Choose an application

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

Recent experience in handling troubled banks was limited. The National Bank of Georgia (NBG) is the lead authority responsible for managing problem banks, as it can appoint a temporary administrator, declare a bank as insolvent and bankrupt, and commence a liquidation procedure. In the 1990s, market entry was not subject to significant restrictions, and the number of banks operating in Georgia reached a peak of 229 in 1994. Since then, the authorities have commenced a significant number of liquidation procedures, and the last cases based on insolvency grounds have been closed in 2009. Therefore, the legal framework for bank resolution and liquidation has not been applied to a significant extent in recent times. The framework for emergency liquidity assistance (ELA) has been improved, but enhancement is needed to protect the NBG against financial risk. The NBG is explicitly authorized to provide ELA to commercial banks that are considered to be viable, and a 2012 NBG decree sets out certain procedural rules governing the disbursement of the ELA. However, when financial stability is endangered, rules on collateral, interest rate, and duration of the facility can be relaxed. This special carve-out can expose the NBG to financial risks—the existence of a systemic threat, rather, calls for a role to be played by the government. Moreover, provisions on collateral, interest rate, and duration should be updated to better take into account the specificities of ELA, and accountability mechanisms should be enhanced. The bank resolution and liquidation regime presents important shortcomings. The NBG can take control of a problem bank by appointing a temporary administrator, which can, in theory, arrange for certain resolution transactions. The bank liquidation framework is prescribed in more detail, given the significant experience gained by the NBG in the past. However, the bank resolution framework lacks a number of important features and several amendments are needed to update it in line with emerging international best practices, with a view to enabling the authorities to implement a speedy and cost-effective resolution process.

Banks and banking -- Georgia. --- Financial risk management -- Georgia. --- Georgia -- Economic policy. --- International monetary fund -- Georgia. --- Georgia

Choose an application

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

The Georgian banking sector is sound and stable and has continued to perform well, but faces a number of key risks and vulnerabilities that need to be closely monitored. Particularly challenging among them are credit and funding risks related to dollarization, concentration in the banking sector, and reliance on nonresident deposits. While NPLs are gradually declining from their peak in 2009, credit growth is above its long-term sustainable trend. Dollarization presents specific challenges as it increases credit and liquidity risks. There are two major dollarization-related problems: First, most of the borrowers in U.S. dollars (USD) are unhedged, as their income and expenditures are in national currency (this is especially evident in case of households). Second, the NBG has limited ability to provide liquidity support in USD and other foreign currencies. However, it should be noted that the NBG is implementing a set of macroprudential measures aimed at making FX lending more expensive for banks. For example, current risk weights for FX loans are topped at 175 percent. Separate stress tests (STs) performed by the NBG and by the FSAP mission show that the banking system as a whole is able to withstand severe shocks, given that most banks maintain healthy capital buffers well above regulatory minimum. The tests were conducted in several scenarios ranging from slow growth to severe macroeconomic shocks, and the results show that major banks would generally remain adequately capitalized, taking into account current profits and introduction of Basel II. In adverse scenarios, recapitalization needs are manageable in terms of GDP (1.6 percent for the worst-case scenario). At the same time, uncertainty due to non-linearity of shocks related to lari depreciation warrant continuation of build-up of capital buffers as long as FX denominated loans constitute substantial share of banks’ loan portfolios. Credit portfolio concentration risks are limited: default by the largest three borrowers would require additional capital of GEL 50 million for five banks. Market risks are very limited, and trading books do not exist. However, some banks are particularly vulnerable and need to strengthen their capital buffers and to mitigate funding risks. These banks exceed the minimum capital requirement by only a few percentage points (p.p.), which limits their loss-absorption capacity. The high level of profitability and solid net interest margins would go down during crisis periods, driving down net interest and other income. To avoid this pitfall, it is important to introduce Individual Capital Guidance, especially for the weakest banks. When it comes to funding risks, further diversification of funding sources and de-dollarization could help to minimize identified vulnerabilities.

Banks and banking -- Georgia. --- Financial risk -- Georgia -- Evaluation. --- Financial risk management -- Georgia. --- International monetary fund -- Georgia. --- Georgia

Choose an application

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

This paper discusses key findings of the Third Review under the Stand-By Arrangement for Georgia. With monetary policy impaired by high dollarization, the authorities’ response to the downturn relies mostly on fiscal stimulus. The reduction of policy interest rates and ample liquidity injections have not led to a resumption of bank lending, owing to balance sheet weaknesses and higher credit risk. The authorities have thus decided to accommodate tax revenue losses in a higher deficit in 2009. The authorities have requested an augmentation of access and an extension of the arrangement through mid-2011.

Fiscal policy -- Georgia (Republic). --- Foreign exchange rates -- Georgia (Republic). --- International Monetary Fund -- Georgia (Republic). --- Monetary policy -- Georgia (Republic). --- Banks and Banking --- Exports and Imports --- Foreign Exchange --- Public Finance --- Industries: Financial Services --- Statistics --- Banks --- Depository Institutions --- Micro Finance Institutions --- Mortgages --- International Lending and Debt Problems --- Debt --- Debt Management --- Sovereign Debt --- Fiscal Policy --- Data Collection and Data Estimation Methodology --- Computer Programs: Other --- Banking --- Public finance & taxation --- International economics --- Currency --- Foreign exchange --- Finance --- Econometrics & economic statistics --- External debt --- Public debt --- Loans --- Financial institutions --- Debt service --- Banks and banking --- Debts, External --- Debts, Public --- Georgia

Choose an application

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

This paper discusses key findings of the Fourth Review Under the Stand-By Arrangement for Georgia. The strategy remains appropriate, and program targets for 2010 are in line with those presented at the Third Review. Fiscal policy will transition from an expansionary stance in 2009 to a path of strong consolidation, with a reduction in the deficit of 2¼ percent of GDP in 2010. Despite sizable adjustment, an external financing gap of roughly US$400 million remains in 2010, mostly because of the slow recovery of private capital inflows.

Georgia -- Economic conditions. --- Georgia -- Economic policy. --- International monetary fund -- Georgia. --- Banks and Banking --- Exports and Imports --- Foreign Exchange --- Macroeconomics --- Public Finance --- Industries: Financial Services --- Banks --- Depository Institutions --- Micro Finance Institutions --- Mortgages --- International Lending and Debt Problems --- Debt --- Debt Management --- Sovereign Debt --- Fiscal Policy --- Banking --- Public finance & taxation --- Currency --- Foreign exchange --- International economics --- Finance --- External debt --- Public debt --- Fiscal stance --- Loans --- Financial institutions --- Fiscal policy --- Banks and banking --- Debts, External --- Debts, Public --- Georgia --- Global Financial Crisis, 2008-2009 --- Financial crises --- Monetary policy --- International Monetary Fund