BoE published a staff working paper that examines the impact of different supervisory governance models on supervisory capture and financial stability. The paper compares supervisory governance models based on supervision by the central bank, by an agency, or by both the central bank and an agency. The paper provides empirical evidence on the relationship between supervisory governance and financial stability and on the inhibiting effect of shared supervision on supervisory capture. The analysis of the impact of the supervisory governance models on nonperforming loans (NPLs) found that NPLs are significantly lower in countries where supervision is shared and the risk of supervisory capture is higher.
Using the database on supervisory governance in 116 countries from 1970 to 2016, the paper finds that supervisory governance does not significantly affect NPLs. However, it also finds that, where the risk of capture is high, shared supervision is associated with a significant reduction in NPLs. NPLs tend to be higher when supervision is conducted by the central bank as a single supervisor, whereas no significant relationship is found with supervision by an agency. This is in line with the supervisory capture theory, wherein it is more costly to capture two supervisors rather than one. Assigning supervisory responsibilities to two institutions rather than one, reduces the risk of supervisory capture, thus lowering the risk-taking behavior of banks. Under shared supervision, each supervisor faces higher informational asymmetries and holds only partial information on the banking system, making it less profitable for supervised banks to capture them. On the contrary, having a single banking supervisor makes capture more likely, allowing banks to take more risk, with negative implications for financial stability. Overall, these results provide new evidence in support of the relevance of supervisory governance in hampering supervisory capture from the banking sector.
In conclusion, the paper suggests that reforms in supervisory governance could have an impact only depending on the institutional setting in which they are implemented. Institutional factors, such as the risk of capture in a country, are able to influence the effectiveness of supervisory governance in keeping the banking system stable. If policy makers want to address reforms in the governance of banking supervision, they should be aware that success of their efforts will be conditional on the existing political economy setting in which the reform is undertaken.
Keywords: Europe, UK, Banking, Financial Stability, Supervisory Governance, NPLs, Banking Supervision, BoE
Previous ArticleHoward Lee of HKMA Speaks on Challenges in Benchmark Rate Transition
ECB published Guideline 2021/975, which amends Guideline ECB/2014/31, on the additional temporary measures relating to Eurosystem refinancing operations and eligibility of collateral.
EIOPA published a report, from the Consultative Expert Group on Digital Ethics, that sets out artificial intelligence governance principles for an ethical and trustworthy artificial intelligence in the insurance sector in EU.
HKMA published the seventh and final issue of the Regtech Watch series, which outlines the three-year roadmap of HKMA to integrate supervisory technology, or suptech, into its processes.
EC launched a targeted consultation to improve transparency and efficiency in the secondary markets for nonperforming loans (NPLs).
BIS, Danmarks Nationalbank, Central Bank of Iceland, Norges Bank, and Sveriges Riksbank launched an Innovation Hub in Stockholm, making this the fifth BIS Innovation Hub Center to be opened in the past two years.
FDITECH, the technology lab of FDIC, announced a tech sprint that is designed to explore new technologies and techniques that would help expand the capabilities of community banks to meet the needs of unbanked individuals and households.
EC released the EU Taxonomy Compass, which visually represents the contents of the EU Taxonomy starting with the EU Taxonomy Climate Delegated Act.
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.
EIOPA published its annual report, which sets out the work done in 2020 and indicates the planned work areas for the coming months.
The ESRB paper that presents an analytical framework that assesses and quantifies the potential impact of a bank failure on the real economy through the lending function.