•  International reserves have increased substantially, providing a larger cushion against adversity. Among the largest borrowers, half now hold reserves greater than 150 percent of maturing short- and long-term debt; less than one-sixth had such coverage heading into 1997. •  There have been improvements in fiscal performance, with some notable cases of governments achieving and sustaining large primary surpluses. BIS Review 37/2004  1  •  External balances have improved, with current accounts in most of the emerging world in surplus or modest deficit. Only 2 of the 20 largest borrowers now are running deficits in excess of 3 percent. •  Exchange rate regimes are more resilient and less fragile, as a substantial majority of the largest borrowing countries have moved to flexible regimes, and away from the fixed-butadjustable pegs that proved so dangerous in the crises of the last decade. •  Important progress has been made in building credibility for new monetary policy regimes, and inflation is generally moderate. •  Governments have made major investments in recapitalizing and restructuring their troubled financial systems. For example, in Asia, where some of the most severe problems were encountered, governments have spent over $ billion carving out problem loans and bolstering capital. •  Growth rates have improved with the restoration of domestic stability and recovery in external demand. Indeed, aggregate growth currently is running at its highest rate since the onset of the crisis in 1997.
We assess the models banks use to measure risk and the scenarios used to stress test exposures, but the banks have the responsibility for designing and running the risk management infrastructure. By looking across a broad range of world class financial institutions, we have a good sense of the evolving frontier of best practice in risk management which we can then use to help benchmark other institutions and pull common practice closer to that frontier. For a number of reasons, this can’t be the model for the Fund’s relationships with its members. But it provides an interesting prism in thinking about surveillance. The Fund has explored a number of ideas to strengthen the surveillance framework. One of the most promising is to establish a process with more frequent, published staff assessments of performance against a medium-term framework designed by the member country. That assessment could convey a  4  BIS Review 37/2004  clear judgement about the degree of progress being made in reducing vulnerabilities, improving resilience, and strengthening the structural underpinnings of growth. Analysis of public and external debt trends, benchmarked against sustainability and vulnerability thresholds, and stress tests for relevant shocks could play a key role in this process. There are compelling arguments for combining such a framework with contingent access to Fund resources. Surveillance today does not provide a meaningful check on ex ante policies, and resources are only made available when the financial need is acute.