## _wp16110

## Source details

**Canonical URL:** [_wp16110](https://www.imf.org/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/pubs/ft/wp/2016/_wp16110.pdf)

## Other formats

- [Markdown version](/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/pubs/ft/wp/2016/_wp16110.pdf.md)
- [Structured JSON version](/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/pubs/ft/wp/2016/_wp16110.pdf.json)

---

### I. Introduction and purpose
- Prudential instruments involving the banking system are essential in the policymaking toolkit to promote financial stability and are used for both microprudential and macroprudential objectives.
- The paper and associated database aim to consistently document cross-country usage of key prudential instruments during the period 2000-2014, independently of authorities’ stated objectives.
- The database provides a comprehensive, multi-country, longitudinal overview at quarterly frequency.

### II. Coverage and scope of the database
- Sample: 64 countries during the period between 2000 and 2014.
- Frequency: quarterly changes for prudential policy indices.
- Instruments covered:
  - Five types of prudential instruments: capital buffers, interbank exposure limits, concentration limits, loan-to-value (LTV) ratio limits, and reserve requirements.
  - Nine indices constructed, reflecting breakdowns:
    - Capital buffers broken into four sub-indices: general capital requirements, real estate credit related specific capital buffers, consumer credit related specific capital buffers, and other specific capital buffers.
    - Reserve requirements broken into two sub-indices: domestic currency capital requirements and foreign currency capital requirements.
- Rationale for selection:
  - Focus on the most widely used prudential instruments across countries.
  - Inclusion of capital buffers to capture instruments used for microprudential objectives as well as macroprudential ones.

### III. Construction of the prudential policy indices (methodology)
- Primary coding:
  - Changes in a policy instrument are recorded with discrete entries: 1 for a tightening, -1 for a loosening, and 0 when no change occurs in a given quarter.
  - Entries coded as missing when policymakers cannot use that policy tool (e.g., no legal rule exists to set LTV ratio limits) or when information is unavailable for certain instruments/countries.
- Intensity measurement where feasible:
  - For instruments summarized by a single numerical statistic (example: reserve requirements on local or foreign currency deposits), positive and negative integers capture the intensity of a change relative to the starting date (first quarter of 2000).
- Cumulative index:
  - In each quarter, the cumulative index equals the sum, since the first quarter of 2000, of all changes in the policy index recorded prior to and during the quarter of interest.
  - Purpose: capture the level of “tightness” or “looseness” of an instrument at a given point in time.
  - Caveat: cumulative indices are appropriate for tracking within-country intensity over time but should be used with caution for cross-country comparisons (differences at the 2000 starting point and qualitative differences across countries can affect comparability).

### IV. Sources of information and dataset construction
- Primary and secondary sources combined:
  - Starting point: GMPI survey (Cerutti, Claessens, and Laeven, 2015).
  - Primary information provided directly by national authorities via IBRN, IMF, and national authorities’ webpages.
  - Complemented by earlier IMF dataset compiled by Lim et al. (2011) and databases by Akinci and Olmstead-Rumsey (2015), Kuttner and Shim (2013), and Reinhart and Sowerbutts (2015).
  - Additional instrument-specific secondary sources referenced in the internet appendix.
- Review and validation:
  - All versions reviewed by Central Bank staff participating in the IBRN for accuracy and completeness.
  - Feedback led to additions and corrections (including instrument changes not recorded elsewhere).
- Data gaps:
  - GMPI responses on changes are often missing or incomplete for 2000–2013, motivating the multi-source construction approach.
  - Some countries have limited coverage (7 countries noted in the appendix); certain entries for concentration and interbank exposure limits or general capital requirements are recorded as missing for some countries.

### V. Details on specific prudential instruments
- General capital requirements:
  - Index construction:
    - Based on regulatory changes introduced in the Basel Accords through the four revisions: I, II, II.5, and III.
    - Index value = 1 when a capital regulation is implemented or tightened; zero when no changes take place. The index never takes the value of -1.
    - Basel I, II.5, and III are coded as tightenings (entry = 1). Basel II is coded as neutral (entry = 0).
    - The index records changes at the point in time when the law is implemented (not when passed).
  - Data sources:
    - Basel Committee on Banking Supervision progress reports on members’ implementation and country supervision authorities’ websites.
    - Direct inquiries to country authorities through the IBRN or IMF when public sources are not available.
- Sector specific capital buffers (SSCB):
  - Purpose and coverage:
    - Captures regulatory changes aimed at curtailing growth in bank claims to specific sectors (adjustments to risk-weights of specific bank exposures).
    - Three borrower-type categories recorded separately: real estate credit, consumer credit, and other credit.
  - Index characteristics:
    - Aggregate SSCB index = sum of changes across the three credit types.
    - The index can take values greater or lower than 1 or -1 in a given quarter to signal changes in multiple sectors simultaneously.
- Reserve Requirements (RR):
  - Usage and coding:
    - Included when used to satisfy prudential objectives (GMPI survey used to identify macroprudential use).
    - Changes collected separately for deposit accounts denominated in domestic and foreign currency.
    - Sources: central bank websites, the IMF’s Annual Report on Exchange Arrangements and Exchange Restrictions (AREAER), and a database by Federico, Vegh, and Vuletin (2014).
  - Indexing and granularity:
    - Numeric index captures the overall level of reserve requirements within a broad category, allowing numbers above or below 1 and -1 to record intensity.
    - The cumulative index tracks contour of level of instrument (example shown for China), implicitly capturing qualitative differentiations (e.g., differentiated treatment of large vs. small and medium depository institutions in mid-2008).
- Concentration limits and interbank exposure limits:
  - Five modifiable elements:
    - The definition of large exposures (Basel definition: exposures ≥ 10% of bank’s eligible capital base; country-specific variants exist, e.g., France: 10% or > 300 million euros).
    - The level of the limit (share of bank capital or monetary terms), exposures weighted by risk weights.
    - Differentiation across counterparties (weights depend on counterparty riskiness and duration).
    - Aggregate limits (total across large exposures as share of eligible capital).
    - Sectors and assets covered by regulation (may include or exempt certain sectors; definition of qualified assets can change).
  - Coding rules and assumptions:
    - If multiple characteristic changes are implemented, code net effect as tightening or loosening.
    - If rule changes affect both concentration limits and interbank exposures, code only the index that mostly applies.
    - If authorities do not specify the exact quarter within a year, use the first quarter of that year as implementation date.
- Loan-to-Value (LTV) ratio limits:
  - Definition and scope:
    - Restrictions on maximum amount that an individual or firm can borrow against their collateral; most commonly applied to real estate transactions.
    - Instrument affects demand for credit (applies to transactions covered, regardless of lender type).
  - Coding decisions:
    - Record changes in LTV ratio limits that affect real estate transactions.
    - Do not consider changes in banks’ risk weights associated with LTV ratios (since they may not constrain borrowing capacity).
    - Include two additional cases with broadly similar impact:
      - Changes to maximum amount insured in real estate transactions (Canada and Hong Kong).
      - Changes related to maximum LTV allowed in covered bonds (Denmark and Finland).
    - For changes affecting subsamples (e.g., first residential purchases), assess net effect across types and code accordingly.

### VI. Data coverage and index counts (sample period and observation totals)
- Sample period: 2000Q1 to 2014Q4.
- Total number of prudential indices = nine.
- Table 1 totals (number of quarterly observations by index; last-row totals):
  - SSCB real estate loans: 3840
  - SSCB consumer loans: 3840
  - SSCB other loans: 3840
  - Concentration limits: 2057
  - Interbank exposures: 1125
  - RR foreign currency: 3840
  - RR local currency: 3838
  - Loan to value ratio limits: 1298
  - General capital requirements: 3420

### VII. Use of prudential instruments across countries (selected statistics)
- Database contains a total of 64 countries.
- Example statistics for general capital requirements (Table 2—example row):
  - Distinct countries with instrument changes: 55
  - Countries with tightening episodes: 55
  - Countries with loosening episodes: 0
  - Countries with instrument: 57
- Observed patterns:
  - LTV ratio limits and reserve requirements (foreign and local currency) have the largest number of tightening and loosening episodes.
  - General capital requirements only recorded tightenings (reflecting coding of Basel Accords implementation).
  - Interbank exposures modified by about one-fifth of the sample, most changes being tightenings.

### VIII. Cyclical versus counter-cyclical usage: correlations with macro-financial variables
- Method overview:
  - Analyzed correlations between changes in the cumulative index of prudential instruments and: real credit growth (annualized, most recent 4 quarters, deflated by CPI inflation), house prices, and policy rates.
  - Only statistically significant correlations at the 10 percent level or less are considered in distributions shown.
- Key correlation results (counts and patterns):
  - Capital requirements (Cap. Req.):
    - Correlations calculable for 51 countries; 33 statistically significant.
    - Distribution of significant correlations skewed to the negative side (tightenings often after crises and slowdowns in credit growth).
  - Sector specific capital buffer (Cap. SSB):
    - 25 calculable correlations; 16 statistically significant; median slightly above zero for EM and AE groupings.
  - Concentration limits and interbank exposures:
    - Few significant correlations with credit growth, largely because usage intensity changes infrequently.
    - Concentration limits: 18 calculable, 14 statistically significant.
    - Interbank exposures: 11 calculable, 8 statistically significant.
  - Reserve requirements (RR):
    - RR local currency: 39 calculable; 26 statistically significant; correlations mostly positive indicating counter-cyclical usage.
    - RR foreign currency (EMs): 14 calculable; 8 statistically significant (positive correlations for Romania, Argentina, Peru, Chile, Russia, Colombia, Brazil; Croatia an outlier negative).
    - RR foreign currency in AEs: 3 calculated; 1 statistically significant (Slovakia).
  - LTV ratio limits:
    - 21 calculable; 17 statistically significant.
    - Some AEs used LTV caps counter-cyclically with positive correlations with credit growth (Spain, Norway, Denmark, Singapore, Iceland, Luxembourg, Hong Kong, Canada); exceptions include Korea and the Netherlands.
- Correlations with policy rates:
  - LTV caps: mixed evidence—some AEs positive (Denmark, Luxembourg, Iceland), others negative (Singapore, Hong Kong, Canada); median around zero.
  - Reserve requirements (local currency): many EMs use RR as counter-cyclical complement to monetary policy (e.g., India, Argentina, Philippines, China, Bulgaria show negative and significant correlations between reserve requirements and policy rates). Some countries (Romania, Poland, Lithuania) show positive correlations. Among AEs, 10 euro-area countries show positive correlations between RR local currency and policy rates, indicating complementary use.

### IX. Findings, timing, and policy interactions
- Usage patterns and objectives:
  - Capital buffers, concentration limits, and interbank exposure limits tend to be used for more structural objectives (building resilience, lowering risks) rather than cyclical stabilization.
  - LTV ratio limits and reserve requirements (foreign and local currency) appear more consistent with counter-cyclical policy objectives in most cases, though with significant heterogeneity across countries.
- Timing and clustering:
  - Tightenings in general capital requirements clustered after the global financial crisis (implementation of Basel II.5 and III).
  - Reserve requirement loosening episodes coincided with the global financial crisis and the European sovereign debt crisis.
  - LTV caps largely tightened after the global financial crisis.
- Cross-policy interactions:
  - Some tests indicate complementary and non-complementary interactions between specific prudential instruments and monetary policy rates.

### X. Conclusions and research utility
- Dataset compiled: unique measurement of changes in intensity of use for nine prudential tools across 64 countries, covering 2000Q1–2014Q4.
- Main empirical conclusions:
  - LTV caps and reserve requirements show the largest numbers of tightening and loosening episodes.
  - Capital buffers, concentration limits, and interbank exposure limits are used more structurally.
  - LTV and reserve requirements are more often used counter-cyclically, with heterogeneity across countries.
  - Evidence of complementary and non-complementary interactions between prudential policies and monetary policy rates.
- Research and policy utility:
  - The dataset supports analyses of prudential instrument effectiveness and spillovers and is intended to serve future research and policy work on micro- and macro-prudential policies.

*Source: IMF working paper content unit _wp16110 (sections 2.1–2.3 and related material).*

### 2.1 Construction of the prudential instrument indices ............................................................... 7

### _wp16110 - 2.1 Construction of the prudential instrument indices ............................................................... 7

### I. Introduction and purpose
- Prudential instruments involving the banking system are essential in the policymaking toolkit to promote financial stability and are used for both microprudential and macroprudential objectives.
- The paper and associated database aim to consistently document cross-country usage of key prudential instruments during the period 2000-2014, independently of authorities’ stated objectives.
- The database provides a comprehensive, multi-country, longitudinal overview at quarterly frequency.

### II. Coverage and scope of the database
- Sample: 64 countries during the period between 2000 and 2014.
- Frequency: quarterly changes for prudential policy indices.
- Instruments covered:
  - Five types of prudential instruments: capital buffers, interbank exposure limits, concentration limits, loan-to-value (LTV) ratio limits, and reserve requirements.
  - Nine indices constructed, reflecting breakdowns:
    - Capital buffers broken into four sub-indices: general capital requirements, real estate credit related specific capital buffers, consumer credit related specific capital buffers, and other specific capital buffers.
    - Reserve requirements broken into two sub-indices: domestic currency capital requirements and foreign currency capital requirements.
- Rationale for selection:
  - Focus on the most widely used prudential instruments across countries.
  - Inclusion of capital buffers to capture instruments used for microprudential objectives as well as macroprudential ones.

### III. Construction of the prudential policy indices (methodology)
- Primary coding:
  - Changes in a policy instrument are recorded with discrete entries: 1 for a tightening, -1 for a loosening, and 0 when no change occurs in a given quarter.
  - Entries coded as missing when policymakers cannot use that policy tool (e.g., no legal rule exists to set LTV ratio limits) or when information is unavailable for certain instruments/countries.
- Intensity measurement where feasible:
  - For instruments summarized by a single numerical statistic (example: reserve requirements on local or foreign currency deposits), positive and negative integers capture the intensity of a change relative to the starting date (first quarter of 2000).
- Cumulative index:
  - In each quarter, the cumulative index equals the sum, since the first quarter of 2000, of all changes in the policy index recorded prior to and during the quarter of interest.
  - Purpose: capture the level of “tightness” or “looseness” of an instrument at a given point in time.
  - Caveat: cumulative indices are appropriate for tracking within-country intensity over time but should be used with caution for cross-country comparisons (differences at the 2000 starting point and qualitative differences across countries can affect comparability).

### IV. Sources of information and dataset construction
- Primary and secondary sources combined:
  - Starting point: GMPI survey (Cerutti, Claessens, and Laeven, 2015).
  - Primary information provided directly by national authorities via IBRN, IMF, and national authorities’ webpages.
  - Complemented by earlier IMF dataset compiled by Lim et al. (2011) and databases by Akinci and Olmstead-Rumsey (2015), Kuttner and Shim (2013), and Reinhart and Sowerbutts (2015).
  - Additional instrument-specific secondary sources referenced in the internet appendix.
- Review and validation:
  - All versions reviewed by Central Bank staff participating in the IBRN for accuracy and completeness.
  - Feedback led to additions and corrections (including instrument changes not recorded elsewhere).
- Data gaps:
  - GMPI responses on changes are often missing or incomplete for 2000–2013, motivating the multi-source construction approach.
  - Some countries have limited coverage (7 countries noted in the appendix); certain entries for concentration and interbank exposure limits or general capital requirements are recorded as missing for some countries.

### V. Key empirical patterns and findings (as documented)
- Frequency and intensity of adjustments:
  - Concentration limits and interbank limits: widely used but intensities (loosening or tightening) are not often adjusted.
  - LTV ratio limits and reserve requirements (foreign and local currency): largest numbers of tightening and loosening episodes.
- Functional usage:
  - Instruments linked to capital buffers, concentration limits, and interbank exposures have been used to achieve structural objectives (e.g., creating capital buffers, lowering risks) with micro or macroprudential perspectives.
  - This is supported by low correlation between changes in these instruments’ intensity and key financial variables like credit, policy rates, and house prices.
- Cyclical versus counter-cyclical usage signals:
  - Correlations for LTV ratio limits, and foreign and local currency reserve requirements with credit growth signal a counter-cyclical usage by authorities in most cases.
  - Correlations with house prices are mostly not statistically significant across most countries with available data, except for a few Asian countries.
  - Correlations of LTV ratio limits and both reserve requirements with countries’ policy interest rates reveal heterogeneous policy actions across countries; many statistically significant correlations indicate both complementarities and non-complementarities between these prudential instruments and policy rates.

*Source: IMF working paper content unit _wp16110 (sections 2.1–2.2 and related introductory material).*

### 2.3 Details on specific prudential instruments

### 2.3 Details on specific prudential instruments

### General capital requirements
- Index construction:
  - Based on regulatory changes introduced in the Basel Accords through the four revisions: I, II, II.5, and III.
  - Index value = 1 when a capital regulation is implemented or tightened; zero when no changes take place. The index never takes the value of -1.
  - Basel I, II.5, and III are coded as tightenings (entry = 1). Basel II is coded as neutral (entry = 0).
  - The index records changes at the point in time when the law is implemented (not when passed).
- Data sources:
  - Basel Committee on Banking Supervision progress reports on members’ implementation and country supervision authorities’ websites.
  - Direct inquiries to country authorities through the IBRN or IMF when public sources are not available.

### Sector specific capital buffers (SSCB)
- Purpose and coverage:
  - Captures regulatory changes aimed at curtailing growth in bank claims to specific sectors (adjustments to risk-weights of specific bank exposures).
  - Three borrower-type categories recorded separately: real estate credit, consumer credit, and other credit.
- Index characteristics:
  - Aggregate SSCB index = sum of changes across the three credit types.
  - The index can take values greater or lower than 1 or -1 in a given quarter to signal changes in multiple sectors simultaneously.

### Reserve Requirements (RR)
- Usage and coding:
  - While typically a monetary policy instrument, reserve requirements are included when used to satisfy prudential objectives (GMPI survey used to identify macroprudential use).
  - Changes collected separately for deposit accounts denominated in domestic and foreign currency.
  - Sources: central bank websites, the IMF’s Annual Report on Exchange Arrangements and Exchange Restrictions (AREAER), and a database by Federico, Vegh, and Vuletin (2014).
- Indexing and granularity:
  - Numeric index captures the overall level of reserve requirements within a broad category, allowing numbers above or below 1 and -1 to record intensity.
  - The cumulative index tracks contour of level of instrument (example shown for China), implicitly capturing qualitative differentiations (e.g., differentiated treatment of large vs. small and medium depository institutions in mid-2008).

### Concentration limits and interbank exposure limits
- Five elements that can be modified to change these limits:
  - The definition of large exposures (Basel definition: exposures ≥ 10% of bank’s eligible capital base; country-specific variants exist, e.g., France: 10% or > 300 million euros).
  - The level of the limit (share of bank capital or monetary terms), exposures weighted by risk weights.
  - Differentiation across counterparties (weights depend on counterparty riskiness and duration).
  - Aggregate limits (total across large exposures as share of eligible capital).
  - Sectors and assets covered by regulation (may include or exempt certain sectors; definition of qualified assets can change).
- Coding rules and assumptions:
  - If multiple characteristic changes are implemented, code net effect as tightening or loosening.
  - If rule changes affect both concentration limits and interbank exposures, code only the index that mostly applies.
  - If authorities do not specify the exact quarter within a year, use the first quarter of that year as implementation date.

### Loan-to-Value (LTV) ratio limits
- Definition and scope:
  - Restrictions on maximum amount that an individual or firm can borrow against their collateral; most commonly applied to real estate transactions.
  - Instrument affects demand for credit (applies to transactions covered, regardless of lender type).
- Coding decisions:
  - Record changes in LTV ratio limits that affect real estate transactions.
  - Do not consider changes in banks’ risk weights associated with LTV ratios (since they may not constrain borrowing capacity).
  - Include two additional cases with broadly similar impact:
    - Changes to maximum amount insured in real estate transactions (Canada and Hong Kong).
    - Changes related to maximum LTV allowed in covered bonds (Denmark and Finland).
  - For changes affecting subsamples (e.g., first residential purchases), assess net effect across types and code accordingly.

### Data coverage and indices
- Database features:
  - Covers five types of prudential instruments and 64 countries.
  - For two instruments, subcomponents are calculated:
    - SSCB subcomponents: real estate loans, consumer loans, other loans.
    - RR subcomponents: local currency and foreign currency deposit accounts.
  - Total number of prudential indices = nine.
- Sample period:
  - 2000Q1 to 2014Q4.
- Table 1 totals (number of quarterly observations by index; last-row totals):
  - SSCB real estate loans: 3840
  - SSCB consumer loans: 3840
  - SSCB other loans: 3840
  - Concentration limits: 2057
  - Interbank exposures: 1125
  - RR foreign currency: 3840
  - RR local currency: 3838
  - Loan to value ratio limits: 1298
  - General capital requirements: 3420
- Notes on coverage:
  - Instruments unavailable due to lack of authorizing legislation are coded as missing.
  - Introduction of an instrument during the sample is coded as of the date legislation is passed; if introduction is a tightening it is coded as 1, if introduced at zero it is coded as 0.

### Use of prudential instruments across countries (selected statistics)
- Database contains a total of 64 countries.
- Table 2—example row for general capital requirements:
  - Distinct countries with instrument changes: 55
  - Countries with tightening episodes: 55
  - Countries with loosening episodes: 0
  - Countries with instrument: 57
- Observed patterns:
  - LTV ratio limits and reserve requirements (foreign and local currency) have the largest number of tightening and loosening episodes.
  - General capital requirements only recorded tightenings (reflecting coding of Basel Accords implementation).
  - Interbank exposures modified by about one-fifth of the sample, most changes being tightenings.

### Cyclical or counter-cyclical usage: correlations with macro-financial variables
- Method overview:
  - Analyzed correlations between changes in the cumulative index of prudential instruments and: real credit growth (annualized, most recent 4 quarters, deflated by CPI inflation), house prices, and policy rates.
  - Only statistically significant correlations at the 10 percent level or less are considered in distributions shown.
- Key correlation results (counts and patterns):
  - Capital requirements (Cap. Req.):
    - Correlations calculable for 51 countries; 33 statistically significant.
    - Distribution of significant correlations skewed to the negative side (tightenings often after crises and slowdowns in credit growth).
  - Sector specific capital buffer (Cap. SSB):
    - 25 calculable correlations; 16 statistically significant; median slightly above zero for EM and AE groupings.
  - Concentration limits and interbank exposures:
    - Few significant correlations with credit growth, largely because usage intensity changes infrequently.
    - Concentration limits: 18 calculable, 14 statistically significant.
    - Interbank exposures: 11 calculable, 8 statistically significant.
  - Reserve requirements (RR):
    - RR local currency: 39 calculable; 26 statistically significant; correlations mostly positive indicating counter-cyclical usage.
    - RR foreign currency (EMs): 14 calculable; 8 statistically significant (positive correlations for Romania, Argentina, Peru, Chile, Russia, Colombia, Brazil; Croatia an outlier negative).
    - RR foreign currency in AEs: 3 calculated; 1 statistically significant (Slovakia).
  - LTV ratio limits:
    - 21 calculable; 17 statistically significant.
    - Some AEs used LTV caps counter-cyclically with positive correlations with credit growth (Spain, Norway, Denmark, Singapore, Iceland, Luxembourg, Hong Kong, Canada); exceptions include Korea and the Netherlands.
- Correlations with policy rates:
  - LTV caps: mixed evidence—some AEs positive (Denmark, Luxembourg, Iceland), others negative (Singapore, Hong Kong, Canada); median around zero.
  - Reserve requirements (local currency): many EMs use RR as counter-cyclical complement to monetary policy (e.g., India, Argentina, Philippines, China, Bulgaria show negative and significant correlations between reserve requirements and policy rates). Some countries (Romania, Poland, Lithuania) show positive correlations. Among AEs, 10 euro-area countries show positive correlations between RR local currency and policy rates, indicating complementary use.

### Findings and implications
- Usage patterns and objectives:
  - Capital buffers, concentration limits, and interbank exposure limits tend to be used for more structural objectives (building resilience, lowering risks) rather than cyclical stabilization.
  - LTV ratio limits and reserve requirements (foreign and local currency) appear more consistent with counter-cyclical policy objectives in most cases, though with significant heterogeneity across countries.
- Timing and clustering:
  - Tightenings in general capital requirements clustered after the global financial crisis (implementation of Basel II.5 and III).
  - Reserve requirement loosening episodes coincided with the global financial crisis and the European sovereign debt crisis.
  - LTV caps largely tightened after the global financial crisis.
- Cross-policy interactions:
  - Some tests indicate complementary and non-complementary interactions between specific prudential instruments and monetary policy rates.

### Conclusions
- Dataset compiled: unique measurement of changes in intensity of use for nine prudential tools across 64 countries, covering 2000Q1–2014Q4.
- Main empirical conclusions:
  - LTV caps and reserve requirements show the largest numbers of tightening and loosening episodes.
  - Capital buffers, concentration limits, and interbank exposure limits are used more structurally.
  - LTV and reserve requirements are more often used counter-cyclically, with heterogeneity across countries.
  - Evidence of complementary and non-complementary interactions between prudential policies and monetary policy rates.
- Research and policy utility:
  - The dataset supports analyses of prudential instrument effectiveness and spillovers and is intended to serve future research and policy work on micro- and macro-prudential policies.

*Source: _wp16110 - 2.3 Details on specific prudential instruments (IMF PDF content provided).*

---


_Source: https://www.imf.org/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/pubs/ft/wp/2016/_wp16110.pdf_