阿尔巴尼亚：选定问题

ALBANIA SELECTED ISSUES This paperonAlbaniawas prepared by a staff team of the International Monetary Fundas background documentation for the periodic consultation with the member country. Itis based on the information available at the time it was completed onDecember 9, 2025. Copies of this report are available to the public from International Monetary Fund•Publication ServicesPO Box 92780•Washington, D.C. 20090Telephone: (202) 623-7430•Fax: (202) 623-7201E-mail:publications@imf.org Web:http://www.imf.org International Monetary FundWashington, D.C. ALBANIA SELECTED ISSUES ApprovedByAnke Weber Prepared ByMaximilian Fandl, Giorgia De Nora and EugenaTopi CONTENTS A BUILDING BLOCK APPROACH FOR INTRODUCING A POSITIVE NEUTRALCOUNTERCYCLICAL CAPITAL BUFFER IN ALBANIA____________________________________2 A. Introduction ___________________________________________________________________________2B. Building Blocks for a Positive Neutral CCyB ____________________________________________4C. Conclusion ____________________________________________________________________________16 BOX 1. The Losses-to-Buffer Method for Positive Neutral CCyB Calibration __________________11 FIGURES 1. Bank Capital Composition and Distribution Within the Albanian Banking System______42. Building Blocks to Explore a Positive Neutral CCyB Regime ____________________________63. Macro-Financial Conditions: Selected Indicators _______________________________________74. Losses-to-Buffer Approach Applied to Albania________________________________________105. Stress Test Results for D-SIBs _________________________________________________________126. Complementary Early Warning Indicator ______________________________________________147. Operating a Positive Neutral CCyB Regime____________________________________________148. Combined Buffer Requirements in Selected Countries ________________________________15 TABLES 1. CCyB Rates in the CESEE and Caucasus Region ________________________________________32. Overview of Positive Neutral CCyB Calibration Methods _______________________________8 ANNEX I. Losses-to-Buffer Approach: Horizon 1 Statistics _______________________________________17 References_______________________________________________________________________________18 A BUILDING BLOCK APPROACH FOR INTRODUCING APOSITIVE NEUTRAL COUNTERCYCLICAL CAPITALBUFFER IN ALBANIA1 A.Introduction 1.Positive neutral Countercyclical Capital Buffers (CCyB) have seen growing adoption inrecent years.The Bank of England pioneered a CCyB framework with a positive neutral rate in 2016,and a total of 23 countries have introduced CCyB regimes with explicit cycle-neutral rates byDecember 2025. Most adopters are in Central, Eastern and Southeastern Europe (CESEE, see Table 1)and other European countries.2 2.Positive neutral CCyBs boost resilience through higher releasable buffer requirementsover the financial cycle.In the event of macro-financial shocks, more capital is available to bereleased by the macroprudential authority, compared to the conventional “zero neutral” CCyBapproach (Adrian, 2024).International evidence, including from the COVID-19 pandemic, shows thatcountries with active releasable buffers maintained stronger bank lending and stability duringperiods of financial stress (BCBS, 2022b; Couaillier et al., 2022a, 2022b). 3.There are two key differences between a positive neutral and zero-neutral CCyB. •First, the ex-ante announced positive neutral rate provides a ‘default setting’ that servesas an anchor for bank expectations.Banks can expect the CCyB requirement to be set at thepositive neutral rate for most of the time, or above the neutral rate in case of heightened cyclicalsystemic risks. The exceptions are periods of financial stress, when the CCyB is released, andbrief recovery periods after severe stress episodes, when the rate remains below the neutral rate.Unlike in a zero-neutral regime, banks can expect the CCyB requirement to be re-raised to thepositive neutral level soon after a stress episode, irrespective of the re-emergence of cyclicalsystemic risks. •Second, a higher average CCyB rate through the cycle implies more room for bold releasesshould this be warranted.Since the positive neutral rate does not constitute a higherminimumcapital requirement but a higherbufferrequirement, banks can expect that the buffer will bereleased if cyclical systemic risk actually occur. 4.The literature does not yet provide a hands-on approach for policymakers to explore apositive neutral CCyB across all relevant dimensions.Some papers discuss the case for an explicitcycle-neutral rate (Herrera-Bravo et al, 2024, Leitner et al, 2023), without elaborating on operationaldesign considerations at the country level. The BCBS (2024) report and a joint ECB-ESRB report(2025) reflect on initial experiences of EU member states with the positive neutral CCyB, whileMiettinen and Nier (2025) provide guidance on operating a positive neu