The Institutional View (IV) on the Liberalization and Management of Capital Flows, adopted in 2012, provides the basis for consistent advice, and where relevant, assessments on policies related to capital flows. This paper reviews the IV, informed by advances in research, notably the work on an Integrated Policy Framework (IPF), the findings of the 2020 evaluation by the Independent Evaluation Office (IEO) on IMF Advice on Capital Flows, and staff’s experience with the implementation of the IV. The core premises and objectives of the IV remain unchanged. The IV rests on the premises that capital flows are desirable as they can bring substantial benefits for countries, and that capital flow management measures (CFMs) can be useful in certain circumstances but should not substitute for warranted macroeconomic adjustment. With those premises in mind, the IV aims to help countries reap the benefits of capital flows, while managing the associated risks in a way that preserves macroeconomic and financial stability and does not generate significant negative outward spillovers.

This note outlines the approach of the proposed revision to the Institutional View (IV) when assessing whether systemic financial stability risks are elevated due to foreign currency (FX) mismatches. The approach builds on the staff guidance regarding risk assessments in bilateral surveillance, while allowing for flexibility to draw on future advances in best practice. This note proposes a two-step approach to assess systemic risks from FX mismatches. This note is organized as follows. Section II outlines the sources of systemic risks stemming from FX debt and potential amplification channels. Section III outlines the risk assessment approach in practice and Section IV concludes.

This note provides guidance to facilitate the staff’s advice on macroprudential policy in Fund surveillance. It elaborates on the principles set out in the “Key Aspects of Macroprudential Policy,” taking into account the work of international standard setters as well as the evolving country experience with macroprudential policy. The main note is accompanied by supplements offering Detailed Guidance on Instruments and Considerations for Low Income Countries

This note guides policy advice on the use of foreign exchange intervention (FXI) as part of the Integrated Policy Framework (IPF) in Fund surveillance. The note provides general principles for the advice in countries with flexible exchange rates and sets out three use cases for FXI that are tied to specific frictions. It explores the use of FXI as part of an overall policy response, allowing the advice to differ with shocks, frictions, and country-specific circumstances.

Developing a systemic liquidity stress testing tool is challenging due to data constraints and hard-to-model behavioral factors. There has yet to be a uniformly accepted model partly because the nature of systemic liquidity risks differs significantly across countries. This paper offers a simple Excel-based tool to assess the high-level impact of aggregate liquidity stress on the whole economy and gauge its spillover across banks, non-bank financial institutions (NBFIs), and non-financial economic sectors. It primarily uses the balance sheet approach (BSA) data—a sector-aggregate matrix of financial exposure by counterpart—that have become increasingly available for various economies with all income levels. The results can identify systemically important financial linkages to be analyzed further and help calibrate macroprudential measures and a liquidity support framework. When liquidity stress stems from capital outflows, the tool can enrich policy discussion based on integrated policy framework (IPF) and international reserve adequacy perspectives.

Policymakers often face difficult tradeoffs in pursuing domestic and external stabilization objectives. The paper reflects staff’s work to advance the understanding of the policy options and tradeoffs available to policymakers in a systematic and analytical way. The paper recognizes that the optimal path of the IPF tools depends on structural characteristics and fiscal policies. The operational implications of IPF findings require careful consideration. Developing safeguards to minimize the risk of inappropriate use of IPF policies will be essential. Staff remains guided by the Fund’s Institutional View (IV) on the Liberalization and Management of Capital Flows.

Capital flows are an important aspect of the international monetary system. They provide significant benefits, both direct and indirect. At the same time, they also carry risks, and a key challenge for countries is how to harness the benefits while managing the risks. The institutional view on the liberalization and management of capital flows provides the Fund with a basis for consistent advice on policies related to capital flows. This paper reviews countries’ experiences with handling capital flows in the period since the adoption of the IMF’s institutional view in 2012. Based on the experience, it identifies a few areas in which the view would benefit from further clarification or elaboration.