No disponible en español
Nadya Wildmann
Macro Prud Policy&Financial Stability
- Division
Financial Regulation and Policy
- Current Position
-
Financial Stability Expert
- Fields of interest
-
Financial Economics
- 15 November 2024
- OCCASIONAL PAPER SERIES - No. 361Details
- Abstract
- Since the March 2023 banking turmoil, a policy debate has emerged concerning the unprecedented scale and speed of the observed deposit outflows. Have recent stress episodes and developments in technology structurally changed depositors’ behaviour? Are the Basel III liquidity coverage ratio (LCR) run-off assumptions for cash outflows still fit for purpose? Leveraging on monthly liquidity reporting for a sample of 110 significant institutions (SIs) between 2016 and 2024, we shed light on some stylised facts pertaining to the composition of deposit flows in the banking union. Overall, we find limited evidence of a structural change in the statistical behaviour of deposit flows to date. For all but one of the deposit classes included in the analysis, more than 90% of observable net outflows remained below the LCR run-off assumptions during the whole sample period. Some extreme deposit outflows recorded during the COVID-19 pandemic and for a few SIs assessed as failing or likely to fail (FOLTF) remain rare tail events for which the LCR standard was not designed.
- JEL Code
- G20 : Financial Economics→Financial Institutions and Services→General
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
- 6 December 2023
- MACROPRUDENTIAL BULLETIN - FOCUS - No. 23Details
- Abstract
- This box reviews the objectives and design of the liquidity coverage ratio (LCR) in the Basel Framework. It explains why liquidity regulation was introduced and how it is calibrated to enable banks to withstand a predefined hypothetical stress scenario combining both market-wide and idiosyncratic stress elements. The box also highlights the fact that the LCR is not designed to cover all tail events involving liquidity risk. Based on data for significant euro area (EA) institutions, the box finds that around 92% of all observed net outflow rates for retail deposits were lower than the outflow rates assumed in the LCR between 2016 and 2023. It also shows that ample liquidity buffers helped significant banks in the euro area to withstand the banking stress seen in March 2023 in other jurisdictions. Nevertheless, further analysis, including on the driving factors for some of the outliers observed during stress episodes, could facilitate a better understanding of whether the LCR calibration is working as intended. To anticipate and address extreme tail events (as well as risks) not covered by the LCR, liquidity regulation needs to be complemented by frequent and granular reporting as well as rigorous supervision.
- JEL Code
- 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
- 25 August 2021
- OCCASIONAL PAPER SERIES - No. 260Details
- Abstract
- The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS) framework used to identify global systemically important banks (G-SIBs) is based on banks’ balance sheet information, leaving information derived from market data untapped. Among the most widely used market-based systemic risk measures, Adrian and Brunnermeier’s (2016) Delta-Conditional Value at Risk (ΔCoVaR) best captures the system-wide loss-given-default (sLGD) and conditional impact concepts underlying the BCBS GSIB methodology. In this paper we investigate, using a global sample of the largest banks, whether a score based on ΔCoVaR could be useful for ranking G-SIBs or for calibrating an alternative G-SIB indicator weighting scheme. In our first analysis we find that the ΔCoVaR score is positively correlated with all five of the systemic importance categories of the BCBS framework. However, considerable information/noise with regard to the ΔCoVaR score remains unexplained. Before more is known about this residual, a score based on ΔCoVaR is difficult to interpret and is inappropriate for identifying G-SIBs in a policy context. Besides, we find that a ranking based on ΔCoVaR is subject to substantial variability over time and across empirical specifications. In our second analysis we use ΔCoVaR to place the current static weighting scheme for G-SIB indicators on an empirical footing. To do this we regress ΔCoVaR on factors derived from the G-SIB indicators. This approach allows us to focus on the part of ΔCoVaR which can be explained by balance sheet information which alleviates the identified issues of interpretability and variability. The derived weights are highest for the cross-jurisdictional activity (43%) and size (27%) categories. We conclude that ΔCoVaR is not suitable for use as an alternative G-SIB score but could be useful for policymakers to pursue an empirically grounded weighting scheme for the existing G-SIB indicators.
- JEL Code
- G20 : Financial Economics→Financial Institutions and Services→General
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
- 28 June 2021
- MACROPRUDENTIAL BULLETIN - ARTICLE - No. 13Details
- Abstract
- This article studies the impact of the ECB’s dividend recommendations on banks’ lending and loss-absorption capacity during the COVID-19 crisis. It finds that the policy has been effective in mitigating the potential procyclical adjustment of banks. Banks that did not distribute previously planned dividends increased their lending by around 2.4% and their provisions by approximately 5.5%, thus strengthening their capacity to absorb losses. Notably, the recommendations appear to have mitigated the procyclical behaviour of banks closer to the threshold for automatic restrictions on distributions. Overall, the recommendations were successful in conserving capital and helping the banking system support the real economy and facilitate the recognition of future losses.
- JEL Code
- E51 : Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics→Monetary Policy, Central Banking, and the Supply of Money and Credit→Money Supply, Credit, Money Multipliers
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
G35 : Financial Economics→Corporate Finance and Governance→Payout Policy
G28 : Financial Economics→Financial Institutions and Services→Government Policy and Regulation
- 16 September 2019
- MACROPRUDENTIAL BULLETIN - ARTICLE - No. 8Details
- Abstract
- 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.
- JEL Code
- 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 Regulation
- 16 September 2019
- MACROPRUDENTIAL BULLETIN - ARTICLE - No. 8Details
- Abstract
- 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.
- JEL Code
- 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 Regulation
- 30 April 2018
- MACROPRUDENTIAL BULLETIN - ARTICLE - No. 5Details
- Abstract
- 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.
- JEL Code
- 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 Regulation