Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

In this paper, we investigate whether a firm’s composition of foreign liabilities matters for their resilience during economic turmoil and examine which characteristics determine a firm’s foreign capital structure. Using firm-level data, we corroborate previous findings from the (international) macroeconomic literature that the composition of foreign liabilities matters for a country’s susceptibility to external shocks. We find that firms with a positive equity share in their foreign liabilities were less affected by the global financial crisis and also less likely to default in the aftermath of the crisis. In addition, we show that larger, more open, and more productive firms tend to have a higher equity share in total foreign liabilities.

Macroeconomics --- Economics: General --- Exports and Imports --- Corporate Finance --- Financial Markets and the Macroeconomy --- International Investment --- Long-term Capital Movements --- Multinational Firms --- International Business --- Current Account Adjustment --- Short-term Capital Movements --- International Lending and Debt Problems --- Financial Aspects of Economic Integration --- Financial Crises --- Corporate Finance and Governance: General --- Economic & financial crises & disasters --- Economics of specific sectors --- International economics --- Multinationals --- Finance --- Ownership & organization of enterprises --- Foreign liabilities --- External position --- Foreign corporations --- Economic sectors --- Global financial crisis of 2008-2009 --- Financial crises --- Foreign direct investment --- Balance of payments --- Corporate sector --- Currency crises --- Informal sector --- Economics --- Investments, Foreign --- Global Financial Crisis, 2008-2009 --- Business enterprises --- Slovenia, Republic of

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

We show that “preemptive” capital flow management measures (CFM) can reduce emerging markets and developing countries’ (EMDE) external finance premia during risk-off shocks, especially for vulnerable countries. Using a panel dataset of 56 EMDEs during 1996–2020 at monthly frequency, we document that countries with preemptive policies in place during the five year window before risk-off shocks experienced relatively lower external finance premia and exchange rate volatility during the shock compared to countries which did not have such preemptive policies in place. We use the episodes of Taper Tantrum and COVID-19 as risk-off shocks. Our identification relies on a difference-in-differences methodology with country fixed effects where preemptive policies are ex-ante by construction and cannot be put in place as a response to the shock ex-post. We control the effects of other policies, such as monetary policy, foreign exchange interventions (FXI), easing of inflow CFMs and tightening of outflow CFMs that are used in response to the risk-off shocks. By reducing the impact of risk-off shocks on countries’ funding costs and exchange rate volatility, preemptive policies enable countries’ continued access to international capital markets during troubled times.

Macroeconomics --- Economics: General --- Exports and Imports --- Banks and Banking --- Foreign Exchange --- Finance: General --- Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics: General --- International Economics: General --- International Lending and Debt Problems --- Financial Aspects of Economic Integration --- Open Economy Macroeconomics --- International Investment --- Long-term Capital Movements --- Financial Markets and the Macroeconomy --- Interest Rates: Determination, Term Structure, and Effects --- General Financial Markets: General (includes Measurement and Data) --- Economic & financial crises & disasters --- Economics of specific sectors --- International economics --- Finance --- Currency --- Foreign exchange --- Capital flow management --- Balance of payments --- Macroprudential policy instruments --- Financial sector policy and analysis --- Interest rate parity --- Financial services --- Capital inflows --- Currency crises --- Informal sector --- Economics --- Capital movements --- Economic policy --- Interest rates --- Financial services industry --- Brazil

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

In this paper, we present empirical evidence that higher income inequality is associated with a greater equity share in countries' external liabilities, and we develop a theoretical model that can explain this observation: In a small open economy with traded and nontraded goods, entry barriers depress entrepreneurial activity in nontraded industries and raise income inequality. The small number of domestic nontraded-goods firms leaves room for foreign firms to operate on the domestic market, and it reduces external borrowing. The model suggests that barriers to entrepreneurial activity could be conducive to attract equity-type capital inows. Our empirical results lend some support to this conjecture.

Macroeconomics --- Economics: General --- Exports and Imports --- Labor --- Corporate Finance --- Personal Income, Wealth, and Their Distributions --- International Investment --- Long-term Capital Movements --- International Lending and Debt Problems --- Financial Aspects of Economic Integration --- Open Economy Macroeconomics --- Aggregate Factor Income Distribution --- Current Account Adjustment --- Short-term Capital Movements --- Labor Demand --- Multinational Firms --- International Business --- Economic & financial crises & disasters --- Economics of specific sectors --- Finance --- Labour --- income economics --- Multinationals --- Income inequality --- National accounts --- Foreign direct investment --- Balance of payments --- Income --- Portfolio investment --- Self-employment --- Foreign corporations --- Economic sectors --- Currency crises --- Informal sector --- Economics --- Income distribution --- Investments, Foreign --- Portfolio management --- Self-employed --- Estonia, Republic of

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

This paper surveys the literature on sovereign debt from the perspective of understanding how sovereign debt differs from privately issue debt, and why sovereign debt is deemed safe in some countries but risky in others. The answers relate to the unique power of the sovereign. One the one hand, a sovereign has the power to tax, making debt relatively safe; on the other, it also has control over its territory and most of its assets, making debt enforcement difficult. The paper discusses debt contracts and the sovereign debt market, sovereign debt restructurings, and the empirical and theoretical literatures on the costs and causes of defaults. It describes the adverse impact of sovereign default risk on the issuing countries and what explains this impact. The survey concludes with a discussion of policy options to reduce sovereign risk, including fiscal frameworks that act as commitment devices, state-contingent debt, and independent and credible monetary policy.

Macroeconomics --- Economics: General --- Public Finance --- Exports and Imports --- Finance: General --- Financial Risk Management --- International Lending and Debt Problems --- Financial Aspects of Economic Integration --- Financial Crises --- Portfolio Choice --- Investment Decisions --- Debt --- Debt Management --- Sovereign Debt --- General Financial Markets: General (includes Measurement and Data) --- Fiscal Policy --- Economic & financial crises & disasters --- Economics of specific sectors --- Public finance & taxation --- International economics --- Finance --- Public debt --- Debt default --- External debt --- Securities markets --- Financial markets --- Financial crises --- Fiscal rules --- Fiscal policy --- Currency crises --- Informal sector --- Economics --- Debts, Public --- Debts, External --- Capital market --- Argentina

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

The BCEAO has conducted a comprehensive reform during the past five years. The regulatory and prudential framework were aligned with international standards and the conditions for supervision have been strengthened, although the efforts must be continued (liquidity ratio/net stable funding ratio and tools for monitoring liquidity, transfers of ownership, acquisitions of holdings, guidelines on nonperforming claims, and anti-money laundering and combating the financing of terrorism—AML-CFT). The transition to Basel III has made it possible to incorporate additional capital requirements, while the rules applicable to credit institutions were upgraded with the 2017 publication of four circulars on governance, risk management, internal supervision, and compliance.

Money and Monetary Policy --- International Economics --- Banks and Banking --- Banking --- Finance: General --- Exports and Imports --- Monetary Policy --- International Agreements and Observance --- International Organizations --- Financing Policy --- Financial Risk and Risk Management --- Capital and Ownership Structure --- Value of Firms --- Goodwill --- General Financial Markets: Government Policy and Regulation --- Monetary Policy, Central Banking, and the Supply of Money and Credit: General --- Financial Aspects of Economic Integration --- Monetary economics --- International institutions --- Financial services law & regulation --- Banking law --- Finance --- International economics --- Monetary policy --- International organization --- Market risk --- Financial regulation and supervision --- Credit --- Money --- Bank legislation --- Credit risk --- Operational risk --- International agencies --- Financial risk management --- Financial services industry --- Law and legislation --- Banks and banking --- State supervision