessments provided by operational and central units, including financial sector specialists. As the secretarial of the group, the Country Credit Risk Department is also responsible for assisting operational units in preparing contingency plans for countries that are considered highly vulnerable. These contingency plans are intended to ensure a broad understanding of the situation in the country concerned and to facilitate a discussion by senior management of the World Bank’s response.

G–7 and G–10 Initiatives

The G–7 endorsed, in February 1999, a proposal by Hans Tietmeyer, former president of the Bundesbank, to establish the Financial Stability Forum (FSF). The forum comprises representatives from the G–7 countries plus Australia, Hong Kong SAR, the Netherlands, Singapore, the IMF, the World Bank, the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), the OECD, the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO), the International Association of Insurance Supervisors (IAIS), the Committee on Payment and Settlement Systems (CPSS), and the Committee on the Global Financial System (CGFS). Part of the mandate of the FSF is to strengthen the monitoring and assessment of systemic vulnerabilities. The FSF has established three working groups dealing with highly leveraged institutions, capital flows, and offshore financial centers, respectively. In addition, a task force on implementation of standards and study groups on deposit insurance and insurance issues have been set up. A study paper on Internet and electronic trading in financial markets has also been commissioned. It appears that the FSF will primarily focus on specific areas of systemic vulnerability of the financial system and not on the continuous monitoring of large sets of indicators.

The CGFS has a mandate from the governors of the central banks of the G–10 member countries. It acts as a central bank forum for the monitoring and examination of broad issues relating to financial markets and systems with a view to elaborating appropriate policy recommendations to support the central banks in the fulfillment of their responsibilities for monetary and financial stability. The tasks performed by the CGFS fall into three categories: systematic short-term monitoring of global financial system conditions, so as to identify potential sources of stress; in-depth, longer-term analysis of the functioning of financial markets; and the articulation of policy recommendations aimed at improving market functioning and promoting stability. The mandate recognizes that the causes of financial instability can arise from both the behavior of markets and the complex interrelationships that exist between institutions, markets, infrastructures, and macroeconomic policy.

Non-G–10 central banks now routinely attend meetings of the CGFS and participate in its working groups. In recent public reports, the committee has focused on the nature and use of information available for banks’ country risk assessments; it has identified general principles and more specific policy recommendations for the promotion of liquid government securities markets; and it has examined the events surrounding the financial turbulence in many international markets in autumn 1998.53 One of its working groups has formulated a set of public disclosure guidelines to provide a meaningful basis for comparing levels and types of risk across institutions and across countries. This work, in turn, has been incorporated in a multidisciplinary effort comprising representatives from the banking, securities, and insurance regulators. A pilot effort involving private sector firms is to be conducted.

The G–10 Working Party on Financial Stability in Emerging Market Economies published a report on financial stability in emerging markets in April 1997. This report identifies both macroeconomic sources of vulnerability (instability, inflation, liberalization, and failures in the design of macroeconomic policy instruments), as well as sector-specific sources of vulnerability (corporate governance and management, market infrastructure and discipline, and supervision and regulation). The report also contains a list of indicators of robust financial systems. These indicators are categorized under the following six groupings: (1) legal and judicial framework; (2) accounting, disclosure, and transparency; (3) Stakeholder oversight and institutional governance; (4) market structure; (5) supervisory and regulatory authority; and (6) design of a safety net. Under these categories, the report lists areas of importance, but not specific indicators. The areas mentioned are broadly equivalent to those identified by other institutions, including the IMF.

National Central Banks and Supervisory Agencies

Until recently, relatively few countries paid in-depth attention to macroprudential analysis at the national level, although national central banks and supervisory agencies in many countries have long monitored and reported on issues relating to financial system stability. While much of this work has a macroprudential aspect, it is not necessarily carried out with a formal framework for using MPIs to assess financial system soundness.54 The complex nature of the analysis and the need for high-quality data on individual banks, collected and stored in a manner conducive to aggregation and analysis, has meant that much of the existing MPI-related work has been carried out relatively recently and mainly, but not exclusively, in the industrial countries. Within this group, the most developed approaches tend to be those by countries that have had a major financial sector crisis in recent years. Work is, however, currently under way in a number of countries to develop macroprudential data collection and analysis frameworks.

Following is a selective country-by-country summary of work that has been carried out, both with a specific focus on identifying MPIs, and with other focuses that may, nevertheless, provide a guide to possible MPIs. Table 3 gives a comparative listing of indicators used in a few selected countries. The listing is certainly not comprehensive—neither with respect to the countries nor the indicators being used. Rather, our intent is to provide a sketch of the different types of approaches and key indicators.

Table 3.

Comparative Listing of Indicators Used by Selected Country Authorities

article image

Variables used to forecast bank profitability

includes separate analysis of savings banks and securities markets

The output from the Uniform Bank Surveillance System (UBSS) is inputted to the FIMS. The U8SS ranks institutions’ financial ratios relative to those of their peer groups, so as to identify which institutions are performing relatively poorly.

These variables have been tested to see if they improve model performance.

Volatile liabilities are defined as the sum of: time deposits of $100,000 or morel deposits in foreign offices: federal funds purchase and repurchase agreements; demand notes issued to the U.S. Treasury; and other liabilities for borrowed money.

As a general observation, to the extent that specific MPIs are identified for a given country, they tend to be aggregated microprudential indicators rather than macroeconomic indicators. This may reflect the fact that while it is generally possible to identify the ex post macroeconomic variables that have contributed to systemic problems, it is difficult, ex ante, to predict the macroeconomic developments that may trigger problems, or their precise timing. Nonetheless, it is clear that macroeconomic indicators play a central role in almost all macroprudential analysis frameworks. As a further observation, while the indicators monitored in different countries are broadly similar, where differences do arise they often reflect country-specific characteristics of past financial sector problems.

China

As with many other countries, the Chinese authorities are in the early stages of building a framework for macroprudential analysis. A range of indicators to be collected and monitored has been identified. Macroeconomic variables include GDP, inflation, monetary aggregates, the current account balance, external debt, international reserves, and the exchange rate. Aggregated microprudential indicators, building on the off-site supervision of commercial banks, include indicators of general performance (trends in total assets, loans, and deposits); safety indicators (capital adequacy, asset quality, and credit concentration); liquidity indicators (liquidity of assets, excess reserves, and liquidity of domestic and foreign currency liabilities); earnings indicators (return on equity and assets); and overall control indicators (loan to deposit ratios, proportion of interbank financing, and proportion of offshore financing).

The People’s Bank of China is currently working to further develop a framework for collecting and analyzing MPIs. The ongoing transition to a market economy means that parts of the financial infrastructure—such as accounting and auditing practices—are still being developed. In addition, prudential data quality may vary across different regions of the country. Improvements are under way in the area of regulation and supervision of financial institutions, including upgrading loan classification standards, and strengthening the supervisory capabilities of the central bank, which will enhance the quality of macroprudential analyses.

Finland

The Bank of Finland is one of the few central banks to have a framework for forecasting banking sector developments. In addition, the Bank of Finland is actively participating in the work being undertaken by the ECB in developing a system of MPIs. The banking forecast framework was developed in the wake of Finland’s banking sector crisis in the early 1990s, with a view to assisting in its resolution by analyzing likely developments in the banking sector. The framework produces a forecast of trends in banking system profitability over about a two-year time span. While the framework can highlight areas of vulnerability in the banking system through the impact on profits, it is not focused on identifying specific vulnerabilities. Potential vulnerabilities, however, are taken into consideration in the sensitivity analyses.

The framework is formally linked to the Bank of Finland’s macro forecasting model of the Finnish economy. As such, it incorporates a number of macroeconomic variables (for example, GDP growth and interest rates) as inputs to forecast the components of gross income, while the outputs of the framework (bank profitability, and bank lending and deposit interest rates) are inputs to the model. There is thus a feedback relationship between the framework and the macro model, requiring iterations between the two forecast procedures. Data inputs to the framework are used to develop forecasts of the various components of the banking system’s gross income and expenses, which are then aggregated to produce an estimated trend in banking sector profitability over the forecast time frame.

Norway

Norges Bank has produced reports on the situation and outlook for the financial sector since 1995.55 The work includes both analyses of developments in financial institutions, primarily in the banking sector, and the relationship between macroeconomic and financial sector developments. Analyses of the financial position of households and enterprises are important elements of this framework. The reports are for the internal use of the financial sector authorities and are not published. Norges Bank has published excerpts, however, in the second and fourth editions of each year’s quarterly Economic Bulletin since 1997. In keeping with the summary approach being taken, the published reports are relatively qualitative, with overall assessments of financial health rather than a focus on critical values of specific indicators.

The approach taken is to generate an initial assessment of the trends in macroeconomic variables that are of relevance to the financial sector and, in particular, to the earnings of financial institutions. These variables include economic growth, interest rates, credit growth, and sectoral debt levels. Following this analysis, a range of individual indicators of the financial health of the banking system are incorporated in the assessment (e.g., capital adequacy ratios, credit growth rates, trends in overdue loans, interest rate trends, and trends in operating costs). Specific attention is paid to the banks’ exposures to the real estate market. Given that past experience has shown that enterprise sector loans have been a major source of bank losses, attention is also paid to the exposure of banks to the enterprise sector, as well as to the ability of firms in that sector to cope with an unexpected deterioration in their financial condition and to stay current with their debt servicing. A similar sectoral analysis is conducted of the financial condition of the household sector. The analysis also covers recent trends in aggregate bank profits, including the components of earnings and expenses, and other balance sheet items. The objective is to identify trends, as well as to explain them. Finally, attention is paid to the risks arising from financial institutions’ exposure to the securities markets.

Sweden

The Swedish approach to assessing banking system health is similar to the one followed in Norway. It is somewhat more formalized but does not follow a model approach as in the case of Finland. The assessments are carried out by the Sveriges Riksbank in the context of its responsibility to promote a safe and efficient payment system, as set out in the Riksbank Act. Given the integration of the payment system with the financial system as a whole, the Riksbank’s surveillance of payment system developments encompasses systemic issues relating to banking system stability. The Riksbank’s surveillance is directed toward systems and markets and, therefore, complements the supervision of the banking system by the Swedish Financial Supervision Authority, which is primarily aimed at individual institutions.

Since 1997, the Riksbank has been publishing reviews of the banking system on a semiannual basis.56 The approach clearly starts with the payment system. It focuses on aggregated risks, rather than bank-specific issues, A major objective of the reports is to raise the financial sector’s awareness of vulnerability issues. The method is to assess risks to aggregate banking sector profits based on information from the markets, on a sector-by-sector basis. The assessments are carried out by looking at three categories of risk that affect banks’ abilities to generate profits: (1) strategic risks, or factors affecting profit generation over the longer term; (2) credit risks, or risks to profits over the medium term; and (3) counterparty and settlement risks, or risks that affect profits over short and very short terms.

A list of the variables that are examined in the Swedish approach is presented in Table 3. The list is indicative, partly because the approach incorporates a large number of variables, and partly because some aspects of the analysis are qualitative—for instance, the speed of deregulation, the degree of competition in the banking sector, and assessments of key risk management features—and, therefore, do not lend themselves to inclusion in a listing of quantitative indicators. The macroeconomic variables that are reviewed include the growth rate of aggregate lending, the rate of change in inflation, changes in inflation expectations, and the level of real interest rates. Several banking sector variables are also reviewed, including profits, the degree of disintermediation, bankruptcies, loan performance by sector, and debt-servicing capabilities by sector.

United Kingdom

Under a 1997 Memorandum of Understanding between the United Kingdom Treasury, the Bank of England, and the Financial Services Authority, the Bank of England is responsible for the stability of the financial system as a whole.57 A Standing Committee of the Treasury, the Bank of England, and the Financial Services Authority meets monthly to discuss developments relevant to financial stability. One of the tasks that the Bank of England undertakes to discharge its responsibility is the surveillance of financial stability conditions, including the assessment of actual or potential shocks, and of the system’s capacity to absorb shocks. The Financial Stability Area of the Bank of England undertakes a monthly assessment of financial stability and produces a variety of more narrowly focused notes. A more thorough review of the financial stability conjuncture and outlook is undertaken every six months and a version is published in the Bank of England’s Financial Stability Review.58 The review also includes articles relating to the assessment of risks to financial stability. While the monthly assessments are used to inform some other public documents, the assessments themselves are not published.

Rather than use complex models, the Bank of England’s approach is to review a range of information from the United Kingdom, industrial economies, and emerging market economies and try to identify key developments, vulnerabilities, and risks that could affect financial stability. While the Bank of England is exploring the use of aggregated microprudential data covering groups of institutions in this work, and financial market data naturally play a key role, macroeconomic indicators are also regarded as important for financial-stability analysis (e.g., saving-investment balances and external balance sheets).

There are some problems with compiling aggregated microprudential data, as the existing data reporting systems were designed to support the supervision of individual institutions rather than surveillance of the system as a whole. Work is being undertaken by the Bank of England, together with the Financial Services Authority, to address this issue so that, for example, better analysis of peer groups of banks can be carried out. In addition to its work in this area, the Bank of England is seeking to develop its use of MPIs. This work includes identifying MPIs that might be useful in general, rather than specifically for the United Kingdom, and reviewing general issues relating to macroprudential surveillance.59

United States

The three institutions that have responsibility for different aspects of banking supervision—the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the Federal Reserve, and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC)—have, over time, developed similar models and indicators aimed at assessing the overall health of individual banks based on summary data submitted by the banks as part of their off-site supervision exercises. Aggregating the information for individual banks can provide assessments of the health of significant components of the financial system. Work has also been carried out, for example, by the Federal Reserve, to identify macroeconomic variables that could be incorporated in predictive frameworks. While individual variables have been found to be significant within sample, none have significantly improved out-of-sample predictive power.

In general, the variables used in the assessments of the future health of individual banks by the supervisory institutions in the United States are proxies for the various factors taken into account when performing a full ex post CAMELS rating. These variables for an individual bank may be useful as MPIs when one or more banks individually are sufficiently large to have systemic implications. At an aggregated level for the banking system, the variables that have been found to be significant in assessing the current health of a bank may be used as MPIs. As an example, the variables used by the Federal Reserve in its Financial Institutions Monitoring System (FIMS) exercise to assess the current health of a bank are included in Table 3 (see page 21).60

As an extension of the assessments of current health of individual banks, the U.S. supervisory agencies have also worked on models for assessing the current riskiness of banks that can generate probabilities of future failure. To the extent that these models perform successfully, they can be used to focus scarce on-site supervision resources on those banks judged to be at the highest risk, and to take early steps to reduce those risks. Again, the variables used could be useful as MPIs. As an example of the MPIs that might be derived from this approach, the variables used by the FDIC in its Growth Management System (GMS) to assess probabilities of future bank failures are also provided in Table 3,61 Some of the variables that are being examined for possible future inclusion in the FDIC model are included in this table as well.

The computerized statistical system that supports the work of the three agencies permits joint collection of income, operating activity, and balance sheet data for individual banks, which are roughly disaggregated into national and worldwide components. The system generates statistics for a variety of purposes by each agency, such as supporting the supervision of individual institutions, econometric research, and aggregation into macroeconomic statistics. The data are regularly used for multivariate cross-section or time-series analyses of income or balance sheet items. Also, the data are aggregated by the Federal Reserve into the sectoral balance sheets used in the flow of funds and the national accounts. Thus, it is a fully integrated system that permits supervisory, statistical, and econometric analysis of microdata, sectoral structural data, and macroeconomic data.

Indicators Used by Investors and Rating Agencies

Private investors such as banks, securities firms, and investment funds use various indicators to evaluate the vulnerability of financial systems. The primary purpose is to determine the creditworthiness of borrowers and issuers that have significant exposure to a particular financial system.62 Such analysis is generally based on three kinds of indicators:

  • Indicators- published by official sources—the government and central bank, as well as international financial institutions, such as the IMF, the World Bank, and the BIS.

  • In-house analyses of vulnerability of financial systems. This type of analysis, which some financial institutions conduct, is often based on well-established indicators such as CAMELS ratings, rather than on comprehensive macroprudential models. Main sources for the indicators are IMF or World Bank publications. Indicators of the vulnerability of individual borrowers and issuers—an area where financial institutions do have a comparative advantage through their business relationship—are considered proprietary information and are usually not publicly available.

  • Creditworthiness ratings by credit rating agencies. Most investors still regard ratings as the best available indicators of vulnerability, even though the limitations of ratings are well recognized.

For most investors, credit rating agencies are the primary source of information on the creditworthiness of individual financial institutions (issuer and debt ratings), and on the creditworthiness of the government (sovereign risk ratings). Both ratings taken together can serve as an indicator of market perceptions of the vulnerability of a country’s financial system.

For sovereign ratings, the most commonly used indicators are recent economic performance, the quality of economic and financial management, the depth and sophistication of markets, the stability of economic policy, the stability and effectiveness of the political system, and long-term trends and expected future performance. Particular emphasis is often given to the quality of economic management, the stability of policy, and the depth and sophistication of local markets. Some agencies use methodologies geared more toward macroeconomic indicators such as income and economic structure, economic growth prospects, fiscal flexibility, public debt burden, price stability, balance of payments flexibility, and external debt and liquidity, as well as political risk. Recent studies have found that creditworthiness ratings appear to be determined primarily by economic events, rather than political variables. Moreover, following the Asian crisis, rating agencies are placing greater emphasis on factors such as external debt and liquidity, banking soundness, and corporate leverage.63

For bank ratings, indicators include quantitative factors such as asset quality, capital adequacy, profitability and liquidity, as well as qualitative factors such as environment, business franchise values, management quality, hidden strengths and reserves, and hidden weaknesses and overvalued assets.64 In addition to publishing issuer ratings, rating agencies also compile ratings of particular debt issues. In the case of bank debt issues, their usefulness as an MPI may be limited by the fact that these ratings usually incorporate an evaluation of the likelihood of government support.65 Therefore, in addition to those traditional ratings, some agencies have developed ratings that are designed to indicate financial strength on a stand-alone basis.66 Such ratings reflect the probability that outside assistance will be needed, but not the probability that it will be provided. In practice, financial strength ratings primarily look at bank-specific elements such as financial fundamentals, franchise value, and business and asset diversification, but also take into account the bank’s operating environment, including the strength and prospective performance of the economy, as well as the structure and relative fragility of the financial system, and the quality of banking regulation and supervision.

Cited By

  • Akerlof, George A., 1970,The Market for ‘Lemons’: Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism,Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 84 (August), pp. 488 –500.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Altman, Edward I., 1968,Financial Ratios, Discriminant Analysis and the Prediction of Corporate Bankruptcy,Journal of Finance, Vol. 23 (September), pp. 589 –609.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Baig, Taimur, and Ilan Goldfajn, 1999,Financial Market Contagion in the Asian Crisis,IMF Staff Papers, Vol. 46 (June), pp. 167 –195.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bank for International Settlements (BIS), Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS), 1988, International Convergence of Capital Measurement and Capital Standards (Basel).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bank for International Settlements (BIS), Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS), 1996, Amendment to the Capital Accord to Incorporate Market Risks (Basel).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bank for International Settlements (BIS), Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS), 1997, Principles for the Management of Interest Rate Risk (Basel).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bank for International Settlements (BIS), Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS), 1999a, A New Capital Adequacy Framework (Basel).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bank for International Settlements (BIS), Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS), 1999b,Capital Requirements and Bank Behaviour: The Impact of the Basel Accord,BCBS Working Paper No. 1 (Basel).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bank for International Settlements (BIS), Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS), 1999c,Supervisory Lessons to Be Drawn from the Asian Crisis,BCBS Working Paper No. 2 (Basel).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bank for International Settlements (BIS), Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS), and International Organization of Securities Commissions, Technical Committee (IOSCO), 1998, Supervisory Information Framework for Derivatives and Trading Activities (Basel).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bank for International Settlements, Committee on the Global Financial System, 1999, A Review of Financial Market Events in Autumn 1998 (Basel).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bank of England, 1999, Financial Stability Review, Issue 6 (London).

  • Berg, Andrew, and Catherine Pattillo, 1999,Are Currency Crises Predictable?: A Test,IMF Staff Papers, Vol. 46 (June), pp.107 –38.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bussière, Matthieu, and Christian Mulder, 1999,External Vulnerability in Emerging Market Economies: How High Liquidity Can Offset Weak Fundamentals and the Effects of Contagion,IMF Working Paper 99/88 (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Caprio, Gerald, and Daniela Klingebiel, 1996,Bank Insolvencies: Cross-Country Experience,Policy Research Working Paper No, 1620 (Washington: World Bank).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Cole, Rebel A., Barbara G. Cornyn, and Jeffrey W. Gunther, 1995,FIMS: A New Monitoring System for Banking Institutions,Federal Reserve Bulletin, Vol. 81 (January), pp. 1 –15,

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Corsetti, Giancarlo, Paolo Pesenti, and Nouriel Roubini, 1998,What Caused the Asian Currency and Financial Crisis? Part II: The Policy Debate,NBER Working Paper No. 6834 (Cambridge, Massachusetts: National Bureau of Economic Research).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Davis, E. Philip, 1996,Institutional Investors, Unstable Financial Markets and Monetary Policy,in Risk Management in Volatile Financial Markets, ed. by Franco Bruni, Donald E. Fair, and Richard O’Brien (Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Davis, E. Philip, 1999, Financial Data Needs far Macroprudential Surveillance—What Are the Key Indicators of Risks to Domestic Financial Stability?, Handbooks in Central Banking, Lecture Series No. 2, Center for Central Banking Studies (London: Bank of England).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Davis, E. Philip, Robert Hamilton, Robert Heath, Fiona Mackie, and Aditya Narain, 1999, Financial Market Data for International Financial Stability, Center for Central Banking Studies (London: Bank of England).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Demirgüç-Kunt, Asli, and Enrica Detragiache, 1998,The Determinants of Banking Crises in Developing and Developed Countries,IMF Staff Papers, Vol. 45 (March), pp. 81 –109.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Demirgüç-Kunt, Asli, and Enrica Detragiache, 1999,Monitoring Banking Sector Fragility: A Multivariate Logit Approach with an Application to the 1996–97 Banking Crisis,Policy Research Working Paper No. 2085 (Washington: World Bank).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Diamond, Douglas W., and Philip H. Dybvig, 1983,Bank Runs, Deposit Insurance, and Liquidity,Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 91 (June), pp. 401 –19.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Dimson, Elroy, and Paul Marsh, 1997,Stress Tests of Capital Requirements,Journal of Ranking and Finance, Vol. 21 (December), pp. 1515 –46.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Dornbusch, Rudiger, llan Goldfajn, and Rodrigo O. Valdés, 1995,Currency Crises and Collapses,Brookings Papers on Economic Activity: Macroeconomics 2, Brookings Institution, pp. 219 –94.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Downes, Patrick T., David Marston, and Ínci Ötker, 1999,Mapping Financial Sector Vulnerability in a Non-Crisis Country,IMF Policy Discussion Paper 99/4 (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Ediz, Tolga, Ian Michael, and William Perraudin, 1998,The Impact of Capital Requirements on U.K. Bank Behavior,Economic Policy Review, Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Vol. 4 (October), pp. 15 –22 (London: Bank of England).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Eichengreen, Barry, and Andrew K. Rose, 1998,Staying Afloat When the Wind Shifts: External Factors and Emerging-Market Banking Crises,NBER Working Paper No, 6370 (Cambridge, Massachusetts: National Bureau of Economic Research),

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Esquivel, Gerardo, and Felipe B. Larraín, 1998,Explaining Currency Crises,Harvard Institute for International Development, Development Discussion Paper No. 666 (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 1997, History of the Eighties: Lessons for the Future (Washington).

  • Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, 1997, Maintaining Financial Stability in a Global Economy: A Symposium (Kansas City).

  • Fisher, Irving, 1933,The Debt-Deflation Theory of Great Depressions,Econometrica, Vol. 1 (October), pp. 337 –57.

  • Fitch IBCA, 1998, International Bank Rating Methodology, October 1, 1998 (New York).

  • Folkerts-Landau, David, and Carl-Johan Lindgren, 1998, Toward a Framework for Financial Stability, World Economic and Financial Surveys (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Frankel, Jeffrey A., and Andrew K. Rose, 1996,Currency Crashes in Emerging Markets: An Empirical Treatment,Journal of International Economics, Vol. 41 (November), pp. 351 –66.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Fratzscher, Marcel, 1998,Why Are Currency Crises Contagious? A Comparison of the Latin American Crisis of 1994–1995 and the Asian Crisis of 1997–1998,Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv, Vol. 134, No. 4. pp. 664 –91.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Furman, Jason, and Joseph E. Stiglitz, 1998,Economic Crises: Evidence and Insights from East Asia,Brookings Papers on Economic Activity: Macroeconomics 2, Brookings Institution, pp. 1 –135.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Gavin, Michael, and Ricardo Hausmann, 1996,The Roots of Banking Crises: The Macroeeonomic Context,Inter-American Development Bank Working Paper No. 318 (Washington: Inter-American Development Bank).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Glick, Reuven, Andrew Rose, 1998,Contagion and Trade: Why Are Currency Crises Regional?NBER Working Paper No. 6806 (Cambridge, Massachusetts: National Bureau of Economic Research).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Goldstein, Morris, and Philip Turner, 1996, Banking Crises in Emerging Economies: Origins and Policy Options, BIS Economic Paper No. 46 (Basel: Bank for International Settlements).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • González-Hermosillo, Brenda, 1999,Determinants of Ex-Ante Banking System Distress: A Macro-Micro Empirical Exploration of Some Recent Episodes,IMF Working Paper 99/33 (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • González-Hermosillo, Brenda, Ceyla Pazarbaşioğlu, and Robert Billings, 1997,Determinants of Banking System Fragility: A Case Study of Mexico,Staff Papers, International Monetary Fund, Vol. 44 (September), pp. 295 –314.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Goodhart, Charles, 1995,Price Stability and Financial Fragility,in Financial Stability in a Changing Environment, ed. by Kuniho Sawamoto, Zenta Nakajima and Hiroo Taguchi (New York: St Martin’s Press).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Guttentag, Jack, and Richard Herring, 1984,Credit Rationing and Financial Disorder,Journal of Finance. Vol. 39 (December), pp. 1359 –82.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Haque, Nadeem Ul, Nelson C. Mark, and Donald J. Mathieson, 1998,The Relative Importance of Political and Economic Variables in Creditworthiness Ratings,IMF Working Paper 98/46 (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hardy, Daniel C., and Ceyla Pazarbaşioğlu, 1998,Leading Indicators of Banking Crises: Was Asia Different?,IMF Working Paper 98/91 (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hendricks, Darryll, 1996,Evaluation of Value-at-Risk Models Using Historical Data,Economic Policy Review, Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Vol. 2 (April), pp. 39 –69.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hilbers, Paul, Russell Krueger, and Marina Moretti, 1999,Macroprudenlial Indicators—Seminar Discusses Ways to Assess Soundness of Financial System to Improve Surveillance,IMF Survey, Vol. 28. No. 18, pp. 296 –97.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Honohan, Patrick, 1997,Banking System Failures in Developing and Transition Countries: Diagnosis and Prediction,BIS Working Paper No. 39 (Basel: Bank for International Settlements).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • International Monetary Fund, 1998, World Economic Outlook: May 1998, World Economic and Financial Surveys (Washington).

  • International Monetary Fund, 1999a,Communiqué of the Interim Committee of the Board of Governors of the International Monetary Fund,PR/99/46, September 26, 1999.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • International Monetary Fund, 1999b, World Economic Outlook: May 1999, World Economic and Financial Surveys (Washington).

  • International Monetary Fund, 1999c, International Capital Markets: Developments, Prospects, and Key Policy Issues, World Economic and Financial Surveys (Washington).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • International Monetary Fund, 1999d,Data Template on International Reserves and Foreign Currency Liquidity: Operational Guidelines,IMF Statistics Department. Available via the Internet: http://dsbb.imf.org/guide.htm.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Inter-Secretariat Working Group on National Accounts, 1993, System of National Accounts 1993. Prepared under the auspices of the Commission of the European Communities—Eurostat, IMF, OECD, United Nations, and World Bank (Brussels: Commission of the European Communities).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kaminsky, Graciela, 1999,Currency and Banking Crises: The Early Warnings of Distress,IMF Working Paper 99/178 (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kaminsky, Graciela, Saul Lizondo, and Carmen Reinhart, 1998,Leading Indicators of Currency Crises,IMF Staff Papers. Vol. 45 (March), pp. 1 –48.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kaminsky, Graciela, and Carmen Reinhart, 1998,On Crises, Contagion, and Confusion,(unpublished; Washington: George Washington University).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kaminsky, Graciela, and Carmen Reinhart, 1999,The Twin Crises: The Causes of Banking and Balance-of-Payments Problems,American Economic Review, Vol. 89 (June) pp. 473 –500.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kawai, Masahiro, 1998,The East Asian Currency Crisis: Causes and Lessons,Contemporary Economic Policy. Vol. 16 (April), pp. 157 –72.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Keeley, Michael C., 1990,Deposit Insurance, Risk, and Market Power in Banking,American Economic Review, Vol. 80 (December), pp. 1183 –200.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kodres, Laura, and Matthew Pritsker, 1998,A Rational Expectations Model of Financial Contagion,Finance and Economics Discussion Series No. 1998–48 (Washington: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kwack, Sung, 1998,The Financial Crisis in Korea: Causes and Cure,IMF Seminar Series No. 1998–19 (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lane, William R., Stephen W. Looney, and James W. Wansley, 1986,An Application of the Cox Proportional Hazards Model to Bank Failure,Journal of Banking and Finance, Vol. 10 (December), pp. 511 –31.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lindgren, Carl-Johan, Gillian Garcia, and Matthew I. Saal, 1996, Bank Soundness and Macroeconomic Policy (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Mishkin, Frederic S., 1996,Understanding Financial Crises: A Developing Country Perspective,NBER Working Paper No. 5600 (Cambridge, Massachusetts: National Bureau of Economic Research).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Moody’s Investors Service, 1999, Bank Financial Strength Ratings (New York).

  • Norges Bank, 1998,Financial Sector Outlook: Second Half of 1998,Economic Bulletin, Vol. 69, Issue No.4 (Oslo).

  • Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 1999, Bank Profitability; Financial Statements of Banks 1999 (Paris).

  • Radelet, Steven, and Jeffrey D. Sachs, 1998,The East Asian Financial Crisis: Diagnosis, Remedies, Prospects,Brookings Papers on Economic Activity: Macroeconomic 1. Brookings Institution, pp. 1 –90,

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Rojas-Suárez, Liliana, and Steven R. Weisbrod, 1995, Financial Fragilities in Latin America: The 1980s and 1990s, IMF Occasional Paper No, 132 (Washington: international Monetary Fund).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Sachs, Jeffrey D., Aaron Tornell, and Andrés Velasco, 1996,Financial Crises in Emerging Markets: The Lessons from 1995,Brookings Papers on Economic Activity: Macroeconomics 1, Brookings Institution, pp. 147 –215.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Scharfstein, David S., and Jeremy C. Stein, 1990,Herd Behavior and InvestmentAmerican Economic Review, Vol. 80 (June), pp. 465 –79.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Sinkey, Joseph F., 1978,Identifying ‘Problem’ Banks: How Do the Banking Authorities Measure a Bank’s Risk Exposure?Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking, Vol. 10 (May), pp. 184 –93.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Standard & Poor’s, 1999, Bank Rating Analysis Methodology Profile, February (New York).

  • Sveriges Riksbank, 1999, Financial Stability Report, May (Stockholm).

  • Thomson Financial BankWatch, 1999, BankWatch Ratings—Characteristics and Methodology (New York).

  • Thomson, James B., 1991,Predicting Bank Failures in the 1980s,Economic Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 9 –20.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • United States, Department of the Treasury, 1999,Statement of G-7 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors,LS-120, September 25, 1999.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Whalen, Gary, 1991,A Proportional Hazards Model of Bank Failure: An Examination of Its Usefulness as an Early Warning Tool,Economic Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 21 –31.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation