Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this book or follow this series

Foreign direct investment in the financial sector of emerging market economies


Author Info

  • Bank for International Settlements
Registered author(s):


    Executive summary Foreign participation in the financial sectors of emerging market economies (EMEs) increased rapidly during the 1990s. It has continued to expand so far in this decade, on balance – although its pace fell somewhat following problems in Argentina in 2002 and the global slowdown in mergers and acquisitions. While banks accounted for the majority of financial sector foreign direct investment (FSFDI), they were joined during this period by securities and investment firms. In a number of countries in Latin America and central and eastern Europe (CEE), foreign banks now account for a major share of total banking assets. In Asia, the share of foreign banks is, overall, much lower, but still substantial. FSFDI was fostered by financial liberalisation and market-based reforms in many EMEs. The liberalisation of the capital account and financial deregulation paved the way for foreign acquisitions and the integration of EME financial firms into an expanding global market for corporate control. This underlines the character of FSFDI as part of a broader trend towards consolidation and globalisation in the financial industry. In some cases, heightened competition in traditional markets increased pressure on major international banks to find new areas for growth. With financial institutions in advanced economies increasingly searching for profit opportunities at the customer and product level, FSFDI offered a means of access to EME markets with attractive strategic opportunities to expand. The integration of EME financial firms into the global market has resulted in a wider diversity of financial institutions operating in EMEs and – given their greater emphasis on risk-adjusted profitability – a broad range of business strategies. These include expansion into local retail banking and securities markets, where elements such as client relationships and reputation are important components of the franchise value of operations. Such factors have tended to raise the costs of exiting a country and hence increased the permanence of FSFDI. Improvements in local financial infrastructure made the risks of conducting business in EMEs easier to manage, but events such as the Russian default in 1998 and Argentine actions in 2002 also made financial institutions more sensitive to the potential consequences of low-probability, but high-cost events involving country risk. Thus, financial institutions in industrial countries now tend to evaluate country risk separately and more rigorously by applying country-focused stress testing and other techniques. Because the objective of preserving the franchise value may have narrowed the room for strategic manoeuvre, risk managers now more actively seek ways to mitigate the impacts of realisations of country risk – for example, by using more local funding and establishing in advance potential sources of funds for stress scenarios. Nonetheless, a projection of long-run profitability remains the prerequisite for staying in the host country. An important, lasting benefit of FSFDI is its effect on financial sector efficiency that arises from local banks’ exposure to global competition. Generally, host countries benefit from the technology transfers and innovations in products and processes commonly associated with foreign bank entry. Foreign banks exert competitive pressures and demonstration effects on local institutions, often inducing them to reassess business practices, including local lending practices. The result can be better risk management, more competitive pricing, and in general a more efficient allocation of credit in the financial sector as a whole. Foreign banks’ presence can also help to achieve greater financial stability in host countries. Host countries may benefit immediately from foreign entry, if the foreign bank recapitalises a struggling local institution and, in the process, also provides needed balance of payments financing. The better capitalisation and wider diversification of foreign banks, along with the access of local operations to parent funding, may reduce the sensitivity of the host country banking system to local business cycles and changing financial market conditions. Their use of risk-based credit evaluation (and spillovers to local banks’ practices) tends to reduce concentration in lending and, in times of financial distress, fosters prompter recognition of losses and more timely resolution of problems. In stress situations, foreign-owned institutions can also provide an alternative location for deposits that does not involve capital outflows. Notwithstanding these benefits, the growing involvement of foreign firms in the financial systems of EMEs has given rise to concerns, especially where a majority of EME banking assets have become foreign-owned. One set of issues arises when integration transforms a domestic institution such that key decision-making and control functions – including strategic planning and risk management – are shifted to the parent. This shift may reduce the information available to host country supervisors and monetary authorities, and it may interfere with the access of authorities to key firm decision-makers. The reduction in information could become an issue, especially when parent institutions make subsequent strategic changes that significantly affect host country financial markets. If the integrated firms’ equities are delisted, the resulting loss of information and market signals may not be fully offset by financial disclosures by the global institution. Another concern is that the financial sector of a globally integrated host country may have greater exposures to shocks that arise from external economic, financial, and strategic developments. The relevance of these issues very much depends on bank and host country-specific factors, such as the business strategy and management approach of individual banks, the legal form of operations or the composition of the host country financial system. Adjustments in the supervisory framework can help offset the attendant information loss and resulting risks to financial stability. Host country regulators have the capacity to impose information and disclosure requirements on subsidiaries and, in principle, also on branches. In addition to ensuring adequate information from the local operation, supervisors should make fuller use of existing frameworks for cross-border supervisory information sharing. More generally, the mutual benefits of increasing the extent of cooperation among home and host country supervisors are compelling because of the additional complexity introduced by the expansion of banks’ operations into EMEs, the intensifying competitive dynamic in global markets, and the potential relevance of EME operations for the risk assessment of the equity holders and creditors of the parent. Information sharing among authorities responsible for financial stability is especially important in periods of market stress. In such situations, information sharing frameworks often emphasise the flow of information from host to home country. At the same time, however, home country supervisors and financial institutions should recognise the need in the host country for information when the parent bank has problems, especially when the bank’s subsidiary is a large presence in an EME’s financial markets. Similarly, central banks need to be in close contact when a parent bank’s problems appear likely to affect a local EME subsidiary or branch. Although new strategies by acquired banks may present challenges to supervisors, they can also be a catalyst for developing supervisory skills. Accordingly, developing pertinent technical skills should be an important area of cooperation between authorities in advanced and EME countries. In some markets, foreign-owned banks have been prominent in the rapid expansion of consumer lending and foreign currency lending to both households and businesses. Supervisors need appropriate tools to assess how such credit is managed by banks, and authorities in charge of financial stability may need additional information and techniques to monitor for financial vulnerabilities. Cross-border information sharing, training programmes and other forms of technical assistance may help meet this need. The EME financial reforms that triggered the 1990s expansion of FSFDI did not come without some costs of adjustment (including having to weather difficult periods) in moving towards a more marketdriven system, but they also generated demonstrable and substantial long-term benefits. Accordingly, public policy should be focused on maximising these benefits by continuing to encourage diversity and competition in financial systems – not only between foreign and domestic banks, but also between banks and other financial institutions. Given the prominence of country risk in investing firms’ strategic decision-making, measures aimed at reducing country risk should be especially beneficial. One essential component of host country policy in this direction is a commitment to growth and stability. Another is the protection of property rights and equal treatment of banks, irrespective of ownership. From this viewpoint, a more extensive implementation of the internationally recognised set of financial standards and codes can help to reduce country risk. Another related policy element to reduce country risk is strengthening of legal frameworks. The smooth functioning of the market for corporate control would be assisted by greater international compatibility of accounting standards, takeover rules, and insolvency codes. As highlighted in this report, the availability and quality of local information may be of particular relevance in this context. Regional integration of EME financial systems, often within a framework for broader economic integration in the region, is another complementary approach to this objective. There is substantial anecdotal evidence of major benefits from regional compacts such as those of the European Union and NAFTA. In the case of very poor countries where some special support for FSFDI may be merited, public sector provided political risk insurance, if properly designed, could be useful. See also the related publications: Central bank papers submitted by Working Group members

    Download Info

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
    File URL:
    File Function: Full PDF document
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    Bibliographic Info

    as in new window
    This book is provided by Bank for International Settlements in its series CGFS Papers with number 22 and published in 2004.

    ISBN: 92-9131-666-0
    Handle: RePEc:bis:biscgf:22

    Contact details of provider:
    Postal: Centralbahnplatz 2, CH - 4002 Basel
    Phone: (41) 61 - 280 80 80
    Fax: (41) 61 - 280 91 00
    Web page:
    More information through EDIRC

    Related research



    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
    as in new window
    1. Ralph de Haas & Iman van Lelyveld, 2003. "Foreign Banks and Credit Stability in Central and Eastern Europe: Friends or Foes? A Panel Data Analysis," Research Series Supervision (discontinued), Netherlands Central Bank, Directorate Supervision 58, Netherlands Central Bank, Directorate Supervision.
    2. Clarke, George R. G. & Cull, Robert & Martinez Peria, Maria Soledad, 2001. "Does foreign bank penetration reduce access to credit in developing countries"evidence from asking borrowers," Policy Research Working Paper Series, The World Bank 2716, The World Bank.
    3. Clarke, George & Cull, Robert & Martinez Peria, Maria Soledad & Sanchez, Susana M., 2001. "Foreign bank entry - experience, implications for developing countries, and agenda for further research," Policy Research Working Paper Series, The World Bank 2698, The World Bank.
    4. Gaston Gelos & Jorge Roldos, 2002. "Consolidation and Market Structure in Emerging Market Banking Systems," IMF Working Papers, International Monetary Fund 02/186, International Monetary Fund.
    5. B. Gerard Dages & Linda Goldberg & Daniel Kinney, 2000. "Foreign and domestic bank participation in emerging markets: lessons from Mexico and Argentina," Economic Policy Review, Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Federal Reserve Bank of New York, issue Sep, pages 17-36.
    6. de Haas, Ralph & van Lelyveld, Iman, 2006. "Foreign banks and credit stability in Central and Eastern Europe. A panel data analysis," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 30(7), pages 1927-1952, July.
    7. Claessens, Stijn & Demirguc-Kunt, Asl[iota] & Huizinga, Harry, 2001. "How does foreign entry affect domestic banking markets?," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 25(5), pages 891-911, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as in new window

    Cited by:
    1. Daniel Esteban Osorio Rodíguez & Mauricio Avella Gómez, . "The Cyclical Behavior of External Indebtedness: The Case of Foreign and Domestic Banks in Colombia," Borradores de Economia, Banco de la Republica de Colombia 345, Banco de la Republica de Colombia.
    2. Alfred Steinherr & Ali Tukel & Murat Ucer, 2004. "The Turkish Banking Sector, Challenges and Outlook in Transition to EU Membership," Bruges European Economic Policy Briefings, European Economic Studies Department, College of Europe 9, European Economic Studies Department, College of Europe.
    3. G. Lanine & R. Vander Vennet, 2006. "Microeconomic determinants of acquisitions of Eastern European banks by Western European banks," Working Papers of Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Ghent University, Belgium, Ghent University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration 06/414, Ghent University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration.
    4. Daniel Esteban Osorio Rodríguez & Mauricio Avella Gómez, 2005. "The Ciclical Behavior Of External Indebtedness: The Case Of Foreign And Domestic Banks In Colombia," BORRADORES DE ECONOMIA, BANCO DE LA REPÚBLICA 003571, BANCO DE LA REPÚBLICA.
    5. Claudio E. V. Borio, 2007. "Change and constancy in the financial system: implications for financial distress and policy," BIS Working Papers, Bank for International Settlements 237, Bank for International Settlements.
    6. Hagiu, Alina & Avramescu, Tiberiu Cristian, 2008. "The Evolution of the Foreign Direct Investments in Romania," MPRA Paper 11723, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Li-Gang Liu, 2005. "The Impact of Financial Services Trade Liberalization on China," Discussion papers, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI) 05024, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
    8. Bank for International Settlements, 2008. "Financial globalisation and emerging market capital flows," BIS Papers, Bank for International Settlements, Bank for International Settlements, number 44, 8.
    9. Robert A. Eisenbeis, 2006. "Home country versus cross-border negative externalities in large banking organization failures and how to avoid them," Working Paper, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta 2006-18, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta.
    10. J. Outreville, 2010. "Internationalization, Performance and Volatility: The World Largest Financial Groups," Journal of Financial Services Research, Springer, Springer, vol. 38(2), pages 115-134, December.
    11. Jerzy Pruski & Piotr Szpunar, 2008. "Capital flows and their implications for monetary and financial stability: the experience of Poland," BIS Papers chapters, Bank for International Settlements, in: Bank for International Settlements (ed.), Financial globalisation and emerging market capital flows, volume 44, pages 403-421 Bank for International Settlements.


    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.


    Access and download statistics


    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bis:biscgf:22. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Timo Laurmaa).

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.