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
PRA published the policy statement PS8/21, which contains the final supervisory statement SS3/21 on the PRA approach to supervision of the new and growing non-systemic banks in UK.
EBA published a report that sets out the final draft regulatory technical standards specifying the conditions according to which consolidation shall be carried out in line with Article 18 of the Capital Requirements Regulation (CRR).
EBA updated the list of other systemically important institutions (O-SIIs) in EU.
BCBS published two reports that discuss transmission channels of climate-related risks to the banking system and the measurement methodologies of climate-related financial risks.
UK Authorities (FCA and PRA) welcomed the findings of FSB peer review on the implementation of financial sector remuneration reforms in the UK.
PRA and FCA jointly issued a letter that highlights risks associated with the increasing volumes of deposits that are placed with banks and building societies via deposit aggregators and how to mitigate these risks.
MFSA announced that amendments to the Banking Act, Subsidiary Legislation, and Banking Rules will be issued in the coming months, to transpose the Capital Requirements Directive (CRD5) into the national regulatory framework.
EC finalized the Delegated Regulation 2021/598 that supplements the Capital Requirements Regulation (CRR or 575/2013) and lays out the regulatory technical standards for assigning risk-weights to specialized lending exposures.
OSFI launched a consultation to explore ways to enhance the OSFI assurance over capital, leverage, and liquidity returns for banks and insurers, given the increasing complexity arising from the evolving regulatory reporting framework due to IFRS 17 (Insurance Contracts) standard and Basel III reforms.
ECB published results of the benchmarking analysis of the recovery plan cycle for 2019.