I am very pleased and honoured to
be here and I want to thank warmly my good friend, Dr Reddy, for having invited
me to address the staff of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI).
The
BIS recently announced that the RBI Vice-Governor, Mr Rakesh Mohan, will chair
a new working group on "Capital flows and emerging economies". I would
like to congratulate him for accepting to explore this complex issue. I will offer
some views on a related topic: "the challenges of financial liberalisation
for Emerging Market Economies (EMEs)".
Financial liberalisation is
defined here as the dismantling of internal and external controls on capital flows.
It exhibits many positive aspects, for instance:
- it contributes to
improving global capital allocation efficiency, be it at the national or at the
international level;
- it fosters competition on capital markets and consequently
reduces the cost of capital as well as it brings about enhanced risk management;
- it
also increases the role of market discipline for firm managers and policy makers
since it raises the costs of poor governance.
While there is a consensus
about these positive effects, experience has shown that financial openness modifies
the balance of risks at the macroeconomic level:
- first, it may reduce
some risks, for instance, by decreasing the correlation between investment and
savings;
- second, it may nevertheless increase other risks: for instance,
greater competition in the banking system may prompt strong credit growth with
a loosening of credit standards, as domestic banks try to maintain their profits
and market shares;
- third, it may even create new risks, for instance
through financial contagion, if risk appetite for emerging markets suddenly reverses,
given the prominent role played by hedge funds in cross-border investments and
the sudden shifts in their asset allocations. In this regard, the Banque de France
recently published a special issue of its Financial Stability Review devoted to
Hedge Funds, which may be of interest to the RBI (www.banque-france.fr).
In
contrast with the French experience which took place in the 1980s, the Indian
process of financial liberalisation takes place in a context of intense globalisation
and accelerated innovation. It is gradual but successful and it is no surprise
that India was one of the first countries to participate voluntarily in the IMF
Financial Stability Assessment Program (FSAP). In my view, the progressive and
transparent character of this process is fundamental to guarantee that a country
reaps the full benefits of its integration into the world economy.
The lessons
that can be drawn from a comparison with the French experience may seem limited
since, in the 1980s, France was facing capital outflows, whereas emerging economies
are now often facing speculative capital inflows. However, I believe that, while
the challenge has become more demanding, successful financial liberalisation for
EMEs still rests on the same two key conditions that applied to France:
- Building a resilient domestic financial system while or before opening the
capital account.
- Shaping appropriate institutions and policies.
I
will illustrate these two conditions in the reminder of my speech.
1.
A successful liberalisation requires to strengthen the domestic financial system
while, or sometimes before, opening the capital account
I
will briefly remind you why and how this can be done.
First, why? This
is because an efficient financial sector ensures both a better financing of and
a better protection for the economy.
On the one hand, it ensures a better
financing of the economy by broadening the investor base and enhancing their ability
to make use of diversified financial instruments.
Not only does competition
within the financial sector contribute to limiting the cost of capital but it
also fosters innovation and thus allows for more efficient risk management. For
example, securitisation provides financial institutions with instruments to manage
the composition of their balance sheets and thus contributes to buttressing credit
distribution while supporting the development of financial markets. Moreover the
development of bond markets allows for a better financing of public deficits while
providing instruments that enable international investors to diversify their portfolios.
It provides a reference for the market and may thus pave the way for the issuance
of private bonds.
On the other hand, an efficient and developed financial
sector offers better protection for the economy against the risks of a capital
account crisis. Most of the EMEs’ crises of the 1990s were triggered or accompanied
by banking crises. To improve resilience to external shocks, it is essential that
financial players be able to manage interest and exchange rate risks in a more
flexible environment, both for themselves and their customers.
Now,
how to achieve this in a smooth way?
There is a kind of paradox in the interaction
between internal and external liberalisation: the former may be a pre-requisite
for the latter but external openness may help stimulate and enhance domestic financial
reforms. Actually, in the absence of the challenge created by foreign competition,
domestic financial reforms may not be broad and fast enough.
Moreover,
in terms of best practices dissemination, the presence of foreigners in the capital
of domestic banks may ensure a faster adoption of international standards and
codes, especially concerning the monitoring, control and management of financial
and operational risks. This is crucial for the resilience and the stability of
the financial system. The report of the CGFS Working Group on "FDI in the
financial sector of EMEs" highlighted that a lasting benefit of these FDI
was their effects on the financial sector efficiency, thanks to the generally
associated technology transfers and innovations in products and processes. In
addition to their lower volatility, this is one more reason why attracting long-term
capital flows, such as FDIs, seems preferable to catching short-term flows, although
the lessons from the Chilean experience versus some Asian misadventures suggest
there is no unique model for all. But I saw that the size of FDIs in India which
had been hitherto rather low is rising significantly (16 billions USD in 2006-07)
which is good sign of its attractiveness. In France also we pay a lot of attention
to inflows of FDIs (above 60 billions in 2006) as they matter as well in a more
mature economy.
So when setting the pace of internal versus external liberalisation,
the authorities have to strike the right balance and rhythm between the two sides.
In this respect, let me evoke briefly the way we managed this process in France
in the 1980s. Financial liberalisation started with the domestic side by:
- Modernising the money market;
- Deepening the bond markets, using the
public sector as a benchmark (in order to price risks through a full yield curve
for risk-free assets);
- Broadening the basis of the equity markets (including
privatisations);
- Last but not least, creating new financial markets (futures,
options…).
Meanwhile, but sometimes with lags, the French capital
account was liberalised. We switched from a situation, in 1983, where the exchange
rate controls were at their tightest, following speculative attacks and three
devaluations in 18 months, to a gradual removal of these controls beginning in
1984 and completed in 1990. Trade-related operations were gradually liberalised,
followed by most financial transactions and, finally, residents were allowed to
freely open foreign currency accounts and French banks to lend French francs to
non–residents.
Of course, the Indian experience differs from the French
one as there is no "one-size-fits-all" transition process. And I would
be very interested in listening to your views on this.
2. But before,
let me remind you that, to be successful, it is not sufficient to improve the
financial system: shaping appropriate institutions and economic policies is of
the essence
The need to set in place strong
institutions should never be underestimated. A G20 work entitled "Institution
building in the financial sector" (in which both India and France participated)
stressed the importance of solid institutions along with deep and sophisticated
financial markets as key elements to maximise the benefits of globalisation and
reduce the risks of financial crises. An appropriate institutional framework includes
among others a well functioning legal system, a reliable payment system, a proper
framework for regulation and supervision, an appropriate deposit insurance scheme,
and propitious conditions for implementing new developments in information and
communication technology.
As a central banker, I will of course argue that
the role of the central Bank is crucial. It should be the guardian of the
health of the "financial ecosystem" through reinforced surveillance
and a continuous improvement of the regulatory and legal framework. Sound supervision
must be promoted by an independent body, which may be more or less related to
the central bank. In France as in India, banking supervision is indeed implemented
by the central bank staff. Sound supervision and a clear legal framework in turn
are likely to encourage foreign participation and maximise the associated benefits
in terms of best practices.
The need for appropriate supervision is indeed
not reduced but modified or may even be increased in case of financial liberalisation.
For instance, a working group in process at the BIS, in which both the RBI and
the BDF are currently participating, shows that the development of local bond
markets changes the types of risks faced domestically from currency risks to interest
rate risks or maturity mismatches. This requires to enhance and control adequate
risk management in the banking sector and in those institutions in which the risk
may have been transferred. Indeed financial innovations such as credit risk transfers
may well spread risks but risk does not disappear.
The central bank is
also responsible for producing and disseminating various sets of monetary and
financial statistics whose quality is of utmost importance for policy makers and
investors. An efficient statistical apparatus provides the basis for financial
transparency, thus contributing to disseminating best practices in terms of governance.
Besides, institutional quality also strongly influences the composition
of inflows into emerging economies. This is a key determinant of FDI flows, which
tend to increase the benefits of financial integration.
The need for sound
economic policies and strategies should not either be neglected.
In a globalised
world where countries compete to attract foreign capital, sound fiscal and monetary
policies influence not only the amount but the composition of inflows. Sound domestic
policies strengthen the resilience of the economy to external shocks and thus
maximise the growth benefits of capital account liberalisation.
Recent
crises remind us how macroeconomic imbalances may be exacerbated by financial
fragilities and trigger capital account problems affecting economic growth. For
instance, experience shows that excessive fiscal deficits are more dangerous with
open capital markets. Actually, market discipline is not always at play or sufficient
if there is excessive appetite for risk and not enough discrimination. Therefore,
internal rules as well as Government commitments may be needed as illustrated
by the so-called European Stability and Growth Pact.
In the same way, structural
policies aiming at improving the efficiency of the labour and good markets shall
accompany financial liberalisation. They are indeed needed to enhance the capacity
of the real economy to attract and allocate capital as well as to reduce vulnerabilities
and absorb potential shocks. Here again, there is a nexus in the appropriate rhythm
and interaction between the liberalisation of financial versus real markets. Once
financial liberalisation has started, the process benefits from continuous innovation
and from its own impetus. The same does not apply to reforms in the labour and
good markets where rigidities and obstacles are often deeply rooted.
Lastly,
better integration into the global economy requires an appropriate exchange rate
strategy. An emerging economy with high productivity gains and potential growth
in the tradable sector is prone to receive large capital inflows and have a real
appreciation of its currency in the long term. The latter may come either or both
from nominal appreciation or higher relative inflation.
Arguably, exchange
rate appreciation, which may result in an overvalued currency, is a risk for emerging
economies that conduct export-led growth strategies. In order to stem appreciation
and maintain their competitiveness, some emerging economies – like China- have
accumulated ever larger amounts of foreign reserves. However, undervalued currencies
also represent a significant risk, not only for inflation but also because it
allows foreigners to buy cheaply national assets. In addition, undervalued currencies
contribute to ballooning global imbalances. "En passant", I am pleased
to note that both India and the Euro area post significant but not extravagant
levels of reserves and that neither is responsible for the persistence of global
imbalances.
Greater use of exchange rate flexibility in emerging countries
that have experienced an excessive accumulation of foreign exchange reserves is
therefore one factor in the resolution of global imbalances. Moreover, it may
contribute to facilitating domestic monetary policy management (decreasing inflationary
pressures) and makes it possible to better contain liquidity growth and the risks
associated with reserve accumulation and sterilisation.
Of course, the gradual
implementation of exchange rate flexibility requires that controls on capital
flows be lifted at a suitable pace. East Asia experienced this and I am eager
to listen to your views on the interaction between financial reforms, institutions
and structural or macro-economic policies.
To conclude, let me say that,
in the liberalisation process in which France and later India have engaged, both
may learn from each other since they share similar features and are key players
in a globalised world.
To this end, cooperation should be strengthened.
Cooperation between the RBI and the Banque de France is especially
relevant since our two institutions look alike, for instance in terms of diversity
in activities, structures (including branches) or staff recruitment for life through
competitive examinations.
At the financial industry level, more cross-fertilisation
should also help. The French financial industry includes some of the largest European
banks and insurance companies. Their business models are solid and based on a
broad domestic market and best international practices. This enables them to generate
strong profitability and develop abroad.
But above all, the French financial
industry has some specific features that may be valuable for Indian players. In
particular, I would like to mention:
- The historical links with the public
sector, such as in India where public banks still dominate the banking sector
and
- Banking sector expertise both in a rural environment, especially
relevant for India, and in large industrial groups, as indeed Indian industrial
groups are active internationally.
In this respect, I am very pleased to
participate with the RBI in the launching of the first French-Indian Financial
Forum on May 16, in Mumbai.
Thank you for your attention.
Speech
by Mr. Christian Noyer, Governor of Banque de France to RBI staff delivered on
May 14, 2007 Reserve Bank of India, Central Office, Mumbai.