## wp1773

## Source details

**Canonical URL:** [wp1773](https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/publications/wp/2017/wp1773.pdf)

## Other formats

- [Markdown version](/-/media/files/publications/wp/2017/wp1773.pdf.md)
- [Structured JSON version](/-/media/files/publications/wp/2017/wp1773.pdf.json)

---

### Overview
- Financial stability reports (FSRs) in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) rose from first publications in 2002 to 19 countries publishing FSRs; three countries have either delayed or discontinued publication (Ecuador, Guatemala, and Nicaragua).
- Sample reviewed: the 20 latest FSRs issued by 19 countries in the region as of June 30, 2016.
- Sample coverage: represent 92 percent of the region’s population and GDP.
- Issuers: FSRs are predominantly issued by central banks; in Mexico both the central bank and the agency responsible for financial stability (CESF) publish FSRs and both are reviewed.
- Downloads: FSRs are downloaded, on average, 1,600 times each, with significant variation across countries.

### Methodology
- Assessment framework: 26 criteria covering five broad elements:
  - A: clarity of aims,
  - B: overall assessment,
  - C: coverage of issues,
  - D: data, assumptions, and tools,
  - E: structure and other features.
- Scoring: each criterion receives a score of 1 (weakest) to 4 (strongest).
- Composite score: weighted average of the five elements using the weights suggested in Cihak (2006).
- Robustness: results tested with alternative weights (equal weights) with no substantive change.
- Best-practice illustration: Bank of England July 2016 FSR (clear aims, executive summary, candid assessment, two-part structure, full communication strategy, well-documented data sources with cutoff date July 1, 2016).

### Key findings on quality and content
- Overall variability and comparative standing:
  - Quality varies significantly across countries; some reports strong while others lack in several areas.
  - No report fully complies with the established criteria.
  - Average quality rating for LAC FSRs in this study is 2.2.
  - Cihak and others (2012) reported average quality ratings for FSRs issued in 2009 as: 2.3 for emerging market economies, 2.4 for emerging market economies outside Latin America, 3 for advanced economies, and 1.7 for low-income countries.
- Correlates of report quality:
  - Reports tend to be better in countries with higher GDP, higher income per capita, and lower external debt.
  - Quality is positively correlated with the size of the financial sector.
  - Reports are generally higher quality in countries with flexible exchange rates and an inflation targeting framework.
  - Reports issued by central banks score better than those issued by other supervisory agencies.

### Findings by assessment element
- Aims and definitions (Element A):
  - Only 8 out of 20 reports explicitly declare their aims.
  - Only 7 reports provide a definition of financial stability.
  - Majority (12 out of 20) do not provide a definition of financial stability.
  - Only two reports define financial stability in "sufficiently detailed static and dynamic terms (absence of a crisis and resilience; Figure 6, A5)."
  - "None of the reports includes a clear operational definition of financial stability (Figure 6, A6)."
  - Two reports (Colombia and Jamaica) provide operational guidance via references to central bank mandates.
- Overall assessment (Element B):
  - Executive summaries are present (except in Argentina and Panama) but often descriptive and backward-looking.
  - Executive summaries frequently review quantitative indicators with little forward-looking analysis or explanation of changes since previous reports.
  - Stress test analyses typically conclude with general statements about adequacy of capital without detailed context or justified assumptions.
- Coverage of issues (Element C):
  - No report covers the full range of financial system institutions (insurance, shadow banks, pension funds, financial markets, etc.).
  - Few reports identify and analyze systemically important risks and follow up across subsequent issues.
  - Macro-financial integration is limited; global spillovers acknowledged mainly in larger economies.
- Data, assumptions, and tools (Element D):
  - Presentation of data, assumptions, and tools clear in some reports; basic information (data sources and cut-off dates) missing in others.
  - Most reports rely on aggregate data; some dissect by concentration of exposures and size of institutions.
  - Stress tests vary widely in sophistication; assumptions are rarely justified.
- Structure and other features (Element E):
  - Structure generally logical and consistent over time but typically siloed (sector-by-sector) without thematic linkages or spillovers.
  - Some FSRs have narrowed coverage over time, dropping nonbank financial sectors or regulatory changes.
  - Accessibility: latest and past reports generally available online but dedicated FSR webpages not available for all countries and can be difficult to find or navigate.
  - Publication practices: some countries discontinued or interrupted publication without explanation; others lack a clear publication schedule.
  - Communication: most reports lack a communication strategy or outreach associated with publication.

### Representative country- and region-level facts (as provided)
- Per-capita GDP in sample ranges: Less than US$2,000 (Nicaragua) to more than US$20,000 (The Bahamas).
- Population in sample ranges: Less than 300,000 (Barbados) to more than 200 million (Brazil).
- GDP in sample ranges: US$4.4 billion (Barbados) to more than US$1 trillion (Brazil and Mexico).
- The three largest countries (Brazil, Mexico, and Argentina) account for two-thirds of the sample’s population and GDP.
- Global context: 60 countries publish FSRs (24 advanced and 36 emerging markets).

### Box 2 — Online downloads of FSRs in Latin America
- Download trends:
  - Statistics from eight country authorities show a growing—though not steady—trend in downloads.
  - Average downloads per report: 1,600.
  - Downloads frequently exceed 10,000 in Brazil; often less than 1000 in smaller economies.
  - Total1631 (noted in source).
  - 1/ As of July 2016.
- Domestic versus foreign readership:
  - Most downloads come from domestic users: local language versions downloaded more frequently; available IP-origin data indicate most downloads from domestic IP addresses.
  - Trinidad and Tobago attract significant foreign interest (high number of downloads from foreign IP addresses).
- Coverage in Table 1: country-level FSR publication information (First/Latest Publication Date, Frequency, issuing institutions) for Argentina; Barbados; Bolivia; Brazil; Chile; Colombia; Ecuador; El Salvador; Guatemala; Honduras; Jamaica; Mexico (CESF); Mexico (CB); Nicaragua; Panama; Paraguay; Peru; The Bahamas; Trinidad and Tobago; Uruguay.

### Box 4 — Stress tests (coverage, methods, and weaknesses)
- Coverage and methods:
  - Majority of FSRs include stress tests or sensitivity analyses; coverage, methodology, and presentation differ widely.
  - Coverage often limited to credit risk on bank capital; Jamaica, Nicaragua, and Paraguay also cover nonbanks.
  - Some FSRs cover exchange rate, interest, and liquidity risks.
  - Some scenarios derived from macroeconomic risks; others use ad hoc shocks to bank variables.
  - Assumptions and methodology generally explained but rarely justified; only one report relates assumptions explicitly to risks highlighted elsewhere.
  - Presentation formats vary (chapters, annexes, boxes, tables, charts, succinct qualitative statements).
- Justification, integration, and recommended focus:
  - Stress tests should be justified, integrated with risks highlighted elsewhere, and reflect links between macro shocks and financial variables.
  - Coverage should depend on financial sector structure; nonbanks included where important.
  - Tests should examine liquidity and profitability beyond solvency.
  - Results should be discussed qualitatively and quantitatively, supported by tables and charts.
- Policy relevance and interpretation:
  - Tests often used to affirm resilience; more useful to identify: which business models are most vulnerable; which shocks generate highest vulnerabilities; which asset structures increase risk.
- Identified weaknesses:
  - Coverage of issues is the weakest area in the FSRs.
  - All reports avoid politically sensitive issues.
  - When risks are flagged, reports often do not discuss likelihood or impact.
  - Macro-financial integration limited; feedback from financial sector to macroeconomy rarely considered.
  - Important issues raised are often not followed up in subsequent editions.
  - Banking sector focus predominates; insurance and pension funds marginally covered despite rising risks in low interest rate environment.
  - Treatment of financial infrastructure is patchy.
  - Global spillovers discussed by larger economies but not consistently by smaller ones.
- Data, assumptions, and tools (Element D) — selected observations:
  - Most FSRs indicate data sources and cut-off date, but only a few make data available electronically (Brazil, Chile and Colombia cited).
  - Most reports refer to aggregate developments and rarely use disaggregated data to analyze macro-financial interconnectedness.
  - No report identifies data gaps explicitly.
  - Most reports do not justify methodology or model assumptions in detail.
  - Examples of shortcomings: reverse stress test identifying shocks leaving capital above the 0% hurdle rate without discussing probability of such a shock.

### Does the macroeconomic context matter for quality?
- Observed correlations (with caveats on causality and small-sample issues):
  - Best reports tend to be issued by largest and more advanced economies; composite score positively correlated with GDP, population, and per-capita income (excluding offshore centers).
  - Better reports issued by countries with sizable financial sectors; these have more comprehensive coverage (Element C), greater use of aggregate and individual bank data, more sophisticated stress tests (Element D), and more effective structure (Element E).
  - Reports issued by central banks tend to be better than those by other supervisory authorities, particularly in countries with floating exchange rates or an inflation targeting framework.
  - Reports from three offshore centers or dollarized economies do not score as well; reasons may include large ring-fenced offshore sectors and diminished central bank surveillance in dollarized economies.
  - Best reports tend to be issued by countries with higher stock of government debt and higher public expenditure and revenue relative to GDP; example: offshore banks in Panama hold only 1.3 percent of their assets in Panama and domestic liabilities represent only 0.3 percent of total offshore banks’ liabilities.
  - Of the 7 countries with public debt above 49 percent of GDP and public expenditure above 28 percent, only three did not issue reports in the top quality group; of the 12 countries that do not meet these criteria only one—Chile—issued a report in the top quality group.

### Conclusions and main recommendations
- Main findings:
  - Reviewed 20 FSRs published by 19 Latin American countries accounting for 92 percent of the region’s population and GDP.
  - Significant heterogeneity in quality; no report fully complies with established criteria.
  - Larger economies and financial sectors, and central-bank issuers, produce, on average, better reports.
  - Flexible exchange rates and inflation targeting frameworks associated with better-quality reports.
- Rapid, low-cost improvements:
  - Ensure all reports include an explicit statement of aims.
  - Provide a clear definition of financial stability in every report.
  - Make the data used in the report available on the webpage.
  - Announce the publication schedule clearly in advance.
  - Explain and justify methodology and assumptions; improve structure around specific themes.
- More substantive improvements (require higher investment):
  - Cover all systemically important areas of the financial system.
  - Adopt a forward-looking perspective in analyses.
  - Compute stress tests with the support of satellite econometric models.
  - Implement an effective, full-fledged communication strategy.
- Preconditions for strengthening quality:
  - Political resolve and commitment to unbiased and transparent communication.
  - Issuing authority should have: clear mandate for financial stability, access to data and resources, and operational independence from the government.
  - Authorities should be prepared to provide candid and timely assessments of all risks and be accountable for policy actions.

### Recommendations by assessment theme (key points)
- A: Aims, Objectives, and Reasons
  - Explicitly state aims: inform the public, encourage constructive debate, and hold public authorities accountable.
  - Define financial stability including a dynamic perspective and operational benchmarks.
- B: Overall Assessment
  - Executive summary: succinct, easy to read, present main conclusions for non-specialists; integrate macroeconomic and financial analysis; summarize evolution since previous issue and key recommendations.
- C: Coverage of Issues
  - Be forward looking, frank, and consistent; cover all relevant areas of the financial sector; explain omissions or cross-reference separate reports.
- D: Data, Assumptions, and Tools
  - Explain and justify assumptions (severity of shocks, impact on default probabilities, hurdle rates, dividend distribution, other parameters).
  - Preferably compute stress tests within a general equilibrium framework supported by satellite econometric models; if simpler tests used, describe limitations.
  - Indicate data sources and cut-off dates clearly; make data publicly available; provide technical details in annexes.
  - Analyze distributional indicators and extreme or individual values with confidentiality safeguards.
- E: Structure and other features
  - Follow a logical, integrated structure with unifying themes; include executive summary, chapters on external/domestic developments, financial infrastructure, acronyms, glossary, methodological annex, and statistical appendix.
  - Support publication with a well-designed communication strategy: dedicated webpage with database and links; outreach via audio-visual broadcasts, press releases, presentations; adapt format to audience.
  - Publication timing: publish within three months of cut-off date when possible, preferably at least two times a year; announce publication dates in advance and change only infrequently.

### Appendix — Areas of Assessment and component weights (selected exact values)
- A. Aims. Objectives and Reasons — Weight 0.21
  - A1 The aims of the report should be clearly indicated 0.03
  - A2 The definition of financial stability should be clearly indicated 0.03
  - A3 The definition of financial stability should be a standard part of the report, presented consistently across reports 0.03
  - A4 The statements of aims should be a standard part of the report, presented consistently across reports 0.03
  - A5 The definition of financial stability should be cover both the absence of a crisis and the resilience to a crisis 0.03
  - A6 Financial stability should be defined both in general terms and in operational terms 0.03
  - A7 The aims of the report should be comprehensive 0.03
- B. Overall assessment — Weight 0.20
  - B1 The overall assessment should be presented clearly and in candid terms 0.05
  - B2 The overall assessment should be linked to the remainder of the FSR 0.05
  - B3 There should be a clear link between the assessments over time, making it clear where the main changes took place 0.05
  - B4 The overall assessment should cover the key topics 0.05
- C. Coverage of issues — Weight 0.17
  - C1 The report should clearly identify the main macro-relevant stability issues 0.05
  - C2 The coverage of issues should be consistent across the reports 0.06
  - C3 The coverage of the financial system should be sufficiently comprehensive 0.06
- D. Data, assumptions, and tools — Weight 0.30
  - D1 It should be clear what data are used to arrive at the results presented in the reports 0.05
  - D2 It should be clear what assumptions are used to arrive at the results presented in the reports 0.05
  - D3 It should be clear what methodological tools are used to arrive at the results presented in the reports 0.05
  - D4 The results should be presented in a consistent way across reports 0.05
  - D5 The report should use available data, including those on individual institutions 0.05
  - D6 The report should use the available tools 0.05
- E. Structure and other features — Weight 0.12
  - E1 The structure of the report should be easy to follow 0.02
  - E2 Other features of the report (e.g., its length, frequency, timing, public availability and links to other central banks reports) should be designed to support its clarity 0.02
  - E3 The structure of the report should be consistent across time to make it easier to follow for repeat users 0.02
  - E4 The other features of the report should be designed to support its consistency 0.02
  - E5 The structure of the report should allow coverage of the key topics 0.02
  - E6 The other features of the report should be designed to supports its coverage 0.02

*Source: Executive Summary, Box 2, Box 4, Conclusions, and selected excerpts from wp1773 (Financial Stability Reports in Latin America and the Caribbean).*

### Executive Summary ......................................................................................................

### Executive Summary

### Overview
- Financial stability reports (FSRs) have become common in the Latin America and the Caribbean region (LAC), rising from the first publications in 2002 to 19 countries publishing FSRs; three countries have either delayed or discontinued publication (Ecuador, Guatemala, and Nicaragua).
- The sample reviewed consists of the 20 latest FSRs issued by 19 countries in the region as of June 30, 2016.
- The sample countries represent 92 percent of the region’s population and GDP.
- FSRs are predominantly issued by central banks; in Mexico both the central bank and the agency responsible for financial stability (CESF) publish FSRs and both are reviewed.
- FSRs are downloaded, on average, 1,600 times each, with significant variation across countries.

### Methodology
- Assessment framework: 26 criteria covering five broad elements:
  - A: clarity of aims,
  - B: overall assessment,
  - C: coverage of issues,
  - D: data, assumptions, and tools,
  - E: structure and other features.
- Scoring: each criterion receives a score of 1 (weakest) to 4 (strongest).
- Composite score: weighted average of the five elements using the weights suggested in Cihak (2006) to maintain comparability.
- Robustness: results were tested with alternative weights (equal weights) with no substantive change.
- Example of best practice used for illustration: the Bank of England July 2016 FSR (including a clear statement of aims, executive summary, candid assessment, two-part structure, full communication strategy, well-documented data sources with cutoff date July 1, 2016).

### Key findings on quality and content
- Overall variability:
  - The quality of FSRs in LAC varies significantly across countries; some reports are strong while others lack in several areas.
  - No report fully complies with the established criteria.
- Comparative standing:
  - The average quality rating for LAC FSRs in this study is equal to 2.2.
  - By comparison, Cihak and others (2012) report average quality ratings for FSRs issued in 2009 as: 2.3 for emerging market economies, 2.4 for emerging market economies outside Latin America, 3 for advanced economies, and 1.7 for low-income countries.
- Correlates of report quality:
  - Reports tend to be better in countries with higher GDP, higher income per capita, and lower external debt.
  - Quality is positively correlated with the size of the financial sector.
  - Reports are generally higher quality in countries with flexible exchange rates and an inflation targeting framework.
  - Reports issued by central banks score better than those issued by other supervisory agencies.

### Findings by element
- Aims and definitions:
  - Only eight out of 20 reports explicitly declare their aims and objectives.
  - Only seven reports provide a definition of financial stability.
  - Typical aims emphasize identifying risks and mitigating policies; some also aim to inform stakeholders, foster discussion, or provide policy guidance.
- Overall assessment (Element B):
  - The overall assessment is often descriptive and backward-looking and does not clearly point out potential or emerging risks.
  - Discussion is commonly limited to reviews of quantitative indicators or financial ratios with little forward-looking analysis.
  - Few reports indicate in what direction risks have changed since the previous report or explain why.
  - Stress test analyses typically conclude with general statements about the adequacy of capital, leaving readers to infer resilience.
- Coverage of issues (Element C):
  - No report covers the full range of financial system institutions (insurance, shadow banks, pension funds, financial markets, etc.).
  - Few reports identify and analyze systemically important risks and follow up on them across subsequent issues.
  - Macro-financial integration is limited; global spillovers are acknowledged mainly in larger economies.
- Data, assumptions, and tools (Element D):
  - Presentation of data, assumptions, and tools is clear in some reports, but basic information (data sources and cut-off dates) is missing in others.
  - Most reports rely on aggregate data; some dissect data by concentration of exposures and size of institutions.
  - Stress tests vary widely, from sophisticated models to simple sensitivity tests; assumptions are rarely justified in many reports.
- Structure and other features (Element E):
  - Structure is generally logical and consistent over time but typically follows a silo approach (sector-by-sector) without thematic linkages or spillovers.
  - Some FSRs have narrowed coverage over time, dropping analysis of nonbank financial sectors or regulatory changes.
  - FSRs that adopt thematic approaches do so effectively (overview of risks, use of boxes and annexes).
  - Accessibility: latest and past reports are generally available online but dedicated FSR webpages are not available for all countries and can be difficult to find or navigate.
  - Publication practices: some countries have discontinued or interrupted publication without explanation; others lack a clear publication schedule.
  - Communication: most reports lack a communication strategy or outreach associated with publication.

### Representative country- and region-level facts (as provided)
- Per-capita GDP in sample ranges:
  - Less than US$2,000 (Nicaragua) to more than US$20,000 (The Bahamas).
- Population in sample ranges:
  - Less than 300,000 (Barbados) to more than 200 million (Brazil).
- GDP in sample ranges:
  - US$4.4 billion (Barbados) to more than US$1 trillion (Brazil and Mexico).
- The three largest countries (Brazil, Mexico, and Argentina) account for two-thirds of the sample’s population and GDP.
- Global context: 60 countries publish FSRs (24 advanced and 36 emerging markets).

### Recommendations to strengthen FSRs
- Easy changes (low-hanging fruit):
  - Ensure all reports include an explicit statement of aims, clarifying that the report seeks to inform stakeholders, encourage informed debate, serve as accountability, and provide risk assessment for stakeholders’ decision-making.
  - Provide both a general and operational definition of financial stability in all reports.
  - Make the data used easily available on the webpage and announce the publication schedule in advance.
  - Track visitor traffic to FSR webpages to better understand readership profiles and target messages.
- Harder changes (require more effort and capacity):
  - Ensure reports cover all systemically important areas of the financial system.
  - Identify major risks and opportunities with a forward-looking lens and follow up on assessments across subsequent issues.
  - Adopt a thematic approach that orients analysis around main identified areas of risk, drawing linkages and spillovers.
  - Guide stress tests with accurate assessments of trends, vulnerabilities, and sensible, justified assumptions; address complex issues rather than avoiding them.
  - Develop a full-fledged communication strategy including a well-designed and easily accessible webpage and audio-visual broadcast at report launches to broaden reach and enhance public use.

*Source: Executive Summary of wp1773 (Financial Stability Reports in Latin America and the Caribbean) as provided in the supplied content.*

### Box 2. Online Downloads of FSRs in Latin America

### Box 2. Online Downloads of FSRs in Latin America

### Download trends and magnitude
- Download statistics were obtained from eight country authorities, going back by as many years as possible; the data reveal a growing—though not steady—trend in downloads of FSRs.
- Over the sample, each report is downloaded on average 1,600 times.
- The number of downloads varies significantly across countries and time:
  - Frequently exceeding 10,000 in Brazil.
  - Often less than 1000 in smaller economies.
- Total1631
- 1/ As of July 2016.

### Domestic versus foreign readership
- The data suggest that most downloads come from domestic users:
  - Local language versions are downloaded more frequently than the English version (when available).
  - In countries where IP-origin data are available, most downloads are made from domestic IP addresses.
- Trinidad and Tobago attract significant foreign interest, indicated by the high number of downloads from foreign IP addresses.

### Coverage in Table 1 (Latin America and the Caribbean: Financial Stability Reports)
- The table lists country-level FSR publication information including First/Latest Publication Date, Frequency, and which institutions publish the report (Central Bank; Supervisory Agency; Financial Stability Committee).
- Countries shown include: Argentina; Barbados; Bolivia; Brazil; Chile; Colombia; Ecuador; El Salvador; Guatemala; Honduras; Jamaica; Mexico (CESF); Mexico (CB); Nicaragua; Panama; Paraguay; Peru; The Bahamas; Trinidad and Tobago; Uruguay.
- Notes associated with the table:
  - Source: Central bank and other authorities’ websites.
  - In Mexico, two FSRs are published, one by the Central Bank, “Mexico (CB),” and one by the Financial System Stability Council (CESF), “Mexico (CESF).”

*Source: Box 2. Online Downloads of FSRs in Latin America (as presented in the supplied content).*

### preface or in the introduction; 8 do not contain any statement of aims; some of these contain

### wp1773 - preface or in the introduction; 8 do not contain any statement of aims; some of these contain

### Element A: Statement of aims and definition of financial stability
- Many reports lack an explicit statement of aims: some contain a brief description of content that "does not describe the function of the report"; others "provide a statement of the mandate and objectives of the authority that issued them, which is also not fully satisfactory because it does not explain what the authorities intend to achieve, specifically, by issuing the report (Figure 6, A1)"; in two cases the aims are on the central bank website but not in the report itself.
- Reports that obtain a high overall score usually include an explicit statement of their aims. Examples cited:
  - Chile: "Provid[ing] information... on recent macroeconomic and financial events that could affect the financial stability of the Chilean economy. In addition, the Report presents the policies and measures that support the normal operation of the internal and external payment system, with the objective of promoting general knowledge and public debate with regard to the Bank’s performance in fulfilling this function (emphasis added)."
  - Argentina: "the [Central Bank of Argentina] communicates its vision of the state of the financial system, the initiatives aimed at its development, and its assessment of its stability. In the FSR, the [Central Bank] pays special attention to identifying and analyzing any systemic risks and to explain the action it takes to prevent or mitigate them. This publication helps the different actors make their decisions with more and better information, facilitating a proper management of their activities. The FSR is thus an instrument to stimulate the debate over issues related to financial stability and, in particular, over the action of the [Central Bank] in this area” (our translation; emphasis added)."
- Definitions of financial stability across the sample:
  - "The majority of the reports (12 out of 20) do not provide a definition of financial stability."
  - Those that define it generally give a generic definition relating to the financial sector’s role to intermediate funds and promote an efficient allocation of resources from savers to investors.
  - In one case the definition is posted elsewhere on the website, and in another it is "buried in the glossary of the report (Figure 6, A2)."
  - Only two reports define financial stability in "sufficiently detailed static and dynamic terms (absence of a crisis and resilience; Figure 6, A5)," though reports tend to avoid the word "crisis."
  - "None of the reports includes a clear operational definition of financial stability (Figure 6, A6)."
  - Two reports (Colombia and Jamaica) provide operational guidance via references to central bank mandates:
    - Colombia: lists tasks including payment system functioning, providing liquidity through monetary operations and lender-of-last-resort authority, contributing to design of financial regulatory mechanisms with the Financial Supervision Authority, and "careful monitoring of economic trends that could jeopardize financial stability."
    - Jamaica: mandate entails "making sure that financial institutions, in particularly banks, are sound... overseeing the efficient and smooth determination of asset prices, making certain that participants are able to honor their promises to settle market transactions and preventing the emergence of systemic settlement risk arising from financial imbalances that may develop within individual institutions in the system."
- Consistency over time:
  - "There is consistency over time in how reports define their aims and definition of financial stability (Figure 6, A4)."
  - Reports that state their aims in latest issues have also included them previously; definitions are generally provided or omitted consistently and "is usually found (where it is available) in the same place in different issues (Figure 6, A3)."

### Element B: Overall assessment (executive summary quality)
- Purpose and recommended characteristics:
  - FSRs should provide a "clear and candid overall assessment of the situation in an executive summary."
  - The executive summary should discuss "all significant risks and vulnerabilities, including politically sensitive risks," identify main macro-financial transmission channels, be forward looking (anticipate new threats, identify trigger points, discuss likelihood and impact), and be "succinct and written in an easy-to-digest manner."
- Coverage in the sample:
  - "With two exceptions,20 all the reports examined in this study provide an overall assessment in the form of an executive summary, a preface/introduction or, in one case, a concluding chapter." (Footnote 20: Argentina and Panama.)
  - Quality of assessments varies considerably (Figure 7).
- Examples of stronger executive summaries:
  - Chile: notes capital buffers "have been reduced over time" though existing capital levels "are sufficient to absorb shocks under a severe stress scenario."
  - Mexico (CB): "the executive summary brings together the various pieces of analysis developed in the rest of the report to present a comprehensive view of potential risks and vulnerabilities."
  - Trinidad and Tobago: identifies risks related to "persistently low oil prices, a sharp house price correction, sovereign debt restructuring in the Caribbean, and a spike in US interest rates."
- Common weaknesses:
  - Many executive summaries are descriptive and focus on historical developments and financial ratios without deep analysis of causes, economic significance, or future implications.
  - Stress tests are often used to support generic statements about adequacy of liquidity and capital "without much elaboration of the underlying context, scenarios, assumptions, and risks (Box 4)."
  - Stress-testing exercises "often come across as a 'box checking' exercise" rather than a framework to assess resilience and preparedness.
  - "Few reports make an attempt to connect their assessments over time, following up on previous statements and risks and explaining what changes had occurred in the intervening period."
- Illustration of descriptive tendency:
  - Executive summaries are "descriptive rather than analytical... backward rather than forward looking."
  - Example of typical content: quantitative details on "total bank assets, the stock of various categories of deposits, credit to households and enterprises, as well as nonperforming loans, interest rates, and some key indicators such as the capital adequacy ratio;" often provided "without much analysis of the underlying causes and trends, a discussion of its implications for financial stability, or even a longer historical perspective."

### Element C: Coverage of issues
- Recommended scope:
  - FSRs should "identify clearly the most pressing financial stability issues," extend coverage to main players and stakeholders, main asset classes, and transmission channels between the real economy and the financial system.
  - Any lack of coverage in key areas (e.g., non-bank financial institutions, households and corporate sector, payment systems, regulatory changes) "should be explained and justified."
  - If a topic (e.g., payment system) is covered in a separate report, a reference should be provided.
- Practice in the sample:
  - The sample shows variable coverage and instances where important areas are omitted or insufficiently analyzed; when coverage is omitted the report should provide a justification or cross-reference (as recommended above).

*Source: IMF Staff assessment (wp1773 excerpt).*

### Box 4. Stress Tests

### Box 4. Stress Tests

### Coverage and methods used in FSRs
- The great majority of FSRs routinely include stress tests or sensitivity analyses, but the coverage, methodology, and presentation of stress tests differ widely across reports.
- Coverage is often limited to the impact of credit risk on bank capital; three FSRs (Jamaica, Nicaragua, and Paraguay) also cover nonbanks, such as securities dealers or financial companies.
- In addition to credit risk, some FSRs also cover exchange rate, interest, and liquidity risks.
- Some FSRs derive scenarios from macroeconomic or other concrete risks; others make ad hoc assumptions, for example, by simply assuming shocks to bank variables (such as the value of assets or losses on NPLs).
- The assumptions and methodology are generally explained but rarely justified; few reports provide adequate justifications for scenarios and parameters. Some relate them to historical values (e.g., standard deviations), but even those would benefit from a discussion of current risks relative to history.
- Only one report relates assumptions explicitly to risks highlighted elsewhere in the report.
- Presentation formats vary: chapters or specific sections; technical methodological aspects in an annex or box; detailed charts and discussions; overview tables; or succinct qualitative statements (e.g., generic statements such as “no bank would fail to meet minimum capital requirements”). Some reports provide results of past stress tests alongside the latest ones.

### Justification, integration, and recommended focus
- Justifying underlying assumptions and choosing the most relevant risks and sectors leads to more effective stress tests.
- Stress tests should address the risks highlighted elsewhere in the FSR or explain how those risks are reflected in the stress scenarios to achieve full integration into the FSR.
- The link between macroeconomic shocks and financial variables could be modelled or just explained, depending on available resources; some reports present unjustified ad hoc shocks.
- Past experience can provide guidance (e.g., distribution, correlation, and extreme value range), but analysis should be justified based on forward-looking discussions explaining why past values remain relevant.
- Coverage should depend on the structure of the financial sector; nonbanks should be covered where important.
- Tests should look beyond solvency to examine the impact on liquidity and profitability.
- Results should be discussed extensively:
  - Qualitatively: implications for stability and appropriate policy response.
  - Quantitatively: supported by tables and charts.

### Policy relevance and interpretation
- Stress tests are often used to affirm resilience, but they could be deployed for more policy-relevant purposes.
- Statements that tests are “passed” are a function of the assumed size of shocks; more useful is interpreting findings to identify:
  - Which business models are most vulnerable,
  - Which types of shocks generate the highest vulnerabilities,
  - Which asset structures increase risk.
- Such interpretations would inform supervisors and institutions about measures to increase resilience even if tests do not show breaches of requirements.

### Identified weaknesses in coverage and reporting
- Coverage of issues is the weakest area identified in the FSRs.
- All reports avoid politically sensitive issues, which may reflect central bank or supervisory agency preferences to maintain arm’s-length relations with government; in some cases this weakens effectiveness at identifying and communicating political risk that may have major implications for financial stability.
- When risks are flagged, most reports do not discuss relative importance in terms of likelihood or impact.
- Macro-financial integration is limited to cursory discussion of effects of macro shocks (e.g., growth, exchange rate) on the financial sector and rarely considers feedback from the financial sector to the macroeconomy.
- Important issues raised in one report are often not followed up in subsequent editions.
- Some reports focus on the banking sector and marginally cover insurance and pension funds, despite these sectors taking on more risks in a low interest rate environment.
- Treatment of financial infrastructure (payments system, trade clearing and settlement, risk management systems, regulatory oversight) is patchy.
- Global financial spillovers are discussed by larger economies but not consistently by smaller ones.

### Data, assumptions, and tools (Element D)
- FSRs should use appropriate models and analytical tools and the full range of available data; forward-looking assessment should combine quantitative and qualitative tools and identify data gaps.
- Stress tests are recommended, but other methods based on well-justified assumptions and macro scenarios can be appropriate.
- Most FSRs indicate data sources and provide a cut-off date, but only a few make the data available electronically online (e.g. Brazil, Chile and Colombia).
- Most reports refer to aggregate developments and rarely use disaggregated data to analyze macro-financial interconnectedness.
- No report identifies data gaps even though they are important in several countries.
- Most reports use some form of quantitative tools, from basic balance sheet analysis to sophisticated stress tests, but could adopt a wider set of qualitative tools (e.g., quality of supervision, integrity of regulatory framework, crisis management capability).
- Most reports do not justify methodology or model assumptions or do so only in very general terms.
- Examples of shortcomings:
  - Analytical content limited to description of recent developments (e.g., change in NPL ratio) without explaining reasons.
  - Use of methodologies not suitable for the purpose due to data limitations or ad hoc adjustments (example: a reverse stress test that identifies the maximum shock that would leave the capital level above the 0% hurdle rate without discussing the probability that a shock of this size or bigger could materialize).

### Structure and other report features (Element E)
- A good report should have a logical, consistent structure over time while allowing a unifying theme; when structure changes, reasons should be explained.
- All reviewed reports follow logical and consistent structures but tend to adopt a “silo” rather than thematic approach.
- Typical chapters: international and domestic macroeconomic developments, key segments of the financial sector, users of credit, payment system, regulatory framework; thematic boxes and annexes sometimes highlight cross-cutting issues.
- Accessibility, timeliness, and a fixed timetable strengthen the authority’s signal on regular surveillance and public communication.
- Observed publication features:
  - All countries except for three have up-to-date webpages dedicated to FSRs under the central bank’s or regulatory agency’s website.
  - Only 11 countries have a regular publication schedule; five countries have an irregular publication schedule or frequency; in three more, publications are significantly delayed or discontinued.
  - Only Brazil notifies the actual and regular publication dates on its webpage.
  - None of the countries announces future publication dates or a calendar of publication dates.
  - About one third of FSRs are published more than 6 months after the cut-off dates.
  - Four (Argentina, Chile, Colombia and Mexico) issue reports within three months.
- Communication strategy gaps:
  - Only a few countries (e.g. Chile and Colombia) provide direct access to underlying data and post videos and presentation slides (e.g. Trinidad and Tobago) or an audio presentation (Barbados) on their webpages.

### Does the macroeconomic context matter for quality?
- Correlations observed (caveats noted about causality and small-sample issues):
  - The best reports tend to be issued by the largest and more advanced economies; overall composite score is positively correlated with issuing country’s GDP, population, and – if offshore centers are excluded – per-capita income; this correlation is not driven by Argentina, Brazil, and Mexico and is stronger when these countries are excluded.
  - The best reports are issued by countries with a sizable financial sector; such reports tend to have more comprehensive coverage (Element C), greater use of aggregate and individual bank data, more sophisticated stress tests with fuller explanations (Element D), and a more effective structure (Element E).
  - Reports issued by central banks tend to be better than those by other supervisory authorities, particularly in countries with floating exchange rates or an inflation targeting framework; such reports more often declare aims and accountability, provide a definition of financial stability, are more candid in risk assessment, and take a systemic view.
  - Reports from three offshore centers or dollarized economies do not score as well; possible reasons include large ring-fenced offshore sectors with little domestic impact and diminished central bank surveillance capacity in dollarized economies.
  - The best reports tend to be issued by countries with a higher stock of government debt and higher public expenditure and revenue relative to GDP; this may reflect stronger motivation to provide credible assessments to investors to preserve confidence and manage refinancing costs.
- Specific numeric and illustrative points from the analysis:
  - In one example, offshore banks in Panama hold only 1.3 percent of their assets in Panama and domestic liabilities represent only 0.3 percent of total offshore banks’ liabilities.
  - Of the 7 countries with public debt above 49 percent of GDP and public expenditure above 28 percent, only three did not issue reports in the top quality group; by comparison, of the 12 countries that do not meet these criteria only one—Chile—issued a report in the top quality group.

*Source: Box 4. Stress Tests.*

### CONCLUSIONS

### CONCLUSIONS

### Main findings
- The study reviewed the quality of 20 FSRs published by 19 Latin American countries that account for 92 percent of the region’s population and GDP.
- There is significant heterogeneity in quality across countries; no report complies fully with the established criteria used in this assessment.
- Countries with a larger economy and financial sector, and where central banks are the issuing authority, appear, on average, to produce better reports.
- Countries with flexible exchange rates and an inflation targeting framework also produce reports that are, on average, of better quality.
- Central banks appear, on average, to produce better reports than other supervisory agencies.

### Rapid, low-cost improvements
- Ensure all reports include an explicit statement of aims.
- Provide a clear definition of financial stability in every report.
- Make the data used in the report available on the webpage.
- Announce the publication schedule clearly in advance.
- Explain and justify methodology and assumptions, and improve structure and organization around specific themes (requires more investment but manageable).

### More substantive improvements (require higher investment)
- Cover all systemically important areas of the financial system.
- Adopt a forward-looking perspective in analyses.
- Compute stress tests with the support of satellite econometric models.
- Implement an effective, full-fledged communication strategy.

### Preconditions for strengthening quality
- Political resolve and a strong commitment to provide unbiased and transparent communication are required.
- Issuing authority should have: a clear mandate for financial stability, access to data and resources, and operational independence from the government.
- Authorities should be prepared to provide candid and timely assessments of all risks, actual and potential, and to be held accountable for policy actions to mitigate risks, respond to shocks, and enhance long-term resilience.

### Recommendations (Table 5) — key points by theme
A: Aims, Objectives, and Reasons
- FSRs should explicitly state their aims: inform the public, encourage constructive debate, and hold public authorities accountable.
- FSRs should be clear about what is meant by financial stability, including a dynamic perspective and operational benchmarks (data, indicators, type of information monitored).

B: Overall Assessment
- Executive summary should be succinct, easy to read, and present main conclusions for non-specialist readers; technical material can be in boxes or annexes.
- Executive summary should present a panoramic and candid view of risks, discuss evolution since the previous issue, and summarize key recommendations.
- FSRs should integrate macroeconomic and financial analysis, assessing transmission channels and quantifying reverberation of shocks.

C: Coverage of Issues
- FSRs should be forward looking, frank, and consistent over time; identify future trends and not shy away from sensitive issues while protecting confidentiality.
- Reports should cover all relevant areas of the financial sector, not limiting discussion to banks when nonbank financial sector and capital markets are significant.

D: Data, Assumptions, and Tools
- FSRs should explain and properly justify assumptions used, especially in stress tests (severity of shocks, impact on default probabilities, hurdle rates on capital and liquidity, dividend distribution, other parameters).
- Ideally, stress tests should be computed within a general equilibrium framework supported by satellite econometric models; simpler tests are acceptable if limitations are described.
- FSRs should indicate data sources and cut-off dates clearly, make data publicly available on the internet, and explain methodologies for projections, sensitivity analyses, and stress tests with technical details in annexes.
- Reports should analyze distributional indicators and, where appropriate, extreme or individual values with confidentiality safeguards.

E: Structure and other features
- Reports should follow a logical and integrated structure with unifying themes centered on key risks; include boxes or appendices for slowly evolving or passing concerns.
- Preferably include an executive summary, chapters on external and domestic developments, changes in financial infrastructure, a table of acronyms, a glossary, a methodological annex, and a statistical appendix.
- Publication should be supported by a well-designed communication strategy: dedicated webpage with database and links; outreach via audio-visual broadcasts, press releases, public presentations, and press conferences; adapt format to audience.
- Publication should be timely, regular and predictable: published within three months of the cut-off date for the data, preferably at least two times a year; publication dates should be announced in advance and change only infrequently; past publication dates should be clearly indicated on the website.

### Appendix — Areas of Assessment and component weights (selected exact values)
- A. Aims. Objectives and Reasons — Weight 0.21
  - A1 The aims of the report should be clearly indicated 0.03
  - A2 The definition of financial stability should be clearly indicated 0.03
  - A3 The definition of financial stability should be a standard part of the report, presented consistently across reports 0.03
  - A4 The statements of aims should be a standard part of the report, presented consistently across reports 0.03
  - A5 The definition of financial stability should be cover both the absence of a crisis and the resilience to a crisis 0.03
  - A6 Financial stability should be defined both in general terms and in operational terms 0.03
  - A7 The aims of the report should be comprehensive 0.03
- B. Overall assessment — Weight 0.20
  - B1 The overall assessment should be presented clearly and in candid terms 0.05
  - B2 The overall assessment should be linked to the remainder of the FSR 0.05
  - B3 There should be a clear link between the assessments over time, making it clear where the main changes took place 0.05
  - B4 The overall assessment should cover the key topics 0.05
- C. Coverage of issues — Weight 0.17
  - C1 The report should clearly identify the main macro-relevant stability issues 0.05
  - C2 The coverage of issues should be consistent across the reports 0.06
  - C3 The coverage of the financial system should be sufficiently comprehensive 0.06
- D. Data, assumptions, and tools — Weight 0.30
  - D1 It should be clear what data are used to arrive at the results presented in the reports 0.05
  - D2 It should be clear what assumptions are used to arrive at the results presented in the reports 0.05
  - D3 It should be clear what methodological tools are used to arrive at the results presented in the reports 0.05
  - D4 The results should be presented in a consistent way across reports 0.05
  - D5 The report should use available data, including those on individual institutions 0.05
  - D6 The report should use the available tools 0.05
- E. Structure and other features — Weight 0.12
  - E1 The structure of the report should be easy to follow 0.02
  - E2 Other features of the report (e.g., its length, frequency, timing, public availability and links to other central banks reports) should be designed to support its clarity 0.02
  - E3 The structure of the report should be consistent across time to make it easier to follow for repeat users 0.02
  - E4 The other features of the report should be designed to support its consistency 0.02
  - E5 The structure of the report should allow coverage of the key topics 0.02
  - E6 The other features of the report should be designed to supports its coverage 0.02

*Source: CONCLUSIONS — wp1773*

### references to changes

### references to changes

### Overall assessment (B4)
- The overall assessment should mention direction of changes in forward-looking risk assessments.
- Levels of assessment described:
  - "No or limited discussion of risks."
  - "Overall assessment covers key topic and risks often in the context of key indicators and stress tests, but is mostly descriptive and backward looking, and not focused on potential risks."
  - "Overall assessment covers key topics including macrofinancial developments and their implications on financial stability, and discussions of specific risks."
  - "Overall assessment discusses all significant risks and exposures in the assessment, including potential and politically sensitive risks, and full discussion of vulnerabilities."
- Guidance:
  - "Overall assessment explicitly explains why and how the main risks and exposures have evolved since the last FSR, making clear the transmission channels."
  - Contrast: "mentions the direction of changes in the risk assessment from previous reports, but does not explain why and how it changed."

### Issues (C)
- C1: The report should clearly identify the main macro-relevant stability issues.
  - Assessment gradations:
    - "Macroeconomic risks identified, but important financial stability risks omitted and macroeconomic and financial analyses not integrated."
    - "Various financial stability risks identified, but no assessment of their relative importance and implications. Macro and financial risks are not well integrated."
    - "Various risks identified as having systemic impact, but no in-depth analysis in terms of relative importance and implications. Some integration of macrofinancial risks."
    - "Risks with wider systemic impact highlighted and covered both in overall assessment and in some depth. Significant macro financial integration."
- C2: The coverage of issues should be consistent across the reports.
  - Assessment gradations:
    - "Coverage not consistent over time and changes not explained."
    - "Coverage broadly consistent, but key risks not identified OR Changes to the worse and changes not explained."
    - "Coverage is consistent, special risks are highlighted."
    - "Consistent Coverage, and special risks highlighted. Follows up on previously-raised risks and explanation of newly-added risks."
- C3: The coverage of the financial system should be sufficiently comprehensive.
  - Assessment gradations:
    - "Report covers only banking sector."
    - "Banks and some of the other financial players (e.g., non-banks, payment system, borrowers) covered, but not in depth."
    - "Banks, non-banks and other financial players (e.g., SIFIs, shadow banks) covered, and analyzed them in greater depth."
    - "Banking system covered in depth, non-banks, payment systems, and other issues (e.g. borrowers, regulatory changes) also analyzed. Any lack of coverage is explained and justified."

### Data, Assumptions, and Tools (D)
- D1: Data transparency and availability
  - Weak: "No cut-off date, data sources not specified, and underlying data not available on the website."
  - Partial: "One of the three types of information (see ranking of 1) provided."
  - Stronger: "Two of the three types of information (see ranking of 1) provided."
  - Best practice: "Data cut-off date highly visible, sources specified at the bottom of the tables and charts, and underlying data made available as electronic link on the website."
- D2: Clarity of assumptions
  - "Assumptions for stress tests or any other quantitative analyses not provided."
  - "Assumptions are provided, but are not explained or justified."
  - "Report discusses assumptions and provides some justifications and explanations."
  - "Report discusses, explains, and justifies the assumptions."
- D3: Methodological transparency
  - "No stress test or other forward-looking risk assessment analysis OR The methodology is not explained."
  - "General explanation of methodology that lacks detail."
  - "Methodology is explained, but not in full OR Full explanation, but the approach does not seem suitable for the risk that is being assessed."
  - "Clear and detailed explanation of an appropriate methodology."
- D4: Consistency of presentation across reports
  - Weak: "Analyses and results, either in tables or text, are presented in a very different way across reports OR Lack of analyses and results that could be compared across reports."
  - Partial: "Analyses and results, either in tables or text, are presented in a similar structure across reports, but differences in presentation render the comparison difficult."
  - Better: "Analyses and results, either in tables or text, are presented in a mostly consistent way across reports, facilitating comparison. Assumptions are mostly consistent."
  - Best: "Analyses and results, either in tables or text, are presented in a consistent and comparable way across reports, and assumptions are consistent. The stress test results are explicitly compared with those in the previous report."
- D5: Use of available data, including institution-level data
  - "Only aggregate results shown."
  - "Mostly aggregate results, with some breakdown by types of institution/range."
  - "More granular results (e.g., range, reference to individual/types of institutions); analysis is based on both individual and aggregate data."
  - "Both individual and aggregate data used effectively, and both individual and systemic risks analysed. Important missing data are mentioned."
- D6: Use of available tools
  - "Assessment relies mostly on basic financial indicators (e.g., changes in credits, interest rates, and bank balance sheets)."
  - "Mostly FSIs and simple quantitative tools presented; no or rudimentary stress tests."
  - "Quantitative tools used (e.g., FSIs and stress tests), but only limited qualitative tools (e.g., regulatory framework, qualitative supervisory information)."
  - "Combination of available quantitative and qualitative tools to allow for a forward-looking assessment of risk."

### Structure and other features (E)
- E1: Report structure clarity
  - Weak: "No underlying logic or theme to the structure."
  - Partial: "Structure is simple, or not sufficient to cover full range of issues. No unifying themes, and in some cases no executive summary."
  - Better: "Structure allows comprehensive coverage. No unifying theme, but structure allows upfront summary of key issues."
  - Best: "Report has an integrated structure with unifying themes that is well explained."
- E2: Other features supporting clarity (length, frequency, timing, availability, links)
  - Weak: "No dedicated webpage for FSRs."
  - Partial: "Dedicated webpage for FSRs with current and past reports, but either (i) hard to find, or (ii) not accompanied by any of the following: communication strategy (e.g., press release, presentations, videos), links to other relevant, specific publications, official publication date, and underlying data."
  - Better: "Dedicated webpage for FSRs with current and past reports. The webpage has one of the following: communication strategy, links to other relevant, specific publications, official publication date, and underlying data."
  - Best: "Dedicated webpage specifies communication strategy, underlying data, and specific links to other relevant publications."
- E3: Consistency of structure over time
  - "Structure not consistent across past reports."
  - "Structure changed without explanation OR Structure broadly consistent, but has become less comprehensive."
  - "Structure largely consistent; any changes are for the better."
  - "Consistent structure across reports that clearly distinguishes core analysis from special topics."
- E4: Predictability of publication timetable
  - "No predictable timetable; some of the past reports are missing/no publication in some years."
  - "No clear timetable; publication appears somewhat irregular; past reports are available."
  - "No clear timetable; publication dates not specified, but appear regular; past reports are available."
  - "Well-known, regular and predictable timetable; past reports are available."
- E5: Report structure allowing coverage of key topics
  - "There is no logical structure to the report."
  - "Logical structure that allows coverage of key topics, but largely follows silo approach and sections (e.g., executive summary, conclusion, boxes) that allow to bring together themes not utilized well."
  - "Logical structure that allows coverage of key topics. Largely follows silo approach, but boxes and annexes allow for discussions of specific themes, and there are sections (e.g., executive summary, conclusion, boxes) attempting to bring together key messages that emerges from subsectors."
  - "Structure of the report allows for presentation of cross-cutting topics, integrating various sub-sectors."
- E6: Timeliness of publication relative to data cut-off
  - "Report outdated and has not been updated for more than 12 months."
  - "Published within 12 months of the data cutoff date."
  - "Published within 6 months of the data cutoff date."
  - "Published within 3 months of the data cutoff date."

### Appendix Table 3: List of the FSRs Reviewed in this Study (selected entries)
- Argentina — Banco Central de la Republica Argentina — Informe de Estabilidad Financiera — First Semester of 2016
- Barbados — Central Bank of Barbados — Financial Stability Report 2015
- Bolivia — Banco Central de Bolivia — Informe de Estabilidad Financiera — January 2016
- Brazil — Banco Central do Brasil — Relatório de Estabilidade Financeira — April 2016, v. 15, no. 1
- Chile — Banco Cenral de Chile — Informe de Estabilidad Financiera — First Half of 2016
- Colombia — Banco de la República Colombia — Reporte de Estabilidad Financiera — March 2016
- Ecuador — Superintendencia de Bancos del Ecuador — Reporte de Estabilidad Financiera — June 2014
- El Salvador — Banco Central de Reserva de El Salvador — Informe de Estabilidad Financiera — December 2015
- Guatemala — Superintendencia de Bancos Guatemala — Informe de Estabilidad Financiera — June 2012, no. 11
- Honduras — Banco Central de Honduras, Subgerencia de Estudios Económicos — Informe de Estabilidad Financiera — December 2015
- Jamaica — Bank of Jamaica — Financial Stability Report 2015
- Mexico — Banco de México — Reporte sobre el Sistema Financiero — November 2015
- Mexico — Consejo de Estabilidad del Sistema Financiero — Informe anual sobre el estado que guarda la estabilidad del sistema financiero en México y sobre las actividades realizadas por el Consejo de Estabilidad del Sistema Financiero — March 2016
- Nicaragua — Banco Central de Nicaragua — Informe de Estabilidad Financiera — September 2014
- Panama — Superintendencia de Bancos de Panamá, Dirección de Estudios Financieros — Informe de Estabilidad Financiera — 2015
- Paraguay — Banco Central del Paraguay — Informe de Estabilidad Financiera — April 2016
- Peru — Banco Central de Reserva del Perú — Reporte de Estabilidad Financiera — May 2016
- The Bahamas — The Central Bank of the Bahamas — Financial Stability Report — January-June 2015, No. 4
- Trinidad and Tobago — Central Bank of Trinidad and Tobago — Draft Financial Stability Report 2015
- Uruguay — Banco Central del Uruguay, Superintendencia de Servicios Financieros — Reporte del Sistema Financiero 2015

### References (selected)
- Borio, Claudio and Mathias Drehmann, 2009, “Towards and Operational Framework for Financial Stability: ‘Fuzzy’ Measurement and Its Consequences,” BIS Working Papers, No. 284.
- Centre for Money and Finance, 2016, Caribbean Regional Financial Stability Report 2015, University of the West Indies.
- Cihak, Martin, 2006, “How Do Central Banks Write on Financial Stability?” IMF Working Papers, WP/06/163.
- Cihak, Martin, Sonia Munoz, Shakira The Sharifuddin, and Kalin Tinchev, 2012, “Financial Stability Reports: What Are They Good for?” IMF Working Papers, WP/12/1.
- Hadzi-Vaskov, Meodij, 2016, “Economic Effects of Panama’s Offshore Banking Sector,” Panama–Selected Issues, IMF Country Reports, No. 16/338, pp. 36–42.
- Osterloo, Sander, Jakob de Haan, and Richard Jong-A-Pin, 2007, “Financial Stability Reviews: A First Empirical Analysis,” Journal of Financial Stability, Vol. 2, pp. 337–355.
- Wilkinson, Jim, Kenneth Spong, and Jon Christensson “Financial Stability Reports: How Useful During a Financial Crisis?” Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City Economic Review, first quarter 2010.

*Source: wp1773 - references to changes (wp1773 - references to changes).*

---


_Source: https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/publications/wp/2017/wp1773.pdf_