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
APRA has concluded its review of the comprehensive plans of authorized deposit-taking institutions for the assessment and management of loans with repayment deferrals.
ESAs (EBA, EIOPA, and ESMA) published the first joint report that assesses risks in the financial sector since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic.
BoE and HM Treasury confirmed that the COVID Corporate Financing Facility (CCFF) will close for new purchases of commercial paper, with effect from March 23, 2021.
ECB published a decision allowing the euro area banks under its direct supervision to exclude certain central bank exposures from the leverage ratio.
ESAs launched a survey seeking feedback on the presentational aspects of product templates under the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR or Regulation 2019/2088).
ECB published input of the European System of Central Banks (ESCB) into the EBA feasibility report on reducing the reporting burden for banks in EU.
EC adopted a decision determining, for a limited period of time, that the regulatory framework applicable to central counterparties, or CCPs, in the UK and Northern Ireland is equivalent to the requirements laid down in the European Market Infrastructure Regulation (EMIR or Regulation 648/2012).
EBA has decided to phase out the guidelines on legislative and non-legislative moratoria of loan repayments, in accordance with the earlier specified end of September deadline.
EBA published an Opinion addressed to EC to raise awareness about the opportunity to clarify certain issues related to the definition of credit institution in the upcoming review of the Capital Requirements Directive and Regulation (CRD and CRR).
ECB finalized the guide on assessment methodology for the internal model method for calculating exposure to counterparty credit risk (CCR) and the advanced method for own funds requirements for credit valuation adjustment (A-CVA) risk.