Featured Product

    BoE Paper Examines Impact of Different Supervisory Governance Models

    September 06, 2019

    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. 

     

    Related Links

    Keywords: Europe, UK, Banking, Financial Stability, Supervisory Governance, NPLs, Banking Supervision, BoE

    Featured Experts
    Related Articles
    News

    APRA Consults on Reporting Standard for Credit Risk Management

    APRA is consulting on the reporting standard for credit risk management (ARS 220.0).

    October 28, 2020 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    Regulators Fine Goldman Sachs for Risk Management Failures

    FCA and PRA in the UK, FED in the US, and the authorities in Singapore have fined Goldman Sachs for risk management failures in connection with the 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB).

    October 23, 2020 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    ISDA Launches IBOR Fallbacks Supplement and Protocol

    ISDA launched the IBOR Fallbacks Supplement and the IBOR Fallbacks Protocol, with both becoming effective on January 25, 2021.

    October 23, 2020 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    Canada Hosts International Conference of Banking Supervisors

    BCBS announced that OSFI and the Bank of Canada hosted the 21st International Conference of Banking Supervisors (ICBS) virtually on October 19-22, 2020.

    October 22, 2020 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    FCA Proposes More Measures to Help Insurance Customers Amid Crisis

    FCA proposed guidance on how firms should continue to seek to help customers who hold insurance and premium finance products and may be in financial difficulty because of COVID-19, after October 31, 2020.

    October 21, 2020 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    EBA Issues Opinion to Address Risk Stemming from Legacy Instruments

    EBA issued an opinion on prudential treatment of the legacy instruments as the grandfathering period nears an end on December 31, 2021.

    October 21, 2020 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    ESRB Publishes Non-Bank Financial Intermediation Risk Monitor for 2020

    ESRB published the fifth issue of the EU Non-bank Financial Intermediation Risk Monitor 2020 (NBFI Monitor).

    October 21, 2020 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    HM Treasury Publishes Policy Statement Amending Benchmarks Regulation

    HM Treasury announced that the new Financial Services Bill has been introduced in the Parliament.

    October 21, 2020 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    APRA Initiates Action Against a Bank for Liquidity Compliance Breach

    APRA announced that it has increased the minimum liquidity requirement of Bendigo and Adelaide Bank for failing to comply with the prudential standard on liquidity.

    October 21, 2020 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    European Council Adopts Position on Capital Markets Recovery Package

    Ambassadors of EU member states agreed on the mandate of European Council on the Capital Markets Recovery Package, to support economic recovery from the COVID-19 crisis.

    October 21, 2020 WebPage Regulatory News
    RESULTS 1 - 10 OF 6011