2008年-世界发展银行全球_Financial_Sector_Assessment___Moldova_27页_2mb

报告摘要

Financial Sector Assessment of Moldova (March 2008)

Core Content Summary

The Financial Sector Assessment (FSA) of Moldova, conducted by the joint IMF-World Bank Financial Sector Assessment Program (FSAP) Update in 2007, provides a comprehensive review of the financial system's development, challenges, and vulnerabilities. The assessment highlights the progress made since the 2004 FSAP and outlines key recommendations for further strengthening the sector.

Main Findings

Banking Sector

The banking sector has shown positive development, with significant growth and a more diversified ownership structure due to foreign investment.
Total banking sector assets amount to 52% of GDP, with credit at 33% of GDP in 2007, which is better than Moldova’s peers in the former Soviet Union but still lagging behind EU members.
The sector is highly dollarized, with a large portion of transactions and deposits in foreign currency.
The aggregate capital adequacy ratio is at a very high level (around 28%), and profitability is strong (ROE of over 21% in 2006).
Non-performing loans are at 4.4% (end-2006), indicating relatively sound credit risk management.
Stress tests show the banking system is generally stable, though still somewhat vulnerable to liquidity, credit, and macroeconomic shocks.

Insurance Sector

The insurance sector is underdeveloped, with low insurance penetration (1.2% of GDP in 2006).
MTPL is the only developed segment, while other insurance products are limited or non-existent.
Lack of prudential regulations, weak enforcement, and low public confidence in the sector hinder development.
There are 33 private insurance companies in Moldova, with two dominant firms capturing 53.3% of premiums.
The minimum capital requirement was raised to MDL 15 million in 2006, but the deadline for compliance was extended, leading to continued undercapitalization.
The establishment of a national insurance association is seen as a critical step for improving market discipline and developing a rating system.

Securities Sector and Capital Markets

The securities market remains small, with debt instruments (NBM notes and T-bills) dominating.
There is no secondary market for longer-term debt instruments, and price discovery is not effective.
The equity market is fragmented, with most trading occurring off-exchange.
Institutional investors are underdeveloped, and technological infrastructure is weak.
Legislative restrictions limit market development, and regulatory reforms are in progress but not yet fully implemented.

Savings and Credit Associations (SCAs)

The SCA sector has high growth but instability, with 455 SCAs operating in 2007, down from 538 in 2005.
250 SCAs are collecting deposits without supervision, raising serious concerns about financial stability.
The SCA Law passed in July 2007 transfers supervision to the NCFM, but capacity and funding issues may delay effective implementation.
Historically, problems in the SCA sector have spilled over into the banking sector, leading to crises in other countries.

Key Vulnerabilities and Risks

Monetary policy credibility and liquidity overhang are major vulnerabilities, contributing to inflationary pressures.
Dependence on remittances (over 30% of GDP) makes the financial system vulnerable to volatility in these inflows.
Liquidity risk remains the key vulnerability, despite high liquidity ratios and capital buffers.
Interest rate and exchange rate sensitivity is low due to the short-term nature of banking assets and liabilities.
Inadequate prudential regulation and weak supervision in the non-banking sector pose long-term risks.

Regulatory and Supervisory Framework

NBM has made progress in governance and supervisory capacity, especially in the banking sector.
The NCFM was established to unify supervision of non-banking financial institutions, but its enforcement powers are not clearly defined.
Licensing and supervision of the SCA sector is a priority, with 410 licenses set to expire at the end of 2007.
Legal and regulatory harmonization is a challenge, as many sub-sectors lack consistent or comprehensive rules.
Cooperation between NBM and NCFM is essential but not yet formalized through a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).

Recommendations

High Priority

Establish effective cooperation frameworks between supervisory authorities.
Sign MOUs between NBM and NCFM, and between the central bank and other sub-sectoral supervisors.
Improve supervisory databases for joint use.
Issue guidelines for consolidated accounting.
Enhance beneficial ownership identification.
Improve NBM's capacity to adapt stress testing scenarios.
Develop liquidity management tools and increase monetary policy transparency.
Revise the licensing process for intermediaries under NCFM.
Ensure NCFM funding through the government budget.
Upgrade technical capacity for insurance legislation implementation.
Implement a modern Central Securities Depository for listed companies.

Medium Term and Developmental

Upgrade prudential standards for all NCFM-supervised entities.
Develop statutory returns in the insurance sector to provide relevant solvency, reinsurance, and expense data.
Build technical capacity in NCFM to analyze reinsurance programs and establish minimum reinsurer criteria.
Implement risk-based supervision for capital markets.
Expand NCFM's remit to include leasing.
Improve financial sector transparency by requiring public disclosure of financial statements, charters, and compliance with the Corporate Governance Code.
Revise insurance legislation to reduce shareholder approval thresholds and provide detailed descriptions of indirect holdings.

Financial Infrastructure

Payment systems (RTGS and DNS) are compliant with SIPS principles, but minor improvements are needed.
Credit risk registry is critical for the banking sector.
Registry rationalization and stock exchange development are urgent for the securities market.
Better statistical data is needed for the insurance sector.
Settlement systems for securities and electronic payments, as well as remittance-related services, require special attention.

Conclusion

The financial sector in Moldova has made significant progress since 2004, particularly in the banking sector. However, substantial developmental needs remain, especially in non-banking areas like insurance and securities markets. Improving regulatory frameworks, enhancing supervisory capacity, and strengthening financial infrastructure are key priorities. The NCFM needs funding and staff development to effectively perform its role, and cooperation between supervisory bodies is essential to ensure systemic stability and effective oversight.