Since the 2008 global financial crisis, Korea's external financial sector has undergone significant structural changes. Korea's net international investment position (IIP), the difference between external financial assets and liabilities, achieved a surplus in 2014 for the first time in its history. In 2018, the net IIP, excluding foreign exchange reserves, also turned into a surplus and has steadily expanded since then. This structural shift has broader implications beyond numerical values. It can impact financial stability and the pursuit of financial internationalization policies, which have traditionally been challenging to reconcile in Korea. Therefore, this study analyzes the influence of net IIP on financial market stability, economic volatility, and financial internationalization. It also examines financial internationalization procedures in the cases of Germany and Japan. Based on these analyses, this study aims to provide policy implications that can enhance Korea's economic stability and strengthen its financial internationalization capabilities.

This study consists of six chapters, excluding the introduction. Chapter 2 examines the trends in Korea's International Investment Position (IIP) and compares them internationally to identify the characteristics of Korea's IIP. When we break down Korea's net IIP into sub-categories, foreign direct investment and other investment turned into surpluses in the early 2010s, and equity portfolio investment also turned into surpluses in 2022. This shift was driven by several external factors in the Korean economy, such as the persistent current account surplus, the expansions of foreign direct investment by companies since 2000, the expansions of bank lendings to Korean overseas subsidiaries, the rapid growth of overseas investments by the general government (notably, the national pension fund) since the global financial crisis in 2008, and the elaboration of overseas investments by securities companies, insurance companies, and individuals. In addition to these observations, several characteristics can be drawn from international comparisons. Firstly, there are only a few countries that have a surplus in their net IIP. As of 2022, only 15 out of 46 major countries have net IIP surpluses, with Korea ranking 11th in net IIP (as a percentage of its GDP). Secondly, most of these surpluses have been achieved recently, since 2010. In case of Korea, its net IIP (excluding foreign exchange reserves) turned positive in 2018, somewhat later than other countries. Lastly, it is important to note that countries that have moved from a deficit to a surplus, including the case of Korea, have generally remained in surplus for the most part. This implies that the shift to a net IIP surplus represents a structural change rather than a temporary one.

In Chapter 3, we investigate the relationship between a country's status as a net creditor and the stability of financial markets, specifically focusing on episodes of sudden capital inflows and outflows. We measured surge, stop, flight, and retrenchment in accordance with the definitions provided by Forbes and Warnock (2012) for the four distinct episodes of sudden capital inflow and outflow. Our empirical analysis comprises a dataset of 66 countries, covering the period from the first quarter of 2001 to the fourth quarter of 2020. The analysis revealed that the variable of interest in Chapter 3, whether a country is a net creditor, is closely associated with the retrenchment episode among the identified episodes. If a net creditor country experiences a stop episode, the probability of retrenchment occurring in the following period increases. In other words, net creditor countries act as a buffer, preventing a deterioration in external soundness as foreign assets return to the home country in potential crisis situations. This suggests that Korea, a country still affected by the trauma of the currency crisis, has a market-friendly stabilization mechanism that can help mitigate the risk of potential currency crises.

In Chapter 4, we delve into the relationship between yields on external financial assets and liabilities and consumption growth to assess whether an international risk-sharing mechanism can diversify the risk of consumption fluctuations in domestic and foreign. Based on the consumption-based asset pricing theory, the relationship between external financial assets and liabilities and domestic and international economic fluctuations, measured by consumption, was examined in a three-stage model. The result reveals that the yields of external positions in emerging economies exhibit procyclical to the impact of global risks while counter-cyclical to domestic risks, indicating that emerging countries have international risk-sharing through their external financial assets and liabilities. On the other hand, the yields on external positions of advanced economies demonstrate independence from both global and domestic risks. We also find that the unexplained composition of these yields positively correlates with the size of net IIP and the level of economic and financial market developments. While external positions can mitigate idiosyncratic risk through international risk-sharing mechanisms while magnifying systemic global risk in emerging countries, advanced economies, including Korea, mitigate international risk-sharing through the interaction of their external balances and gain stable yields regardless of domestic and global fluctuations. Notably, the net IIP contributes additional returns on the net return on external financial assets and liabilities.

In Chapter 5, this study examines how net international investment position (IIP) impacts the international competitiveness of financial services, measured by the revealed comparative advantage of financial service exports (referred to as financial service RCA). The results of the fixed effect panel analysis reveal that external financial assets have a positive effect on the financial service RCA, and there is a significant difference in the impact's magnitude based on whether the period had a surplus or deficit in net IIP. Specifically, the positive relationship between external financial assets and financial service RCA is more pronounced during periods of net IIP surplus compared to net IIP deficit periods. Furthermore, we investigate the relationship between financial service RCA and subcomponents of external financial assets, such as direct investment, portfolio investment, and other investment. The empirical results show that portfolio investment has a positive effect on financial service RCA during net IIP surplus periods, while other investments have a positive effect on financial service RCA during net IIP deficit periods. This may be attributed to the shift in global fund flows from other investments to portfolio investments in the aftermath of the 2008 global financial crisis when the frequency of net IIP surpluses significantly increased. As for direct investment, no statistically significant linkage to financial service RCA was found.

Chapter 6 examines Germany and Japan's financial internationalization cases and compares them with Korea to identify commonalities and differences. Germany and Japan, like Korea, have a surplus in net IIP and a significant presence in manufacturing industries. However, they exhibit higher levels of financial internationalization and financial competitiveness than Korea. Regarding the degree of financial internationalization, Japanese financial companies have the highest proportion of overseas assets among the three countries, followed by Germany, with Korea having the lowest. While Germany and Japan have expanded their international presence both before and after the Plaza Accord in 1985, Korea briefly expanded its financial internationalization in the early 2000s due to the Northeast Asian financial hub and overseas investment activation policy, but this growth waned significantly during the 2008 global financial crisis. Since the early 2010s, Korea has gradually expanded into emerging markets such as ASEAN. In terms of their approach to internationalization, all three countries primarily follow a banking-centered model in response to foreign customer demands, with a preference for independent overseas subsidiaries and branches over M&A. However, Japan has increasingly expanded into the non-banking sector since the 2010s, actively targeting local customers and engaging in M&A. Another key difference lies in the direction of outbound financial internationalization policy. Germany's internationalization is primarily market-driven, mainly thanks to the peculiarities of the EU system, whereas, in Japan, government policies have played a more significant role. Korea's approach is more similar to Japan's than Germany's.

Chapter 7 provides the study's conclusions and policy implications. In summary, the surplus in net IIP was found to significantly contribute to both economic stability, including financial market stability, and the enhancement of international competitiveness in financial services. This surplus represents a crucial structural change with implications for both economic stability and financial service internationalization. Several policy implications can be derived from the results of this study. First, Korean policy authorities have an opportunity to promote both financial stability and financial internationalization simultaneously. Second, it's important to review the macroprudential measures for capital flows introduced during periods of net IIP deficits, as the private sector's role in financial stability has evolved due to changes in the net IIP surplus structure. Additionally, there's a need to improve regulations and create an environment that fosters financial internationalization. This involves enhancing regulations on financial companies' overseas expansion and businesses and expanding financial cooperation with emerging countries. Finally, for financial stability, adherence to international norms like Basel III is essential, rather than relying on macroprudential measures for capital flows. Finally, the government's approach to financial stability needs to be changed to faithfully implement international norms such as Basel III rather than focusing on regulating capital inflows and outflows. 

국문요약

제1장 서론

1. 연구 배경 및 목적

2. 연구 의의 및 차별성

3. 연구 범위 및 구성

제2장 한국의 국제투자대조표(IIP) 동향과 국제 비교

1. 한국의 국제투자대조표(IIP) 동향

2. 국제 비교

3. 소결

제3장 대외금융자산과 금융시장 안정 간 관계

1. 연구 배경

2. 선행연구

3. 실증분석 모형 및 자료

4. 분석 결과

5. 소결

제4장 대외금융자산과 대내외 경기변동 간 관계

1. 서론

2. 분석모형

3. 실증분석 결과

4. 소결

제5장 순대외금융자산과 금융 국제화 간의 관계

1. 연구 배경

2. 선행연구

3. 실증분석 모형 및 자료

4. 실증분석 결과

5. 소결

제6장 금융 국제화 관련 해외 사례 조사

1. 해외 사례 선정 및 조사 내용

2. 독일 사례

3. 일본 사례

4. 종합 비교

제7장 결론 및 시사점

1. 결론

2. 시사점

참고문헌

부록

Executive Summary