Connect with us

Economy

Are Global Banks Cutting Off Customers in Developing and Emerging Economies?

Published

on

Over the last decade, global banks have been tightening operations to comply with regulations designed to curtail money-laundering and terrorism-financing. As a consequence, global banks have been limiting correspondent banking relationships (CBRs) with local banks in emerging and developing economies – a practice referred to as “de-risking.”  

Correspondent banking relationships connect local economies with the international financial system and are essential to making payments across borders. They underpin international trade, remittances, and financing of humanitarian work.

A new World Bank report – The Decline in Access to Correspondent Banking Services in Emerging Markets: Trends, Impacts and Solutions – examines what effect this trend has had on developing countries.

The report found that de-risking ultimately is a business decision, since global banks consider CBRs to be a low-margin but high-risk activity. The findings imply if the cost of CBRs could be lowered through fintech or other tools, or if risk could be reduced through effective anti-money laundering (AML) regime, CBRs would be a more attractive business line for global banks.

The report is based on eight countries in Latin America, sub-Saharan Africa, East Asia and South Asia that had expressed concerns over de-risking and its impact on their financial systems and remittances. Specific findings have remained anonymous due to confidentiality restrictions surrounding these data.

The impact of the decline of the CBRs has been acute in some places, especially in small island states. But the effects haven’t been uniform – they differ from country to country and vary from institution to institution.

Certain global banks have terminated relationships – or “de-risked” – certain local banks, but they have also established new relationships with other banks in the same countries. The idea that country risk is the primary consideration doesn’t hold. Local (respondent) banks have been able to adjust by dealing with fewer correspondent banks or by establishing new relationships, which in some instances are with second or third-tier banks, which raises concerns about integrity that warrant authorities’ attention.

Correspondent accounts, including new ones, now typically cost more to maintain, in some cases leading the correspondent banks to set minimum transaction volumes and charge higher fees.

The impact on Money Transfer Operators (MTOs) – financial outfits that predominately deal in cash – has been more acute as many respondent banks received instructions not to service them and have closed their accounts.

MTOs tend to be the first financial access point for people who send and receive remittances, a segment of the population that generally is excluded from formal financial services.

MTOs have resorted to unconventional ways to run their business, including using personal bank accounts to channel money or commercial couriers to carry cash between sender and recipient countries. These alternatives are neither sustainable nor desirable, and expose MTOs to higher risks, ultimately undermining the goals that more stringent AML/CFT regulations sought to address.

Despite MTOs’ troubles, the overall effect on the remittances industry remains unclear and requires further analysis to understand other factors, such as geopolitical risk and oil prices.

Overall, the study did not find any macroeconomic effects in any of the eight countries examined, but it did find significant micro effects and business distortions. On a few rare occasions, banks nearly lost their access to the international financial system.

Based on the sample of countries surveyed, the report suggests some actions that countries and the industry can pursue to limit de-risking.

  • Gather data on CBR closures, industries and activities affected by de-risking.
  • Encourage at-risk respondent banks to include de-risking in contingency planning as part of the prudential requirements and supervisory practices.
  • Improve communication between correspondent and respondent banks, as a lack of awareness of country context can contribute to de-risking.
  • Improve regulatory oversight of MTOs’ obligations toward AML/CFT.
  • Consider technology as a solution to de-risking, since fintech could lower the cost of compliance, reduce cash transactions and improve transaction monitoring.

World Bank

Continue Reading
Comments

Economy

Fed’s Hawkish Shift and the US Economic Outlook

Published

on

The US Central Bank recalibrated its outlook on the recovering US economy last week and the appropriation sent the world markets into activity. The Federal Reserve insinuated a possible hike in the interest rates in 2023; a sharp turn from the earlier announcement of keeping the rates stable till at least 2024. While the implementation still falls 2 years ahead, the unexpected insight and such a speedy change of perspective added weight to the voices behind the warnings of an over-heated US economy in a post-pandemic world. The Fed Chair Jay Powell had earlier sated the worrisome elements back in March when the Federal Reserve decided to keep the interest rates low in the short-run whilst conducting heavy Open Market Operations (OMO) to keep the yields low and subsequently, keep the financial markets and investment activity stimulated. However, many economists predicted a sharp recovery in the second quarter of 2021 and warned the investors regarding the inflationary pressures that could follow in a scenario where the US economy outperformed the expectations of the Fed.

The scenario appears to be shaping well as the inflationary figures started hitting highs in April. The US inflation rate stood as high as 5% in May – way above the 2% targeted inflation – yet the Fed continues to stimulate the economy that is already running and bustling. The result could be a devastating spiral of inflationary pressures that the economy has not witnessed shortly. Coupled with a stagnant supply, the forthcoming years could turn the dovish sentiments into an inflationary nightmare that could only be avoided through a relatively tighter monetary policy.

Ridding the wave of the generous stimulus packages, the US economy was touted to pull back the country from the throes of the pandemic. The recent $1.9 trillion package balanced the mayhem that was all but wrecking the financial nucleus of the United States. The businesses were stabilized, the unemployment rates contracted, and the demand rebounded strongly. However, the ambition was to reconstruct the battered economy to the pre-pandemic levels as soon as possible. The vision could only be achieved by financing the investments and continuing to stimulate the demand and collateralize the supply until it was self-sufficient. The latter never happened. While the Fed succeeded in keeping the yields low via Asset Purchases worth $120 billion per month, the US supply faced the brunt of the intermittent lockdowns in major states. A fully equipped population and scarce resources added the pressure that is now renditioned in the form of an inflationary pressure showing signs of deterioration.

Due to hefty healthcare packages and prodigal unemployment benefits, the US industrial output has suffered the brunt of a stagnant labor supply. The basic tents of economics explain the inflationary pressures that have worried the Fed. Yet, a timely policy change is crucial in other aspects as well. As the global economy is improving, so is competitiveness. With an overheated US economy and stunted industrial growth, the US exchequer is facing the might of the post-pandemic market. The US Current Account deficit, which stood at a colossal figure of $647.2 billion in 2020, worsened further as the Fed continued to purchase assets and added more to the fall in the real value of the US dollar. The Current Account deficit broadened by $74.4 billion in just the first quarter of 2021. The deficit currently stands at the worst level since the financial crisis struck in 2007-2008.

With continually expanding imports and over-reliance on international capital, the US dollar has lost its charm since March last year. The US dollar fell by about 12% against a basket of major currencies in the world. Coupled with a negative savings sentiment in the United States and a broadening Budget deficit due to lofty stimulus packages, the US economy runs a major threat of driving down the US dollar further, adding more expense to the imports and thereby expanding the Current Account deficit further despite already being the highest deficit today in the world.

Safe to say, the hint of a tightening monetary policy was served to correct the spiral of another bout of devaluation and put a stop to the overly stimulated economy. The investors expected the Fed to pull the plug on the Asset Purchase Program that has kept the Treasury Yields close to 0. While the Fed is not planning to cut the purchase for another couple of months, the mere insinuation of an earlier than expected termination led to a sell-off in the US Treasury market, pushing the 10-year yield to as high as 1.51% while boasting the 30-year yield to just over 2.0%. The correcting also activated the global oil markets as Brent and WTI converged as close as $75/barrel. Moreover, the US dollar gained value on the back of a strict monetary policy as the Dollar Index spiked 1.03% in just 2 days following the Fed’s insight.

The American economy no longer hangs on the brink of a double-dip recession. And although the economy is no longer inflicted with the curbs of the pandemic, the economy is still demand-active. Thus, the savings-short economy is still heavily reliant on the monetary assistance of the Federal Reserve. With a looming inflationary spiral, an active vaccination drive, and a weakening dollar, now is the chance of ceasing the excess liquidity and shifting to a hawkish policy to gauge the gears of a self-reliant yet a controlled economic progression in the forthcoming years.

Continue Reading

Economy

Indonesia’s political will is the key to a successful carbon tax implementation

Published

on

Authors: I Dewa Made Raditya Margenta, and Filda C. Yusgiantoro*

A carbon tax should be overviewed as an oasis of post-pandemic recovery. The proper carbon tax scheme will solve two of Indonesia’s extensive homework; reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and boosting revenue to support economic recovery. In the end, Indonesia’s political will is crucial in completing this mission.

Recently, the carbon tax has become an exciting topic of discussion in Indonesia. This carbon tax is introduced in a revised General Taxation Law bill and becomes this year’s Indonesia National legislation Program. According to the bill, the government plans to collect a carbon tax of IDR 75,000 (US$ 5.25) per tonne of GHG  (tCO2e). The carbon tax could target emissions on the use of fossil fuels such as coal, diesel, and gasoline by factories and vehicles.

The introduction of the Carbon Tax is quite astounding. Previously, the Coordinating Minister for Maritime Affairs and Investment of Indonesia, Luhut Binsar Pandjaitan, said that President Joko Widodo planned to issue a Carbon Trading regulation in December 2020. However, there has been no signal that the regulation will be issued until now.

Implementing a carbon tax is seen as a strategic step for the government to reduce GHG emissions and boost state revenue to increase development funds. As a result, the carbon tax scheme must be well constructed, specific, and well-targeted so that the carbon tax implementation can recover the environment and Indonesia’s economy.

However, the carbon tax implementation will not succeed without strong political will and commitment from the government.

Carbon tax as a climate action plan

As the sixth-largest GHG emitter in the world, Indonesia becomes vulnerable to climate change impact. According to the Ministry of Environment and Forestry of Indonesia, the transportation and manufacturing sectors contributed to around 64% of 2017 national GHG emissions. This number will rise considering the increase in energy demand and manufacturing activities to stimulate the economy. Therefore, a new climate policy, such as a carbon tax, needs to be promoted as a climate action plan.

As an economic-environmental instrument, a carbon tax is more straightforward to address this issue. Also, the revenues gained from this tax can be recycled to support green development. Thus, the target of this tax must be well identified, and the carbon tax scheme must be designed correctly to avoid a deadweight.

Singapore can be the lead example to emulate its carbon tax scheme. Based on Singapore’s climate action plan, the tax is applied to the facilities that emit abundant GHG annually. They also promote clean and simple carbon tax to preserve fairness, uniformity, and transparency. Its carbon tax scheme, which takes place from 2019 to 2023, will be reviewed by an impact assessment in 2022.

From Singapore, Indonesia can learn that the scheme may have the flexibility to respond to the dynamics that will occur, including the opportunity to move towards a carbon trading scheme in the future. Besides, having a solid political like Singapore will give Indonesia’s carbon tax implementation an upper hand.

Building Indonesia’s political will for a climate action plan

Indonesia’s successful climate action plan relies on various variables such as GHG emissions reduction, identifying the most appropriate instruments, and introducing new climate policies. However, all of these variables are highly dependent on political will.

Indonesia’s political will on climate mitigation would be a perfect start and a powerful tool to take immediate action in climate mitigation initiatives. Instead, Indonesia’s political will may face a political challenge during the policymaking process. A lengthy policymaking process of the New and Renewable Energy Bill is one of the examples. Hence, Indonesia’s political will to address climate change at the beginning of the policymaking process is crucial.

Gaining public trust and being severe are essential steps that should be carried out before introducing a carbon tax.

At first, the government must improve its accountability and transparency, reflecting on what Singapore has shown. Indonesia should also consider complementary economic policies that minimize a carbon tax’s negative impacts on business and household sectors.

Then, Indonesia could consider removing fossil fuel subsidies and replacing them with direct subsidies to low-income households.

Finally, Indonesia should guarantee that the obtained revenue from the carbon tax will be recycled for green development and improving community welfare.

Conclusion

In brief, implementing a carbon tax in Indonesia will determine the nation’s and its citizens’ future.

Ensuring the carbon tax implementation will be on point, Indonesia’s political will is the brain, which can be seen from a carbon tax scheme and the supporting policies. The success of this policy will be seen from intensive GHG reduction, positive economic growth, and improve Indonesian people’s welfare simultaneously.

*Filda C. Yusgiantoro, Ph.D., chairperson of Purnomo Yusgiantoro Center and an economic lecturer in Prasetya Mulya University


Continue Reading

Economy

Central Bank Digital Currencies: What do they offer?

Published

on

The decision of the government of El Salvador to adopt bitcoin as legal tender has invited mixed reactions from around the globe. Notwithstanding the pros and cons of the issue, the message is loud and clear – digital currencies are here to stay.

The total market cap of bitcoin has reached 600 billion US dollars by March 2021. Cryptocurrencies have captured the imagination of rich and poor alike. The percentage of cryptocurrency users has been steadily increasing in countries facing financial instability and grappling with weak currencies. Latin America has seen large scale activity in bitcoins, especially in countries like Venezuela and Columbia. Nigeria likewise has emerged as a hub for bitcoin trade given the challenging economic climate in the country. The Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), in a February directive, had warned banksand financial institutions of facilitating payments for cryptocurrencyexchanges.Cryptocurrency trade has grown to such volumes that it can’t be overlooked by the state actors.

States and Central Banks unable to buck the trend are contemplating their own version of digital currencies. So, do ordinary citizens gain something from the Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDC’s)?

Societal and Environmental concerns

Experts have already pointed out serious pitfalls of allowing a free hand to decentralised currencies outside the regulatory framework of the governments. Crime syndicates use cryptocurrencies as safe conduits for money laundering, cross-border terrorist financing, drug peddling and tax evasion. Recently an FBI operation, “Trojan Shield”, which busted a criminal underworld along with the seizure of millions worth of cryptocurrencies, further echoed the proximity of criminals with the crypto-world. Several cryptocurrency frauds have unearthed in recent history. The widespread popularity of cryptocurrencies has diluted the globalstandardson KYC (Know Your Customer) and AML (Anti Money Laundering), providing room for criminals and lawbreakers. 

The energy-intensive nature of cryptocurrency mining has raised concerns about its impact on climate change and pollution. China and Iran have recently put stringent controls on bitcoin mining owing to environmental pollution and power blackouts. It is bizarre that the total electricity used for bitcoin mining surpasses the total energy consumption of all of Switzerland.

Threat to sovereign power 

Decentralised currencies pose a grave threat to the sovereign power of the governments. Several States and Central Banks have thus stepped in to maintain their relevancy, by announcing their version of digital currencies, backed by sovereign guarantee. In the latest Bank of International Settlements (BIS) paper, 86% of 65 respondent central banks have reported doing some research or experimentation on Central Bank Digital Currencies.

China leads the rest

China is quite ahead in the development of its CBDC compared to all other nations. China has already distributed some 200 million yuan (US$30.7 million) in digital currency as part of pilot projects across the country. By early implementing the digital yuan, China expects to challenge the US dollar’s hegemony as the international currency. In future, China hopes to achieve more international trade through a digital yuan, which would further China’s global ambitions and effectively push plans like the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Moreover, it provides China with sufficient strength to effectively bypass US sanctions in any part of the world.

The Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank have taken a more cautious stance and indicated that they are not in the race for the first place. In late May, Fed Chair Jerome Powell announced plans for a discussion paper on digital payments, including the pros and cons of the US Central Bank currency. European Central Bank Chief Christine Lagarde said her institution could launch a digital currency only around the middle of this decade.

Why CBDC’s may not offer anything new

Only stringent regulations or an outright ban on decentralised currencies could control money laundering and financing of crimes through digital currencies. It is unlikely that the introduction of CBDC’s would hamper the flow of illicit money through decentralised channels. In all probability, criminal elements would still run their show through decentralised currencies where there is anonymity and the lack of regulations.

CBDC’s may perhaps offer fast and real-time settlement of payments. While this is a plus, the existing bank payment systems already provide for swift and sophisticated transaction processing. So, real-time settlements are nothing new and certainly not a novel innovation. Moreover, cross-border transfers might not see any revolutionary change because these transfers still have to go through the existing regulatory frameworks.

CBDC’s would boost the surveillance mechanisms of the State. It would put every transaction under the government scanner. Individual privacy will be a major causality if proper safeguards are not incorporated. Brighter sides are that the government could effectively target economic crimes like tax evasion with greater ease and a reduced carbon footprint.

Threat to the banking system

Though the actual modalities have not come out, reactions from Central Banks indicate that CBDC’s will co-exist with the existing fiat currencies. The new system can potentially destabilise the present banking system and the financial intermediaries. Proposed digital currencies are backed by the Central Bank, which could never go bankrupt. In the existing system, money is secured by the guarantee offered by private banks. In a period of economic instability, citizens might pull too much money out of banks to purchase CBDC’s, backed with better security and consequently triggering a run on banks.

Back to centralisation

The introduction of digital currencies is out of necessity to preserve Central banks’ legitimacy in the face of the cryptocurrency boom. It possibly will protect the citizens from the extreme volatility of decentralised currencies and may serve as safer mediums of exchange. Since it is backed by sovereign guarantee, it might also act as a better store of value. But, CDBC’s would expand the state power and cause the continuance of the regime based on “trust” in governmental institutions, which was precisely what decentralised currencies like bitcoin had intended to annul. Essentially, CBDC’s would bring in more government to our daily lives, which is rather regressive and goes against the spirit of modern libertarian values.

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Trending