This paper presents a detailed account of the rich set of macroprudential measures taken in four Southeastern European countries—Bulgaria, Croatia, Romania, and Serbia—during their synchronized boom and bust cycles in 2003–12, and assesses their effectiveness. We find that only strong measures helped contain domestic credit growth, the share of foreigncurrency- denominated loans provided by the domestic banking sector, or the domestic banking sector’s reliance on foreign borrowing during the boom years. We also find that circumvention via direct external borrowing often fully offset the effectiveness of these strict measures, and thatmeasures taken during the bust had no discernible impact. We conclude that (i) proper calibration of macroprudential measures is of the essence; (ii) only strong, broad-based macroprudential measures can contain credit booms; (iii) econometric studies of macroprudential policy effectiveness should focus on measures rather than on instruments (i.e. classes of measures) and in so doing allow for possible non-linear and state-contingent effects.

Several countries in Central, Eastern and Southeastern Europe used a rich set of prudential instruments in response to last decade’s credit and housing boom and bust cycles. We collect detailed information on these policy measures in a comprehensive database covering 16 countries at a quarterly frequency. We use this database to investigate whether the policy measures had an impact on housing price inflation. Our evidence suggests that some—but not all—measures did have an impact. These measures were changes in the minimum CAR and non-standard liquidity measures (marginal reserve requirements on foreign funding, marginal reserve requirements linked to credit growth).

This thought-provoking book investigates the political and economic transformation that has taken place over the past three decades in Central, Eastern and Southeastern Europe (CESEE) since the fall of the Iron Curtain. Through an examination of both the successes and shortcomings of post communist reform and the challenges ahead for the region, it explores the topical issues of economic transition and integration, and highlights lessons to be learned.

The countercyclical capital buffer (CCB) was proposed by the Basel committee to increase the resilience of the banking sector to negative shocks. The interactions between banking sector losses and the real economy highlight the importance of building a capital buffer in periods when systemic risks are rising. Basel III introduces a framework for a time-varying capital buffer on top of the minimum capital requirement and another time-invariant buffer (the conservation buffer). The CCB aims to make banks more resilient against imbalances in credit markets and thereby enhance medium-term prospects of the economy—in good times when system-wide risks are growing, the regulators could impose the CCB which would help the banks to withstand losses in bad times.

This paper introduces a new comprehensive database of macroprudential policies, which combines information from various sources and covers 134 countries from January 1990 to December 2016. Using these data, we first confirm that loan-targeted instruments have a significant impact on household credit, and a milder, dampening effect on consumption. Next, we exploit novel numerical information on loan-to-value (LTV) limits using a propensity-score-based method to address endogeneity concerns. The results point to economically significant and nonlinear effects, with a declining impact for larger tightening measures. Moreover, the initial LTV level appears to matter; when LTV limits are already tight, the effects of additional tightening on credit is dampened while those on consumption are strengthened.

Macro-prudential policies aimed at mitigating systemic financial risks have become part of the policy toolkit in many emerging markets and some advanced countries. Their effectiveness and efficacy are not well-known, however. Using panel data regressions, we analyze how changes in balance sheets of some 2,800 banks in 48 countries over 2000–2010 respond to specific macro-prudential policies. Controlling for endogeneity, we find that measures aimed at borrowers––caps on debt-to-income and loan-to-value ratios––and at financial institutions––limits on credit growth and foreign currency lending––are effective in reducing asset growth. Countercyclical buffers are little effective through the cycle, and some measures are even counterproductive during downswings, serving to aggravate declines, consistent with the ex-ante nature of macro-prudential tools.

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