Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Working Paper (24)
- Report (2)
Has Fulltext
- yes (26)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (26)
Keywords
- capital regulation (3)
- Banking Union (2)
- Basel regulation (2)
- Financial Regulation (2)
- bailouts (2)
- elections (2)
- emergency liquidity assistance (ELA) (2)
- financial distress (2)
- internal ratings (2)
- law and finance (2)
How demanding and consistent is the 2018 stress test design in comparison to previous exercises?
(2018)
Bank regulators have the discretion to discipline banks by executing enforcement actions to ensure that banks correct deficiencies regarding safe and sound banking principles. We highlight the trade-offs regarding the execution of enforcement actions for financial stability. Following this we provide an overview of the differences in the legal framework governing supervisors’ execution of enforcement actions in the Banking Union and the United States. After discussing work on the effect of enforcement action on bank behaviour and the real economy, we present data on the evolution of enforcement actions and monetary penalties by U.S. regulators. We conclude by noting the importance of supervisors to levy efficient monetary penalties and stressing that a division of competences among different regulators should not lead to a loss of efficiency regarding the execution of enforcement actions.
Nach der 2008 startenden Finanzmarktkrise sind Maßnahmen zur Regulierung und Stabilisierung der Finanzmärkte in das Zentrum der politischen und der gesellschaftlichen Aufmerksamkeit gerückt. Insbesondere die hohen fiskalischen Kosten der Staaten zur Stützung ihrer Bankensysteme sowie die volkswirtschaftlichen Kosten infolge des Einbruchs des Wirtschaftswachstums in den Jahren nach der Insolvenz der US Investmentbank Lehman Brothers hatten einen globalen Konsens über die Notwendigkeit neuer Regulierungsmaßnahmen zur Folge. Im Ergebnis wurden das internationale Regulierungswerk Basel III sowie weitere nationale Maßnahmen zur Stabilisierung des Finanzsektors neu konzipiert und in Europa im Wege einer in nationales Recht umzusetzenden Richtlinie (die Capital Require-ments Directive IV - CRD IV) sowie einer Verordnung (die Capital Requirements Regulation CRR, welche unmittelbar geltendes Recht darstellt) eingeführt.
Vor diesem Hintergrund analysiert das vorliegende interdisziplinäre Gutachten die Auswirkungen der Regulierungsmaßnahmen, die zwischen 2008 bis zu Beginn des Jahres 2018 umgesetzt wurden auf dem deutschen Finanzsektor.
The spreading of the Covid-19 virus causes a reduction in economic activity worldwide and may lead to new risks to financial stability. The authors draw attention to the urgency of the targeted mitigation strategies on the European level and suggest taking coordinated action on the fiscal side to provide liquidity to affected firms in the corporate sector. Otherwise, virus-related cashflow interruptions could lead to a new full-blown banking crisis. Monetary policy measures are unlikely to mitigate cash liquidity shortages at the level of individual firms. Coordinated action at European level is decisive to prevent markets from losing confidence in the resilience of banks, particularly in countries with limited fiscal capacity. In contrast to the euro crisis of 2011, the cause of the current crisis does not lie in the financial markets; therefore, the risk of moral hazard for banks or states is low.
Using loan-level data from Germany, we investigate how the introduction of model-based capital regulation affected banks’ ability to absorb shocks. The objective of this regulation was to enhance financial stability by making capital requirements responsive to asset risk. Our evidence suggests that banks ‘optimized’ model-based regulation to lower their capital requirements. Banks systematically underreported risk, with under reporting being more pronounced for banks with higher gains from it. Moreover, large banks benefitted from the regulation at the expense of smaller banks. Overall, our results suggest that sophisticated rules may have undesired effects if strategic misbehavior is difficult to detect.
In this study, we analyze the trading behavior of banks with lending relationships. We combine detailed German data on banks’ proprietary trading and market making with lending information from the credit register and then examine how banks trade stocks of their borrowers around important corporate events. We find that banks trade more frequently and also profitably ahead of events when they are the main lender (or relationship bank) for the borrower. Specifically, we show that relationship banks are more likely to build up positive (negative) trading positions in the two weeks before positive (negative) news events, and also that they unwind these positions shortly after the event. This trading pattern is more pronounced for unscheduled earnings events, M&A transactions, and after borrower obtain new bank loans. Our results suggest that lending relationships endow banks with important information, highlighting the potential for conflicts of interest in banking, which has been a prominent concern in the regulatory debate.
This in-depth analysis provides evidence on differences in the practice of supervising large banks in the UK and in the euro area. It identifies the diverging institutional architecture (partially supranationalised vs. national oversight) as a pivotal determinant for a higher effectiveness of supervisory decision making in the UK. The ECB is likely to take a more stringent stance in prudential supervision than UK authorities. The setting of risk weights and the design of macroprudential stress test scenarios document this hypothesis. This document was provided by the Economic Governance Support Unit at the request of the ECON Committee.
This document was requested by the European Parliament's Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. It was originally published on the European Parliament’s webpage: www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2021/689443/IPOL_IDA(2021)689443_EN.pdf
This in-depth analysis proposes ways to retract from supervisory COVID-19 support measures without perils for financial stability. It simulates the likely impact of the corona crisis on euro area banks’ capital and predicts a significant capital shortfall. We recommend to end accounting practices that conceal loan losses and sustain capital relief measures. Our in-depth analysis also proposes how to address the impending capital shortfall in resolution/liquidation and a supranational recapitalisation.
This briefing paper describes and evaluates the law and economics of institution(al) protection schemes. Throughout our analysis, we use Europe’s largest such scheme, that of German savings banks, as paradigm. We find strengths and weaknesses: Strong network-internal monitoring and early warning seems to be an important contributor to IPS network success. Similarly, the geographical quasi-cartel encourages banks to build a strong client base, including SME, in all regions. Third, the growth of the IPS member institutions may have benefitted from the strictly unlimited protection offered, in terms of euro amounts per account holder. The counterweighing weaknesses encompass the conditionality of the protection pledge and the underinvestment risk it entails, sometimes referred to as blackmailing the government, as well as the limited diversification potential of the deposit insurance within the network, and the near-incompatibility of the IPS model with the provisions of the BRRD, particularly relating to bail-in and resolution. Consequently, we suggest, as policy guidance, to treat large IPS networks similar to large banking groups, and put them as such under the direct supervision of the ECB within the SSM. Moreover, we suggest strengthening the seriousness of a deposit insurance that offers unlimited protection. Finally, to improve financial stability, we suggest embedding the IPS model into a multi-tier deposit re-insurance scheme, with a national and a European layer. This document was provided by the Economic Governance Support Unit at the request of the ECON Committee.
European banks have substantial investments in assets that are
measured without directly observable market prices (mark-to-
model). Financial disclosures of these value estimates lack
standardization and are hard to compare across banks. These
comparability concerns are concentrated in large European
banks that extensively rely on level 3 estimates with the most
unobservable inputs. Although the relevant balance sheet
positions only represent a small fraction of these large banks’
total assets (2.9%), their value equals a significant fraction of core
equity tier 1 (48.9%). Incorrect valuations thus have a potential to
impact financial stability. 85% of these bank assets are under
direct ECB supervision. Prudential regulation requires value
adjustments that are apt to shield capital against valuation risk.
Yet, stringent enforcement is critical for achieving this objective.
This document was provided by the Economic Governance
Support Unit at the request of the ECON Committee.
Using granular supervisory data from Germany, we investigate the impact of unconventional monetary policies via central banks’ purchase of corporate bonds. While this policy results in a loosening of credit market conditions as intended by policy makers, we document two unintended side effects. First, banks that are more exposed to borrowers benefiting from the bond purchases now lend more to high-risk firms with no access to bond markets. Since more loan write-offs arise from these firms and banks are not compensated for this risk by higher interest rates, we document a drop in bank profitability. Second, the policy impacts the allocation of loans among industries. Affected banks reallocate loans from investment grade firms active on bond markets to mainly real estate firms without investment grade rating. Overall, our findings suggest that central banks’ quantitative easing via the corporate bond markets has the potential to contribute to both banking sector instability and real estate bubbles.