Macroprudential Bulletin
The aim of the ECB Macroprudential Bulletin is to raise awareness of macroprudential policy issues in the euro area by bringing greater transparency to the ECB's ongoing work and thinking in this field.
We would be happy to hear your views on the macroprudential topics discussed. Please send us an email at ecb.macroprudential.bulletin@ecb.europa.eu. If you want to be notified when future issues of the Macroprudential Bulletin are published, please use the same address.
BULLETIN
Introductory statement by Luis de Guindos
Luis de Guindos, Vice-President of the ECB, presents the findings of the articles in the latest issue of the Macroprudential Bulletin.
Bank capital-at-risk: measuring the impact of cyclical systemic risk on future bank losses
Exuberant credit and asset price dynamics tend to considerably increase the likelihood of large future bank losses. We provide a useful tool – for macroprudential policymakers called “bank capital-at-risk” – it helps to quantify how much additional bank resilience may be needed if imbalances unwind and systemic risk materialises.
The interaction between the liquidity coverage ratio and the net stable funding ratio
We analyse how the two bank liquidity requirements interact, and find that they are complementary. We conclude that a faithful and consistent implementation of both measures is needed across all major jurisdictions to maintain a level playing field at the global level and to ensure that the post-crisis regulatory framework delivers on its objectives.
The effect of supervisory scrutiny on banks’ risk-taking in the EU-wide stress test
In the current set-up, banks may underestimate their vulnerabilities in order to appear more resilient than their peers. To counteract it, supervisors need to conduct a robust quality assurance of banks’ stress test projections. Our empirical analysis shows that the supervisory scrutiny relating to the stress test quality assurance may have a disciplining effect on banks’ risk-taking.
Impact of leverage on investor flows in European mutual funds
A change in the framework for Undertakings for Collective Investment in Transferable Securities (UCITS) facilitated the wider use of derivatives, increasing leverage for some bond funds. Our recent study shows that investors in leveraged funds react more strongly to negative fund performance than investors in unleveraged funds. Leverage in mutual funds thus adds to procyclicality and can amplify fragilities in the sector.
Investigating initial margin procyclicality and corrective tools using EMIR data
While initial margin (IM) reduces counterparty credit risk in derivatives markets, there is an ongoing debate about whether efforts to limit procyclical effects of IM-setting practices are sufficient. We provide insights into this issue using European Market Infrastructure Regulation data, simulating IM over a long time span and evaluating the effectiveness of policy tools in reducing procyclicality.
- No. 9
29 October 2019 - On the interaction between different bank liquidity requirements
Abstract
JEL Classification
G01 : Financial Economics→General→Financial Crises
G18 : Financial Economics→General Financial Markets→Government Policy and Regulation
G21 : Financial Economics→Financial Institutions and Services→Banks, Depository Institutions, Micro Finance Institutions, Mortgages
G28 : Financial Economics→Financial Institutions and Services→Government Policy and RegulationAbstract
The post-crisis regulatory framework introduced multiple requirements on banks’ capital and liquidity positions, sparking a discussion among policymakers and academics on how the various requirements interact with one another. This article contributes to the discussion on the interaction of different regulatory metrics by empirically examining the interaction between the liquidity coverage ratio (LCR) and the net stable funding ratio (NSFR) for banks in the euro area. The findings suggest that the two liquidity requirements are complementary and constrain different types of banks in different ways, similarly to the risk-based and leverage ratio requirements in the capital framework. This dispels claims that the LCR and the NSFR are redundant and underlines the need for a faithful and consistent implementation of both measures (and the entire Basel III package more broadly) across all major jurisdictions, to maintain a level playing field at the global level and to ensure that the post-crisis regulatory framework delivers on its objectives.
- No. 9
29 October 2019 - Macroprudential policy measures
- No. 9
29 October 2019 - Investigating initial margin procyclicality and corrective tools using EMIR data
Abstract
JEL Classification
G10 : Financial Economics→General Financial Markets→General
G23 : Financial Economics→Financial Institutions and Services→Non-bank Financial Institutions, Financial Instruments, Institutional Investors
G28 : Financial Economics→Financial Institutions and Services→Government Policy and RegulationAbstract
Initial margin (IM) reduces counterparty credit risk in derivative markets. Notwithstanding efforts to limit potential procyclical effects of IM-setting practices, there is an ongoing debate about whether the current framework sufficiently addresses this concern, in particular when Value-at-Risk (VaR) models are used for setting IM. This article provides further insights into this issue. First, using EMIR data, we provide an overview of outstanding IM in the euro area derivative market and identify the most relevant sectors for the exchange of IM. Second, using a VaR IM model in line with industry practice, we show that aggregate IM can potentially vary substantially over a long-term horizon. Finally, we show that an IM floor based on a standardised IM model could be an effective tool for reducing IM procyclicality.
- No. 9
29 October 2019 - The disciplining effect of supervisory scrutiny on banks’ risk-taking: evidence from the EU wide stress test
Abstract
JEL Classification
G21 : Financial Economics→Financial Institutions and Services→Banks, Depository Institutions, Micro Finance Institutions, Mortgages
G28 : Financial Economics→Financial Institutions and Services→Government Policy and RegulationAbstract
This article aims to contribute to the ongoing discussion about the long-term strategy for stress testing in the euro area. In particular, it highlights some of the strengths and weaknesses of the constrained bottom-up approach, which is currently used in the EU‑wide stress-testing exercise. Under this approach, banks use their own models to generate stress test projections on the basis of a common macroeconomic scenario and under the constraints imposed by the European Banking Authority methodology. This set-up provides banks with some scope to underestimate their vulnerabilities in order to appear more resilient than their peers. This article confirms previous empirical evidence showing that such behaviour may indeed be practised by banks. This, in turn, requires a robust quality assurance of banks’ stress test projections by the competent authorities (including the European Central Bank), to enforce more realistic results. Against this background, the article presents a novel empirical analysis providing indicative evidence that the “supervisory scrutiny” relating to the quality assurance may be having a disciplining effect on banks’ risk-taking.
- No. 9
29 October 2019 - Bank capital-at-risk: measuring the impact of cyclical systemic risk on future bank losses
Abstract
JEL Classification
G01 : Financial Economics→General→Financial Crises
G17 : Financial Economics→General Financial Markets→Financial Forecasting and Simulation
C22 : Mathematical and Quantitative Methods→Single Equation Models, Single Variables→Time-Series Models, Dynamic Quantile Regressions, Dynamic Treatment Effect Models &bull Diffusion Processes
C54 : Mathematical and Quantitative Methods→Econometric Modeling→Quantitative Policy Modeling
G21 : Financial Economics→Financial Institutions and Services→Banks, Depository Institutions, Micro Finance Institutions, MortgagesAbstract
Cyclical systemic risk tends to build up well ahead of financial crises and is measured best by credit and asset price dynamics. This article shows that high levels of cyclical systemic risk lead to large downside risks to the bank-level return on assets three to five years ahead. Hence, exuberant credit and asset price dynamics tend to increase considerably the likelihood of large future bank losses. Given the tight link between bank losses and reductions in bank capital, the results presented in this article can be used to quantify the level of “Bank capital-at-risk” (BCaR) for a banking system. BCaR is a useful tool for macroprudential policy makers as it helps to quantify how much additional bank resilience could be needed if imbalances unwind and systemic risk materialises.
- No. 9
29 October 2019 - Introduction
- 29 October 2019
- Is leverage driving procyclical investor flows? Assessing investor behaviour in UCITS bond funds
Abstract
JEL Classification
G01 : Financial Economics→General→Financial Crises
G23 : Financial Economics→Financial Institutions and Services→Non-bank Financial Institutions, Financial Instruments, Institutional Investors
G28 : Financial Economics→Financial Institutions and Services→Government Policy and RegulationAbstract
A recent ECB study shows that leverage is an important driver in investors’ redemption decisions. Regulatory changes to the UCITS framework facilitated the use of derivatives, increasing leverage for some European mutual funds which amplified investors' responsiveness to negative returns in a procyclical manner.
- No. 8
16 September 2019 - Macroprudential Bulletin - Introductory statement by Luis de Guindos
- No. 8
16 September 2019 - The macroeconomic impact of changes in economic bank capital buffers
Abstract
JEL Classification
C11 : Mathematical and Quantitative Methods→Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General→Bayesian Analysis: General
E58 : Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics→Monetary Policy, Central Banking, and the Supply of Money and Credit→Central Banks and Their Policies
G21 : Financial Economics→Financial Institutions and Services→Banks, Depository Institutions, Micro Finance Institutions, MortgagesAbstract
How do changes in bank capital requirements affect bank lending, lending spreads and the broader macroeconomy? The answer to this question is important for calibrating and assessing macroprudential policies. There is, however, relatively little empirical evidence to answer this question in the case of the euro area countries. This article contributes to filling this gap by studying the effects of changes in economic bank capital buffers in the four largest euro area countries. We use bank-level data and macroeconomic information to estimate a bank-internal, target level of economic capital ratio, i.e. the capital ratio that a bank would like to hold considering its own characteristics (size, profitability, risk aversion of its creditors, risk exposure, etc.) and macroeconomic conditions (expected GDP growth, etc.). Economic bank capital buffers are then computed as the difference between the current and the target economic capital ratio. However, due to adjustment costs, banks cannot adjust the actual capital ratio to the target level instantaneously. As a result, a change in the target capital ratio will result in an instantaneous change in the economic capital buffer. These buffers are aggregated at the country level and included in a panel Bayesian vector auto regressive (VAR) model. With the VAR, it is then possible to compute the response of macroeconomic and banking variables to a change in the buffer. The idea is that changes in economic capital buffers mimic the effects a change in regulatory capital requirements would have on the economy. We find that a negative economic capital buffer shock, i.e. a decline in actual capital ratios below the target level, leads to a modest decline in output and prices and to a larger decline in bank lending growth. By affecting the difference between actual and target economic capital ratios, these findings suggest that countercyclical capital-based macroprudential policy measures can be useful to dampen the financial cycle.
- No. 8
16 September 2019 - Thinking beyond borders: how important are reciprocity arrangements for the use of sectoral capital buffers?
Abstract
JEL Classification
C68 : Mathematical and Quantitative Methods→Mathematical Methods, Programming Models, Mathematical and Simulation Modeling→Computable General Equilibrium Models
E58 : Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics→Monetary Policy, Central Banking, and the Supply of Money and Credit→Central Banks and Their Policies
G21 : Financial Economics→Financial Institutions and Services→Banks, Depository Institutions, Micro Finance Institutions, Mortgages
G28 : Financial Economics→Financial Institutions and Services→Government Policy and RegulationAbstract
The expansion of the EU macroprudential toolkit to also include capital buffers applied at sectoral level may require the cross-border recognition of these instruments. This article explores the relevance of sectoral cross-border credit provided via foreign branches or direct cross-border lending in the SSM area and analyses the effects of the implementation of mandatory reciprocity arrangements. Our findings provide some evidence supporting the introduction of mandatory reciprocity arrangements for sectoral capital buffers where exposures are material in order to ensure a level playing field and pre-empt future leakages. This is important to foster the effectiveness of macroprudential policies because financial services provided via foreign branches or direct cross-border exposures would otherwise not be subject to a macroprudential measure taken in a host Member State.
- No. 8
16 September 2019 - Understanding the specific features of the CCyB and the SCCyB − evidence from the 3D DSGE model
Abstract
JEL Classification
C68 : Mathematical and Quantitative Methods→Mathematical Methods, Programming Models, Mathematical and Simulation Modeling→Computable General Equilibrium Models
E58 : Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics→Monetary Policy, Central Banking, and the Supply of Money and Credit→Central Banks and Their Policies
G01 : Financial Economics→General→Financial Crises
G21 : Financial Economics→Financial Institutions and Services→Banks, Depository Institutions, Micro Finance Institutions, Mortgages
G28 : Financial Economics→Financial Institutions and Services→Government Policy and RegulationAbstract
As discussions progress on the potential design of sectoral capital buffers both at the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS) and European levels, this article discusses the advantages and shortcomings of the sectoral application of the countercyclical capital buffer for addressing sectoral systemic risks. A dynamic stochastic general equilibrium (DGSE) model is used to explore and compare the transmission channels of the countercyclical capital buffer (CCyB) and the sectoral countercyclical capital buffer (SCCyB), as well as their role in enhancing the resilience of banks and taming the procyclicality of credit. The model-based policy exercise indicates that, if risks are confined to one particular credit sector, a SCCyB could prove more effective than the CCyB in strengthening bank resilience to the target sector and in mitigating sectoral credit imbalances.
- No. 7
27 March 2019 - Macroprudential Bulletin - Introductory statement by Luis de Guindos
- No. 7
27 March 2019 - Is taxpayers’ money better protected now? An assessment of banking regulatory reforms ten years after the global financial crisis
Abstract
JEL Classification
G01 : Financial Economics→General→Financial Crises
G21 : Financial Economics→Financial Institutions and Services→Banks, Depository Institutions, Micro Finance Institutions, Mortgages
G28 : Financial Economics→Financial Institutions and Services→Government Policy and RegulationAbstract
This study analyses whether the ability of the euro area banking system to withstand potential shocks while minimising taxpayers’ costs has changed in the ten years since the financial crisis as a consequence of the impact of post-crisis reforms on bank capital and loss-absorbing capacity. The results show that the average probability of default of banks decreased from 3.5% in 2007 to 1.1% in 2017, less than a third of its pre-crisis value. In addition, under conservative assumptions on the scope of liabilities affected by the bail-in tool, banks’ loss-absorbing capacity has increased from 7.2% to 12.0% of total assets owing to the introduction of larger capital buffers and the new resolution framework, which enhances banks’ loss-absorbing capacity via the bail-in tool. Finally, the potential intervention of the Single Resolution Fund has further increased the loss-absorbing capacity of the system to 16.9% of total assets. Considering all these three factors, the ability of the banking system to absorb losses while minimising costs to taxpayers has increased more than 3-fold over the last ten years. When considering a broader scope for the bail-in tool, the system’s loss-absorbing capacity has increased to 55.5% of total assets, which corresponds to an overall 12-fold increase in its ability to absorb losses while minimising taxpayers’ costs.
- No. 7
27 March 2019 - Macroprudential analysis of residential real estate markets
Abstract
JEL Classification
G01 : Financial Economics→General→Financial Crises
G21 : Financial Economics→Financial Institutions and Services→Banks, Depository Institutions, Micro Finance Institutions, Mortgages
G28 : Financial Economics→Financial Institutions and Services→Government Policy and Regulation
R30 : Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics→Real Estate Markets, Spatial Production Analysis, and Firm Location→GeneralAbstract
This article presents the ECB framework for assessing financial stability risks stemming from residential real estate markets and for designing macroprudential policy responses. It reviews recent developments in residential real estate markets and policy initiatives to address risks.
- No. 7
27 March 2019 - Shelter from the storm: recent countercyclical capital buffer (CCyB) decisions
Abstract
JEL Classification
G21 : Financial Economics→Financial Institutions and Services→Banks, Depository Institutions, Micro Finance Institutions, Mortgages
G28 : Financial Economics→Financial Institutions and Services→Government Policy and Regulation
E58 : Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics→Monetary Policy, Central Banking, and the Supply of Money and Credit→Central Banks and Their Policies
F42 : International Economics→Macroeconomic Aspects of International Trade and Finance→International Policy Coordination and TransmissionAbstract
When living by the ocean, instead of trying to calm the waves and tides, building a levee or a breakwater is the safest option. This article reviews the country-specific strategic choices and decisions regarding timing and calibration of the countercyclical capital buffer (CCyB) in countries participating in the Single Supervisory Mechanism (SSM). It identifies commonalities across countries and country specificities that influence decisions by national designated authorities. In so doing, it summarises the limitations encountered with the credit-to-GDP gap and the role of other indicators and factors in calibrating the appropriate CCyB rate on the basis of “guided discretion”. Ultimately, assessing risks across euro area countries consistently, while taking into account country-specific factors, supports the effective use of the CCyB as a macroprudential instrument and ensures that similar risk exposures are subject to the same set of macroprudential requirements.
- No. 7
27 March 2019 - Macroprudential policy measures
- No. 6
2 October 2018 - Macroprudential Bulletin - Introductory statement
- No. 6
2 October 2018 - The implications of removing repo assets from the leverage ratio
Abstract
JEL Classification
G01 : Financial Economics→General→Financial Crises
G21 : Financial Economics→Financial Institutions and Services→Banks, Depository Institutions, Micro Finance Institutions, Mortgages
G28 : Financial Economics→Financial Institutions and Services→Government Policy and RegulationAbstract
This article summarises the key findings from a counterfactual exercise where the effect of removing repo assets from the leverage ratio on banks’ default probabilities is considered. The findings suggest that granting such an exemption may have adverse effects on the stability of the financial system, even when measures are introduced to compensate for the decline in capital required by the leverage ratio framework. Increases in probabilities of default are mainly seen for larger banks which are more active in the repo market. Moreover, it is observed that the predictive power of the model improves when repo assets are included. Overall, the analysis in this article does not support a more lenient treatment of repo assets in the leverage ratio framework, e.g. by exempting them or allowing for more netting with repo liabilities or against high-quality government bonds.
- No. 6
2 October 2018 - Does the G-SIB framework incentivise window-dressing behaviour? Evidence of G-SIBs and reporting banks
Abstract
JEL Classification
G21 : Financial Economics→Financial Institutions and Services→Banks, Depository Institutions, Micro Finance Institutions, Mortgages
G28 : Financial Economics→Financial Institutions and Services→Government Policy and Regulation
G38 : Financial Economics→Corporate Finance and Governance→Government Policy and RegulationAbstract
This article evaluates whether the global systemically important bank (G-SIB) framework has incentivised banks to adopt window-dressing behaviour, and whether their engagement in capital market activities has facilitated it. Window-dressing behaviour could have detrimental effects on financial stability, for at least two reasons: first, it may imply an underestimation of banks’ overall systemic importance and a distortion of the relative ranking in favour of banks that engage in more window-dressing behaviour; second, overall market functioning may be adversely affected if banks reduce the provision of certain services towards the end of the year. The evidence presented in this article suggests that both G-SIBs and banks with reporting obligations have reduced their overall risk score and some of their individual risk indicators at the end of a calendar year, both in absolute terms and relative to the other banks in the sample. The results also indicate that year-end reductions in capital market activities are a main driver of the observed window-dressing behaviour.
- No. 6
2 October 2018 - Macroprudential liquidity tools for investment funds - A preliminary discussion
Abstract
JEL Classification
G23 : Financial Economics→Financial Institutions and Services→Non-bank Financial Institutions, Financial Instruments, Institutional Investors
G28 : Financial Economics→Financial Institutions and Services→Government Policy and Regulation
E61 : Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics→Macroeconomic Policy, Macroeconomic Aspects of Public Finance, and General Outlook→Policy Objectives, Policy Designs and Consistency, Policy CoordinationAbstract
This article aims to facilitate discussion on potential macroprudential tools for investment funds. To this end, the article puts forward an initial assessment based on the application of a conceptual framework and aims to inform the debate on the potential design aspects of macroprudential liquidity tools. In line with the ESRB’s approach to developing macroprudential instruments, the effectiveness and efficiency of various macroprudential liquidity tools for investment funds are thoroughly assessed. The article provides an overview of the various liquidity tools and assesses the suitability of these tools for containing the materialisation of systemic risks through various channels.
- No. 6
2 October 2018 - Macroprudential policy measures
- No. 5
30 April 2018 - Macroprudential Bulletin - Interview with Vítor Constâncio
- No. 5
30 April 2018 - Using large exposure data to gauge the systemic importance of SSM significant institutions
Abstract
JEL Classification
C63 : Mathematical and Quantitative Methods→Mathematical Methods, Programming Models, Mathematical and Simulation Modeling→Computational Techniques, Simulation Modeling
G01 : Financial Economics→General→Financial Crises
G21 : Financial Economics→Financial Institutions and Services→Banks, Depository Institutions, Micro Finance Institutions, Mortgages
G28 : Financial Economics→Financial Institutions and Services→Government Policy and RegulationAbstract
This article presents stylised facts from the euro area network of large exposures and derives model-based interconnectedness measures of SSM significant institutions. The article has three main findings. First, the interbank network is relatively sparse and suggests a core-periphery network structure. Second, the more complex network measures on average correlate highly with the more simple size-based interconnectedness indicators, constructed following the EBA guidelines on the calibration of O-SII buffers. Third, there is nevertheless value for policymakers to take into account network-based measures in addition to the size-based interconnectedness indicators, as for some individual banks those measures can deviate considerably.
- No. 5
30 April 2018 - How competition and regulation drive bank and investment fund risk profiles and their market shares
Abstract
JEL Classification
G21 : Financial Economics→Financial Institutions and Services→Banks, Depository Institutions, Micro Finance Institutions, Mortgages
G23 : Financial Economics→Financial Institutions and Services→Non-bank Financial Institutions, Financial Instruments, Institutional Investors
G28 : Financial Economics→Financial Institutions and Services→Government Policy and RegulationAbstract
The rapid growth of the asset management sector over recent years has raised questions about the interaction between traditional banks and investment funds, as well as the drivers behind this trend. Our analysis contributes to this debate by shedding light on the implications of increased competition between the two sectors. We first examine how competition between banks and investment funds drives the risk profiles and market shares of these two sectors. In a second step, we assess whether and how capital requirements for banks influence the relative market shares of the two sectors, contributing to both the analysis of the drivers behind the structural developments in the euro area financial sector and the work on the evaluation of the impact of post-crisis reforms.
- No. 5
30 April 2018 - Targeted review of the macroprudential framework
Abstract
JEL Classification
E58 : Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics→Monetary Policy, Central Banking, and the Supply of Money and Credit→Central Banks and Their Policies
G18 : Financial Economics→General Financial Markets→Government Policy and Regulation
G28 : Financial Economics→Financial Institutions and Services→Government Policy and RegulationAbstract
The European Commission’s proposals for the reform of EU banking rules aim to complete the post-crisis reform agenda and to address shortcomings in the current regulatory framework, notably in the Capital Requirements Regulation (CRR) and the Capital Requirements Directive (CRD IV). Once implemented, the changes will strengthen the regulatory architecture in the European Union, thereby contributing to the reduction of risks in the banking sector and paving the way for commensurate progress in completing the banking union. This article outlines and explains the ECB’s key messages concerning these proposals that are of particular importance for macroprudential regulation and policy. In particular, the ECB considers that the ongoing discussions on the CRR/CRD IV package provide the opportunity to make targeted changes to the macroprudential toolkit to make it more efficient and consistent. In the medium term, a comprehensive review of the macroprudential toolkit is still necessary to streamline procedures within the framework and to complement it with tools to address risks in the real estate and non-banking sectors.
- No. 5
30 April 2018 - Macroprudential policy measures
- No. 4
19 December 2017 - Macroprudential Bulletin, Issue 4, December 2017
- No. 3
9 June 2017 - Macroprudential Bulletin, Issue 3, June 2017
- No. 2
25 October 2016 - Macroprudential Bulletin, Issue 2, October 2016
- No. 1
23 March 2016 - Macroprudential Bulletin, Issue 1, March 2016