BIS published a working paper that examines whether bad banks, or impaired asset segregation tools, and recapitalization lead to a recovery in the lending of originating banks and a reduction in the non-performing loans (NPLs). A key finding of the study is that only when the two tools are used together do they have the desired effect and a sizable impact on the two response variables: neither tool is effective separately. In countries where the legal system is more efficient, credit recovery and NPLs reductions are stronger in response to impaired asset segregations.
The paper first discusses the mechanisms and different dimensions of asset segregation. Then, it lays out the testable hypotheses, before describing the data and conducting the empirical analysis and moving on to presenting the conclusions of the study. The study is based on a novel data set covering 135 banks from 15 European banking systems during 2000–2016. The main finding is that bad bank segregations are effective in cleaning up balance sheets and promoting bank lending only if they combine recapitalization with asset segregation. The results continued to hold when study addressed the potential endogeneity problem associated with the creation of a bad bank. Used in isolation, neither tool will suffice to spur lending and reduce future NPLs. Exploiting the heterogeneity in the asset segregation events, the study was able to show which features of resolution schemes have a stronger impact on the response variables and found that asset segregation is more effective when:
- Asset purchases are funded privately
- Smaller shares of the originating bank's assets are segregated
- Asset segregation occurs in countries with more efficient legal systems
Keywords: International, Banking, NPLs, Credit Risk, Resolution, Impaired Asset Segregation Tools, Research, BIS
Previous ArticleUS Agencies Propose Revisions to Call Reports and FFIEC 101 Report
EBA published a report analyzing the impact of the unwind mechanism of the liquidity coverage ratio (LCR) for a sample of European banks over a three-year period, from the end of 2016 to the first quarter of 2020.
In response to questions from a member of the European Parliament, the ECB President Christine Lagarde issued a letter clarifying the possibility of amending the AnaCredit Regulation and making targeted longer-term refinancing operations (TLTROs) dependent on the climate-related impact of bank loans.
IASB started the post-implementation review of the classification and measurement requirements in IFRS 9 on financial instruments and added the review as a project to its work plan.
FSB published a report that examines progress in implementing policy measures to enhance the resolvability of systemically important financial institutions.
EBA published a report on the benchmarking of national loan enforcement frameworks across 27 EU member states, in response to the call for advice from EC.
FSB published a letter from its Chair Randal K. Quarles, along with two reports exploring various aspects of the market turmoil resulting from the COVID-19 event.
RBNZ launched a consultation on the details for implementing the final Capital Review decisions announced in December 2019.
The Trustees of the IFRS Foundation, which are responsible for the governance and oversight of IASB, have announced the appointment of Dr. Andreas Barckow as the IASB Chair, effective July 2021.
HKMA issued a letter to consult the banking industry on a full set of proposed draft amendments to the Banking (Capital) Rules for implementing the Basel standard on capital requirements for banks’ equity investments in funds in Hong Kong.
ESRB published an opinion assessing the decision of Swedish Financial Supervisory Authority (FSA) to extend the application period of a stricter measure for residential mortgage lending, in accordance with Article 458 of the Capital Requirements Regulation (CRR).