2015年-FSB全球金融稳定委员会_Peer_Review_of_Turkey_61页_1mb

Summary of the Peer Review of Turkey

Core Content

This document outlines the findings and recommendations from the Financial Stability Board (FSB) Peer Review of Turkey, conducted in 2015. The review focused on two key areas: the macroprudential policy framework and tools, and the bank resolution framework. The report is based on responses from Turkish financial authorities to a questionnaire, as well as discussions in the FSB Standing Committee on Standards Implementation (SCSI). It serves as the sixteenth country peer review under the FSB's regular programme and reflects progress made by Turkey since its 2011 Financial Sector Assessment Program (FSAP) update.

Main Findings

Macroprudential Policy Framework and Tools

• Progress Made: Turkey has made strides in developing a macroprudential policy framework. The Financial Stability Committee (FSC), established in 2011, has enhanced information sharing and coordination among member institutions. The CBRT and BRSA have improved data collection and analysis on foreign exchange (FX) positions, and the SRAG is working on risk assessment tools.

• Remaining Gaps: The macroprudential framework lacks integration at the institutional level. There is no regular joint risk assessment report, and the FSC does not have a clear policy framework to guide the use of macroprudential tools. Coordination of impact assessments is limited, especially on an ex-ante basis.

• Communication Needs: The FSC currently does not publish meeting minutes or decisions, and communication remains informal. A structured public communication strategy would improve transparency and public understanding of macroprudential policies.

• Recommendations:

  • Develop a more integrated systemic risk assessment and policy framework by enhancing inter-agency cooperation and linking risk analysis with policy selection.
  • Establish a regular meeting calendar for the FSC and include a standing agenda item for systemic risk assessments.
  • Clarify the role and responsibilities of the Council of Ministers in the event of systemic risks.
  • Implement a public communication strategy to promote clarity and accountability.

Bank Resolution

• Current Framework: Turkey has a fairly comprehensive bank resolution framework, updated in the 2005 Banking Law. Responsibilities are clearly defined between the BRSA and SDIF, and the SDIF has some broad resolution powers. Legislative amendments have been proposed to expand its capabilities, such as establishing a bridge bank and using the purchase-and-assumption method.

• Challenges: The current framework does not require recovery and resolution planning, nor do authorities have the legal power to mandate such planning. Resolution powers are limited and lack cross-border cooperation provisions. The SDIF’s ability to provide liquidity is constrained, and its capacity to support resolution in foreign currency is limited.

• Recommendations:

  • Incorporate additional resolution powers and cross-border cooperation mechanisms as specified in the FSB’s Key Attributes.
  • Develop recovery and resolution plans for all domestic banks that could be systemic in the event of failure.
  • Ensure that legal powers are in place to require banks to address obstacles to resolvability.
  • Review current liquidity arrangements to ensure adequate facilities are available in both local and foreign currency.
  • Establish clear mechanisms for the recovery of public funds if needed.

Key Information

• FSAP and FSB Relationship: Turkey underwent an FSAP assessment in 2011, and the FSB peer review was conducted 2-3 years later to complement the cycle. The review focused on implementation of FSAP and FSB recommendations.

• Institutional Bodies:

  • FSC: Financial Stability Committee, responsible for systemic risk monitoring and policy coordination.
  • SRAG: Systemic Risk Assessment Group, tasked with developing risk assessment tools.
  • BRSA: Banking Regulation and Supervision Agency.
  • SDIF: Savings Deposit Insurance Fund.

• Legal and Regulatory Framework:

  • The 2005 Banking Law outlines the resolution framework.
  • The 2012 amendment strengthened the FSC’s reporting line to the Council of Ministers.
  • Legislative amendments are being considered to expand the SDIF’s powers.

• Macroprudential Tools:

  • Used to manage household leverage and encourage core funding.
  • Include FX position monitoring, stress tests, and other analytical tools.

• Financial System Context:

  • The Turkish financial system has shown resilience, especially during the 2008-09 global crisis.
  • However, new macro-financial risks have emerged due to current account deficits and rapid credit growth.

Conclusion

The peer review highlights that while Turkey has made progress in macroprudential policy and bank resolution, further improvements are needed to ensure a more integrated, coherent, and effective framework. Strengthening institutional coordination, enhancing public communication, and incorporating additional resolution powers and cross-border cooperation mechanisms are key areas for reform. The recommendations aim to support the FSB's objective of promoting financial stability and improving the resilience of the Turkish financial system.