Ei saatavilla suomeksi
Julian Metzler
- 15 May 2024
- OCCASIONAL PAPER SERIES - No. 348Details
- Abstract
- This paper provides an overview of stress-testing methodologies in Europe, with a focus on the advancements made by the European Central Bank’s Financial Stability Committee Working Group on Stress Testing (WGST). Over a four-year period, the WGST played a pivotal role in refining stress-testing practices, promoting collaboration among central banks and supervisory authorities and addressing challenges in the evolving financial landscape. The paper discusses the development and application of various stress-testing models, including top-down models, macro-micro models and system-wide models. It highlights the integration of new datasets and model validation efforts as well as the expanded use of stress-testing methodologies in risk and policy evaluation and in communication. The collaborative efforts of the WGST have demystified stress-testing methodologies and fostered trust among stakeholders. The paper concludes by outlining the future agenda for continued improvements in stress-testing practices.
- JEL Code
- G21 : Financial Economics→Financial Institutions and Services→Banks, Depository Institutions, Micro Finance Institutions, Mortgages
G28 : Financial Economics→Financial Institutions and Services→Government Policy and Regulation
C58 : Mathematical and Quantitative Methods→Econometric Modeling→Financial Econometrics
G01 : Financial Economics→General→Financial Crises
G18 : Financial Economics→General Financial Markets→Government Policy and Regulation
- 17 November 2022
- WORKING PAPER SERIES - No. 2753Details
- Abstract
- We employ interest rates and expected loss probabilities from the 2021 EBA Stress Test dataset and euro area credit registries to examine whether the risk-return relationship holds in banking. After controlling for bank, loan, and debtor characteristics as well as macroeconomic conditions, results indicate that a risk-return relationship in bank lending is present but varies significantly across and within borrower segments. While bank lending rates appear to be quite responsive to risks towards households, results suggest that banks only significantly increase interest rates towards non-financial corporations that reside in the riskiest quantiles of the distribution. This potentially implies the presence of a cross-subsidization effect of credit risk.
- JEL Code
- E51 : Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics→Monetary Policy, Central Banking, and the Supply of Money and Credit→Money Supply, Credit, Money Multipliers
E52 : Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics→Monetary Policy, Central Banking, and the Supply of Money and Credit→Monetary Policy
E58 : Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics→Monetary Policy, Central Banking, and the Supply of Money and Credit→Central Banks and Their Policies
- 15 November 2022
- FINANCIAL STABILITY REVIEW - ARTICLEFinancial Stability Review Issue 2, 2022Details
- Abstract
- Since the start of 2022, euro area households have seen the largest increase in consumer prices in decades and the first increase in interest rates in over ten years. For some households – especially those with lower incomes – these shocks could lead to financial distress, including debt defaults. Simulations of the impact of rising consumer prices and interest rates on the near-term financial health of households reveal a more pronounced risk of default in lower income quintiles. For most countries, systemic risk arising from loans originated in lower income quintiles, which represent a lower share of total household debt than loans originated in higher income quintiles, is limited, although it is more significant in some countries. Policy support aimed at dampening the impact of shocks could help to mitigate the risk. Across the euro area, second-round effects stemming from foregone consumption in response to higher financial burdens could weigh on economic performance and further impair banks’ asset quality.
- JEL Code
- D14 : Microeconomics→Household Behavior and Family Economics→Household Saving; Personal Finance
D63 : Microeconomics→Welfare Economics→Equity, Justice, Inequality, and Other Normative Criteria and Measurement
G21 : Financial Economics→Financial Institutions and Services→Banks, Depository Institutions, Micro Finance Institutions, Mortgages
G51 : Financial Economics
- 25 May 2022
- FINANCIAL STABILITY REVIEW - BOXFinancial Stability Review Issue 1, 2022Details
- Abstract
- By the end of 2021, the aggregate profitability and debt positions of euro area non-financial corporations (NFCs) had recovered to pre-pandemic levels. However, these aggregate developments mask considerable heterogeneity among firms; smaller firms and firms with business models heavily impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic had not fully recovered. Against this backdrop, this box uses firm-level data for euro area NFCs to identify vulnerable firms based on the Altman Z-score, a measure of insolvency risk that uses five balance sheet and income statement ratios and their joint importance. It then matches bank and sovereign exposures to consider related risks associated with the sovereign-bank-corporate nexus., smaller firms and firms with business models heavily impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic had not fully recovered. Against this backdrop, this box uses firm-level data for euro area NFCs to identify vulnerable firms based on the Altman Z-score, a measure of insolvency risk that uses five balance sheet and income statement ratios and their joint importance. It then matches bank and sovereign exposures to consider related risks associated with the sovereign-bank-corporate nexus.
- JEL Code
- G21 : Financial Economics→Financial Institutions and Services→Banks, Depository Institutions, Micro Finance Institutions, Mortgages
G33 : Financial Economics→Corporate Finance and Governance→Bankruptcy, Liquidation
G38 : Financial Economics→Corporate Finance and Governance→Government Policy and Regulation
H32 : Public Economics→Fiscal Policies and Behavior of Economic Agents→Firm
- 25 November 2020
- FINANCIAL STABILITY REVIEW - BOXFinancial Stability Review Issue 2, 2020Details
- Abstract
- The increase in sovereign debt in the wake of the pandemic has renewed concerns about the developments in the euro area sovereign-bank nexus. While these interlinkages may arise through various channels, this box assesses these developments focusing on the direct exposures of euro area banks to sovereign debt securities. In 2020 to date, euro area banks increased their exposures to domestic sovereign debt securities by almost 19% in nominal amount, with some differences across countries. This increase reflects both higher issuance of government debt and some bank-specific factors, including the decision to invest the increased amount of deposits in low-risk assets. In future months, euro area banks could further increase their domestic sovereign bond exposures, also in relation to the forthcoming trajectory of government debt, though, the actual path of banks’ domestic sovereign bond exposures will depend on multiple factors at the country-level and at the institution-level. The box explores also the implications of market valuation changes in euro area banks’ sovereign bond portfolios on their capital positions. So far, the vulnerability of banks to higher sovereign debt holdings has been contained because valuation changes have been modest. But with sovereign debt positions expected to remain elevated for some time, vulnerability to valuation changes will persist and other sovereign-bank linkages could also increase.
- JEL Code
- G21 : Financial Economics→Financial Institutions and Services→Banks, Depository Institutions, Micro Finance Institutions, Mortgages
G28 : Financial Economics→Financial Institutions and Services→Government Policy and Regulation
H63 : Public Economics→National Budget, Deficit, and Debt→Debt, Debt Management, Sovereign Debt
- 24 November 2020
- FINANCIAL STABILITY REVIEW - ARTICLEFinancial Stability Review Issue 2, 2020Details
- Abstract
- Fiscal, prudential and monetary authorities have responded to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic by providing unprecedented support to the real economy. Importantly, the combination of policy actions has done more to limit the materialisation of risks to households and firms than each policy individually. Exploiting complementarities and ensuring the most effective combination of policies will, however, be equally important when authorities start to phase out the various related relief measures. The fact that in particular the enacted fiscal and labour market measures, as well as their phase-out schedules, differ substantially across the largest euro area economies further complicates the challenge of obtaining the most effective policy combination. Along with the reduction in support to the real economy, the phasing-out of policy measures could adversely affect banks’ balance sheets and capitalisation. Resulting cliff effects in policy support are relevant for prudential authorities in the context of their future decisions on the replenishment of capital buffers. The results of the analysis suggest there are substantial risks associated with the early withdrawal of policy support, although the analysis does not account for the medium-term risks of protracted policy support.
- JEL Code
- C68 : Mathematical and Quantitative Methods→Mathematical Methods, Programming Models, Mathematical and Simulation Modeling→Computable General Equilibrium Models
E52 : Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics→Monetary Policy, Central Banking, and the Supply of Money and Credit→Monetary Policy
E58 : Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics→Monetary Policy, Central Banking, and the Supply of Money and Credit→Central Banks and Their Policies
E62 : Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics→Macroeconomic Policy, Macroeconomic Aspects of Public Finance, and General Outlook→Fiscal Policy
E63 : Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics→Macroeconomic Policy, Macroeconomic Aspects of Public Finance, and General Outlook→Comparative or Joint Analysis of Fiscal and Monetary Policy, Stabilization, Treasury Policy
G21 : Financial Economics→Financial Institutions and Services→Banks, Depository Institutions, Micro Finance Institutions, Mortgages
H81 : Public Economics→Miscellaneous Issues→Governmental Loans, Loan Guarantees, Credits, Grants, Bailouts
- 26 May 2020
- FINANCIAL STABILITY REVIEW - BOXFinancial Stability Review Issue 1, 2020Details
- Abstract
- Recent events have shown that stress in non-banks can affect other parts of the financial system, for example through forced asset sales and reduced short-term funding. This box examines the interconnections between banks and non-banks through direct exposures, overlapping portfolios and ownership links, and considers how these can increase the risk of systemic contagion.
- 26 May 2020
- FINANCIAL STABILITY REVIEW - BOXFinancial Stability Review Issue 1, 2020Details
- Abstract
- Many euro area countries have made loan guarantee schemes a central element of their support packages in response to the coronavirus shock (see Chapter 1). In the face of acute revenue and income losses, these temporary schemes can support the flow of credit to the real economy and thereby help stabilise the banking system. This box sets out an illustrative assessment of how the announced schemes are intended to operate, and how they might affect the scale of losses that banks may face in the quarters ahead.
- 29 May 2019
- FINANCIAL STABILITY REVIEW - BOXFinancial Stability Review Issue 1, 2019Details
- Abstract
- Weak corporate asset quality is a concern from a financial stability perspective. Distressed corporate debt has been the centrepiece of the high stock of non-performing loans (NPLs) of euro area banks. NPL stocks are a symptom of balance sheet difficulties faced by a large proportion of firms, which in turn may depress investment and employment, deprive banks of profitable lending opportunities, and therefore weigh on economic growth and the health of the banking sector itself.
- 24 May 2018
- FINANCIAL STABILITY REVIEW - BOXFinancial Stability Review Issue 1, 2018Details
- Abstract
- The market for NPLs in Europe has become more active in recent years. The total amount and volume of transactions has continuously increased in the last three years, although part of the increase in volumes can be attributed to just a few large transactions. Italy and Spain account for the majority of the market turnover. However, the geographical scope of NPL markets in the euro area has also widened, with transactions starting in Greece in 2017 and in Cyprus in 2018. At the same time, market activity in more mature NPL markets, such as Ireland, has weakened against the backdrop of a diminishing supply of NPLs.