ECB published a working paper that examines the implications of national differences in the prudential framework across EU countries in context of the financial crisis. Overall, the study finds that banks established in countries with a less stringent prudential framework were more likely to require public support during the crisis. The paper analyzes the potential reasons for that and investigates the channels through which a laxer prudential framework could have led to higher financial vulnerability of credit institutions over the crisis.
Prior to the financial crisis, prudential regulation in the EU was implemented non-uniformly across countries, as options and discretions allowed national authorities to apply a more favorable regulatory treatment. The authors of the paper construct cross-country indicators of the effectiveness of the prudential framework for banks in the EU ahead of the global financial crisis. The authors investigate the national implementation of CRDs and derived a country-wise measure of regulatory flexibility (for all banks in a country) and of supervisory discretion (on a case-by-case basis). The paper also provides information on the measures of public support implemented by EU governments during the period 2008-2010 and classifies the various forms of financial assistance (recapitalization, credit guarantee, and liquidity provision).
Overall, the analysis suggests that banks established in countries with less stringent national prudential regulation before the crisis were more likely to require government support during the period 2008-2010. The results broadly hold for the indicators of both supervisory discretion and regulatory flexibility, suggesting that the micro-prudential stance of national authorities had relevant implications for the management of bank balance sheets and for the risk-taking incentives of credit institutions. Prudential frameworks also explain banks’ liquidity buffers even in absence of a specific liquidity regulation, which points to possible spillovers across regulatory instruments. The Basel II framework did not include liquidity requirements. The study documents the existence of some regulatory spillovers, since lower liquidity buffers explained by more flexible regulatory frameworks—which established only capital requirements—increase the probability of banks to have been in financial distress. The study also suggests that the composition of liquid assets is important.
The results show that a prudential environment in which important options and discretions are maintained at the national level is at best not conducive to a better allocation of risk and may actually foster risk-taking. This supports the ongoing efforts aimed at establishing a level-playing field in banking regulation and supervision across EU countries. The introduction of a Single Rulebook, intended to minimize the differences in prudential regulation across EU countries, provides a relevant contribution to reduce the heterogeneities in the risk-taking of credit institutions, by realigning the regulatory incentives on the basis of a common prudential framework.
Related Link: Working Paper (PDF)
Keywords: Europe, EU, Banking, Basel II, CRD, Financial Stability, Options and Discretions, Single Rulebook, Liquidity Risk, ECB
Previous ArticleCBIRC Extends Applicability Period of Reinsurance Credit Risk Factor
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.