Refine
Document Type
- Working Paper (6)
- Report (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (7)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (7)
Keywords
Do current levels of bank capital in Europe suffice to support a swift recovery from the COVID-19 crisis? Recent research shows that a well-capitalized banking sector is a major factor driving the speed and breadth of recoveries from economic downturns. In particular, loan supply is negatively affected by low levels of capital. We estimate a capital shortfall in European banks of up to 600 billion euro in a severe scenario, and around 143 billion euro in a moderate scenario. We propose a precautionary recapitalization on the European level that puts the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) center stage. This proposal would cut through the sovereign-bank nexus, safeguard financial stability, and position the Eurozone for a quick recovery from the pandemic.
We investigate the transmission of central bank liquidity to bank deposits and loan spreads in Europe over the January 2006 to June 2010 period. We find evidence consistent with an impaired transmission channel due to bank risk. Central bank liquidity does not translate into lower loan spreads for high-risk banks, even as it lowers deposit rates for both high-risk and low-risk banks. This adversely affects the balance sheets of high-risk bank borrowers, leading to lower payouts, lower capital expenditures, and lower employment. Overall, our results suggest that banks’ capital constraints at the time of an easing of monetary policy pose a challenge to the effectiveness of the bank lending channel and the effectiveness of the central bank as a lender of last resort.
The European Central Bank (ECB) increased the emergency liquidity assistance (ELA) for Greek banks from €50 billion in February 2015 to approximately €90 billion in June 2015. Its actions were accompanied by a discussion among academics, politicians and practitioners regarding the legitimacy of the ELA. Some have even accused the ECB of deliberately delaying the bankruptcy filing of already insolvent Greek banks.
We take the claim regarding insolvency delay as an opportunity to highlight the underlying economics of the ELA program and discuss its legitimacy in the current situation. We start by characterizing the complex interrelationship of the European Union, the ECB and the Greek banks through the lens of financial economics, with a particular focus on the political economy of a monetary union with incomplete fiscal union (or fiscal consolidation). Combining these two issues, we examine the decision of the ECB to continue the provision of ELA to Greek banks. Our conclusions, drawn from the analysis, do not support the claim that the ECB’s actions are consistent with a delayed filing for insolvency.
Von Februar bis Juni 2015 hat die Europäische Zentralbank (EZB) die Notfall-Liquiditätshilfen (emergency liquidity assistance, ELA) für griechische Banken von 50 auf etwa 90 Milliarden Euro ausgeweitet. Dies hat zu einer Diskussion unter Wissenschaftlern, Politikern und Praktikern geführt, ob diese Liquiditätshilfen rechtmäßig sind. Es wurde der Vorwurf erhoben, die EZB trage bewusst zu einer Konkursverschleppung der bereits insolventen griechischen Banken bei.
Wir nehmen diesen Vorwurf zum Anlass, die Grundsätze des ELA-Programms genauer zu betrachten und die Frage zu diskutieren, ob das Programm in der aktuellen Situation rechtmäßig war. Zunächst beschreiben wir hierfür aus finanzwirtschaftlicher Perspektive die komplexe Beziehung zwischen der Europäischen Union, der EZB und den griechischen Banken. Dabei gehen wir insbesondere auf die wirtschaftspolitischen Grundsätze einer Währungsunion mit einer unvollständigen Fiskalunion (oder Haushaltskonsolidierung) ein. Vor diesem Hintergrund analysieren wir dann die Entscheidung der EZB, weiterhin Liquiditätshilfen an griechische Banken bereitzustellen. Wir kommen zu dem Ergebnis, dass das Vorgehen der EZB nicht als Konkursverschleppung zu bezeichnen ist.
The European Central Bank (ECB) has finalized its comprehensive assessment of the solvency of the largest banks in the euro area and on October 26 disclosed the results of this assessment. In the present paper, Acharya and Steffen compare the outcomes of the ECB's assessment to their own benchmark stress tests conducted for 39 publically listed financial institutions that are also included in the ECB's regulatory review. The authors identify a negative correlation between their benchmark estimates for capital shortfalls and the regulatory capital shortfall, but a positive correlation between their benchmark estimates for losses under stress both in the banking book and in the trading book. They conclude that the regulatory stress test outcomes are potentially heavily affected by discretion of national regulators in measuring what is capital, and especially the use of risk-weighted assets in calculating the prudential capital requirement.
Robustness, validity, and significance of the ECB's asset quality review and stress test exercise
(2014)
As we are moving toward a eurozone banking union, the European Central Bank (ECB) is going to take over the regulatory oversight of 128 banks in November 2014. To that end, the ECB conducted a comprehensive assessment of these banks, which included an asset quality review (AQR) and a stress test. The fundamental question is how accurately will the financial condition of these banks have been assessed by the ECB when it commences its regulatory oversight? And, can the comprehensive assessment lead to a full repair of banks’ balance sheets so that the ECB takes over financially sound banks and is the necessary regulation in place to facilitate this? Overall, the evidence presented in this paper based on the design of the comprehensive assessment as well as own stress test exercises suggest that the ECB’s assessment might not comprehensively deal with the problems in the financial sector and risks may remain that will pose substantial threats to financial stability in the eurozone.
The syndicated loan market, as a hybrid between public and private debt markets, comprises financial institutions with access to valuable private information about borrowers as a result of close bank-borrower relationships. In this paper, we seek empirical evidence for the costs of these relationships in a sample of UK syndicated loan contracts for the time period 1996 through 2005. Using detailed financial data for both borrowers (private and public companies) and for financial institutions, we find that undercapitalized banks charge higher loan spreads for loans to opaque borrowers using various measures for borrower opaqueness and controlling for bank, borrower and loan characteristics. We further analyze this hold-up effect over the business cycle and find that it only prevails during recessions. In expansion phases, however, we do not find evidence for banks exploiting their information monopoly. This finding is consistent with theories on bank reputation in bank loan commitments. Ambiguity about borrower financial health, which induces the information monopoly in the first place, also gives banks the discretion to exploit or not exploit informational captured borrowers. Our findings are both statistically and economically significant and robust to alternative bank and macroeconomic risk proxies. We address potential concerns about unobserved borrower heterogeneity exploiting the panel data nature of our sample. Using firm-bank fixed effect regressions, we find supporting evidence for our theoretical framework. JEL Classifications: G14, G21, G22, G23, G24 Keywords: Syndicated loans; Hold-up; Lending relationships; Business cycle