In continuation of a series of Bulletins on the impact of COVID-19 pandemic, BIS published a brief report, or Bulletin, that examines financial resilience of households against the COVID-19 shock. The Bulletin takes stock of the policy interventions in select jurisdictions, along with their related implications. In conclusion, it outlines how the various temporary, targeted, and expansionary policy measures can strengthen financial resilience of households and businesses by transferring risks to the respective governments and banks.
This Bulletin documents, in three steps, cross-country variation in financial resilience of households. First, it looks at current levels of household debt and the corresponding debt service burdens. There is considerable variation, both between countries and within individual countries. Second, the Bulletin examines the adequacy of liquid buffers held by indebted households, given their debt service burdens. In several countries, households in the lower half of the net wealth distribution hold insufficient liquid buffers to weather a protracted spell of unemployment. In the third step, household financial resilience is compared with estimates of exposure to the COVID-19 shock, measured in terms of higher unemployment forecasts. This reveals that large exposures are not necessarily matched by buffers of commensurate size. The concluding section discusses how various policies can bolster resilience or alleviate the unemployment impact of the COVID-19 shock.
Policymakers have taken various measures to boost households’ resilience or alleviate the unemployment impact of the COVID-19 shock. Low interest rates and debt repayment moratoria bolster resilience by temporarily lowering debt burdens. In jurisdictions where debt service costs are more sensitive to interest rates (because mortgages, the bulk of household debt, are adjustable rather than fixed rate), rate cuts will pass through to debt servicing costs (for example, Australia, Korea, Spain, and the United Kingdom). Meanwhile, low interest rates will support the economic recovery, reducing the risk that income loss will be long-lasting. Most countries in the sample have loosened their monetary policy, with a few offering temporary debt relief.
An expansionary fiscal policy safeguards households against the prospect of income loss. Policymakers have implemented targeted income support schemes in several jurisdictions. They have also expanded access to unemployment benefits and social protection programs. In addition, authorities have introduced salary subsidies, which transfer (a share of) labor costs for locked-down employees from corporates to the government. Temporary moratoria on tax payments also help, by alleviating liquidity shortfalls. These interventions have (re)distributional implications. Debt repayment moratoria, for example, transfer some of the COVID-19 losses from households to banks (and other creditors). Expansionary fiscal measures entail inter-generational redistribution, with current debt burdens being transferred from the balance sheet of the current poor to that of the government and, thus, to future generations of taxpayers. The ultimate extent of interventions will, therefore, reflect political economy considerations as well as household exposure to the COVID-19 shock.
Keywords: International, Banking, COVID-19, Loan Moratorium, Loan Repayment, Credit Risk, Policy Actions, BIS
Leading economist; commercial real estate; performance forecasting, econometric infrastructure; data modeling; credit risk modeling; portfolio assessment; custom commercial real estate analysis; thought leader.
Previous ArticleFED Updates Terms for Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility
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.
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.
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).
APRA is consulting on updates to ARS 210.0, the reporting standard that sets out requirements for provision of information on liquidity and funding of an authorized deposit-taking institution.
FED released hypothetical scenarios for a second round of stress tests for banks.
FED is proposing to temporarily revise the capital assessments and stress testing reports (FR Y-14A/Q/M) to implement the changes necessary to conduct stressed analysis in connection with the re-submission of capital plans, using data as of June 30, 2020.
FED adopted a proposal to extend for three years, with revision, the information collection under the market risk capital rule (FR 4201; OMB No. 7100-0314).
EBA published a voluntary online survey seeking input from credit institutions on their practices and future plans for Pillar 3 disclosures on the environmental, social, and governance (ESG) risks.