ECB published eleventh issue of the Macroprudential Bulletin, which provides insight into the ongoing work of ECB in the field of macro-prudential policy. The bulletin includes articles on the usability of macro-prudential capital buffers, financial market pressure as an impediment to usability of capital buffers, the role of capital buffers in containing the reduction of lending during COVID-19 crisis, and enhancement of macro-prudential space when interest rates are low for long. The bulletin provides an overview of the macro-prudential capital requirements in euro area countries, as of October 01, 2020; it also provides information on other macro-prudential measures taken by the member countries since the last issue of the Macroprudential Bulletin in October 2019.
Usability of macro-prudential capital buffers. This article discusses the capital buffer framework under Basel III, with focus on the issue of buffer usability. Although buffers are intended to be used in a crisis, a number of factors can prevent banks from drawing them down in case of need, with potentially adverse effects for the economy. The article reviews the functioning of the framework in the COVID-19 crisis and outlines possible implications for future policy design. The article emphasizes the importance of clear and convincing communication for mitigating a number of impediments to buffer usability. It also calls for a medium-term rebalancing between structural and cyclical capital requirements, as a greater share of capital buffers that can be released in a crisis would enhance macro-prudential authorities’ ability to act countercyclically.
Financial market pressure as an impediment to usability of capital buffers. This article discusses how market pressure can impede the usability of regulatory buffers. The capital relief measures in the euro area since the outbreak of the COVID-19 crisis had so far mixed effects on banks’ target common equity tier (CET) 1 ratio, suggesting an impeded pass-through. Market pressure can be a key explanatory factor, with pressure from credit and, critically, equity investors. Bondholders may require banks to maintain higher capital ratios to reduce default risk, while shareholders may pressure banks to continue dividend payments rather than to use excess capital to lend or to absorb losses. Despite these potential impediments, it may still be too early to draw a final conclusion, because losses have been prevented or delayed and lending has been supported by other broad-based policy measurers beyond prudential policies.
Buffer use and lending impact. This article analyzes the role of capital buffers in containing the reduction of lending to the real economy during the COVID-19 crisis. The assessment compares the results when banks are willing to use the buffers with the outcomes when they refrain from using the buffers by using the macro-micro model banking euro area stress test model (BEAST). The results show that banks’ use of capital buffers leads to better economic outcomes, without a negative impact on their resilience. Banks’ willingness to use capital buffers is reflected in higher lending, with positive effects on GDP and lower credit losses, while the resilience of the banking system is not compromised.
Enhancing macro-prudential space when interest rates are low for long. The article shows that enhancing countercyclical capacity can improve the policy mix available to achieve macro-financial stabilization. The availability of larger releasable buffers before the pandemic would have provided an important complement to the monetary policy mix. Had authorities built up larger countercyclical buffers (CCyB) before the pandemic, it would have been easier to release usable capital in response to the crisis. The prevailing “lower for longer” interest rate environment reinforces the case for building up releasable bank capital buffers in good times to be consumed when a crisis hits, thereby lowering the point where dividend restrictions would be triggered. This article shows that the usefulness of creating macro-prudential space by enhancing countercyclical capacity (via proactive use of the CCyB) can effectively complement monetary policy actions during a crisis, particularly when constrained by the effective lower bound on interest rates.
Keywords: Europe, EU, Banking, COVID-19, Macro-Prudential Bulletin, Macro-Prudential Policy, Basel, Regulatory Capital, CCyB, Systemic Risk, Stress Testing, ECB
Next ArticleEC Publishes Work Program for 2021
FDIC is seeking comments on a rule to amend the interagency guidelines for real estate lending policies—also known as the Real Estate Lending Standards.
ISDA is consulting on the implementation of fallbacks for the sterling LIBOR ICE Swap Rate and for the USD LIBOR ICE Swap Rate.
BIS and BoE launched the BIS Innovation Hub Center in London, which is the fourth new Innovation Hub Centre to be opened in the past two years.
ESRB published recommendations on the reciprocation of macro-prudential measures in Belgium, France, Luxembourg, Norway, and Sweden.
SEC announced that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs released the Spring 2021 Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions.
EC published the Delegated Regulation 2021/931, which supplements the Capital Requirements Regulation (CRR or Regulation 575/2013) with regard to the regulatory technical standards specifying the method for identifying derivative transactions with one or more than one material risk driver.
BCBS is consulting on preliminary proposals for the prudential treatment of cryptoasset exposures of banks.
EBA issued a revised list of validation rules under the implementing technical standards on supervisory reporting.
BIS Innovation Hub, BDF, and SNB announced that, together with a private-sector consortium led by Accenture, they will conduct an experiment using wholesale central bank digital currency (wCBDC) for cross-border settlement.
ESAs published two amended implementing technical standards on the mapping of credit assessments of External Credit Assessment Institutions (ECAIs).