Blog Post

The case for a European banking union

A new concept has emerged in the discussion on the solutions to the euro crisis: that of a European banking union. It was discussed by the EU leaders at their last meeting and it has been endorsed by the European institutions. True, this is probably the worst possible name from a communication viewpoint, as citizens […]

By: Date: May 31, 2012

A new concept has emerged in the discussion on the solutions to the euro crisis: that of a European banking union. It was discussed by the EU leaders at their last meeting and it has been endorsed by the European institutions. True, this is probably the worst possible name from a communication viewpoint, as citizens are angry against banks for having created the crisis and against the European Union for having mismanaged it, but it actually makes considerable sense. Here is why.

The European monetary union was initially created on the basis of two pillars: a monetary one, around the independent and price-stability oriented European Central Bank, and a budgetary one, around the provisions that were meant to ensure fiscal discipline and a certain modicum of coordination. It had no financial component apart from the prohibition of capital controls and the promotion of a single market for financial services, both of which apply to all members of the EU irrespective of participation in the euro area, and in particular it had no banking component, apart from those arising from the operation of monetary policy. The ECB itself had few financial stability competences.

This bare-bones monetary union has shown its limits in the crisis. First, the previously integrated financial market that underpins the common currency and contributes to ensuring homogeneous transmission of monetary policy impulses has started to fragment along national borders. Banks were European in quiet times, but they have become national in crisis times because they depend on the national government that has the capacity to bail them out, if needed. They are increasingly being encouraged by national authorities to cut cross-border lending and retreat within national borders. Indeed, this is understandable from a national viewpoint as taxpayers have little reason to pay for the consequences of imprudent lending to foreigners, but the consequence is to disintegrate the euro area. Capital was supposed to move as freely across countries as across regions within a federation, but the reality is that we have unexpectedly experienced within-euro area balance-of-payment crises.     

Second and no less problematic is the correlation between banking and sovereign solvency crises. In Greece, Ireland, Spain and Italy, as well as in other countries (though to a lesser extent), sovereign solvency concerns have contaminated banks and bank solvency concerns have contaminated sovereigns. The explanations are that banks massively hold government bonds issued by their sovereign and that sovereigns are sole responsible for bailing-out banks headquartered on their territory. This creates a potential for vicious circles and even self-fulfilling crises that the ECB cannot quell because a federal central bank is not, and cannot be mandated to assist particular sovereigns.

Moving to a banking union – that is, assigning to the European level the responsibility for deposit insurance, bank supervision, and crisis resolution – would help on both fronts and therefore contribute to making the monetary union more resilient. It would at the same time strengthen financial integration and reduce the potential for correlation between sovereign and banking crises. Hence, the new interest for the idea.   

However this is not an easy move. First of all, it cannot be done piece by piece. European deposit insurance is of little help if not backed up by fiscal support: it would only help dealing with small crises, not with bigger ones that overwhelm bank-financed deposit insurance funds. Also, as soon as insurance is moved to the European level, supervision has to follow suit, otherwise national supervisors would have a strong incentive to overlook excessive risk-taking by banks in their jurisdiction.

Second, there are limits to what can be insured. European deposit insurance cannot cover the risk of euro exit. This would simply amount to subsidising it massively as bank accounts would keep their euro value even if corresponding bank credits were converted into a new currency. So a European banking union would help cover some risks but not all of them.

Third, the euro area is a subset of the EU and it does not include its main financial centre, London. So there would be a need for creative variable geometry to combine what belongs to the EU and what belongs to the euro area. A positive development is that the UK, whose traditional attitude was to block the initiatives he did not want to take part in, has changed attitude. British PM David Cameron has decided that the national interest was to help the euro area “make-up” rather to “break-up”. However the devil is in the details and negotiations on the exact contours of the banking union and its interaction with the European single market rules promise to be difficult.

Last but not least, any insurance mechanism involves distributional biases. The countries with stronger banking system are naturally reluctant to subsidise those whose banking systems are or are perceived to be weaker. True, it is hard to say ex ante who is stronger and who is weaker, and the series of banking crises throughout the world suggests that rich countries are as prone to them as poorer ones. In the short term however Northern European countries are reluctant to embark on a support to Spain, where the legacy of the real estate crisis is severe. In the end, the survival of the euro may be worth the transfer. But not after much discussion.

Will Europe bite the bullet? Until recently it seemed that it would not. From banking protectionism to fear of transfers and reluctance to assigning new powers to the European level, there were many reasons to think that this sound idea had little chances to see the light. The heightened risks that recent developments represent for the euro area and market perception that the very existence of the euro is at stake may lead the European heads of state and government to change their mind. It would not be the first time they wait until they are on the edge of the cliff to take the decision they should have taken earlier. But it would not be the first time they end up taking the right decision.

Colleagues and I at Bruegel have been promoting the idea for some time. See my paper on the incompleteness of monetary union, my paper with Silvia Merler on the correlation of sovereign and banking crises, here the contribution by Nicolas Véron on the need for Europe to change course on banks and the paper by André Sapir, Guntram Wolff on the relationship between euro and non-euro area member states.


Republishing and referencing

Bruegel considers itself a public good and takes no institutional standpoint. Anyone is free to republish and/or quote this post without prior consent. Please provide a full reference, clearly stating Bruegel and the relevant author as the source, and include a prominent hyperlink to the original post.

Topics

Tags

Comments

Read article More on this topic

Opinion

Ashoka Mody
Guntram B. Wolff

Euro Area Banks Remain Vulnerable

Strengthening the banking system is important to achieve a sustainable recovery, because it will revitalise credit to the healthier segments of the economy. However without restructuring, euro area banks are still vulnerable.

By: Ashoka Mody and Guntram B. Wolff Topic: Finance & Financial Regulation Date: August 21, 2015
Read article Download PDF More on this topic

Working Paper

The Vulnerability of Europe's Small and Medium-Sized Banks

The Vulnerability of Europe's Small and Medium-Sized Banks

Stress tests show significant weaknesses in Europe's small and medium-sized banks. Strengthening the banking system is important to achieve a sustainable recovery because it will revitalise credit to the healthier segments of the economy. But instead of emphasising bank recapitalisation, we believe the task is to shrink the banking sector to a healthier core.

By: Ashoka Mody and Guntram B. Wolff Topic: Finance & Financial Regulation Date: July 15, 2015
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Guntram B. Wolff

Euro area governance: an assessment of the “five presidents” report

European Commission President Juncker has published the long-awaited report prepared in collaboration with the presidents of the European Council, the Eurogroup, the European Central Bank and the European Parliament. The aim of the report is to prepare a roadmap for the completion of EMU, which is “not an end in itself” but a “means to create a better life for all citizens”. The aim of this blog is to discuss a few of its key elements.

By: Guntram B. Wolff Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: June 24, 2015
Read article Download PDF More by this author

Essay / Lecture

Europe’s radical banking union

Europe’s radical banking union

Bruegel scholar Nicolas Véron argues in this thought-provoking essay that banking union ultimately enabled the European Central Bank’s announcement that it would buy large quantities of government bonds if needed and on the condition of a financial support programme.

By: Nicolas Véron Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance, Finance & Financial Regulation Date: May 5, 2015
Read article More by this author

Blog Post

Guntram B. Wolff

European banking union and financial integration

At a famous summit in June 2012, the European leaders announced that they intend to “break the vicious circle” between banks and sovereigns. This decision started a new step in European integration.

By: Guntram B. Wolff Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance, Finance & Financial Regulation Date: December 19, 2014
Read article More by this author

Blog Post

Nicolas Véron

Europe’s Banking Union starts on an encouraging note

Sunday, October 26 was D-Day for Europe’s banks: at noon in Frankfurt, the European Central Bank (ECB) announced the results of its “comprehensive assessment” of the euro area’s 130 largest banks, including an Asset Quality Review (AQR) and stress tests.

By: Nicolas Véron Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance, Finance & Financial Regulation Date: October 27, 2014
Read article Download PDF More by this author

Parliamentary Testimony

Speech on package of measures for the Banking UnionGerman Bundestag

Speech on package of measures for the Banking Union

Hearing at the Budget Committee.

By: Guntram B. Wolff Topic: Finance & Financial Regulation, German Bundestag Date: October 6, 2014
Read article Download PDF More by this author

Parliamentary Testimony

Banking union in nine questionsEuropean ParliamentItalian Parliament

Banking union in nine questions

Prepared for the Interparliamentary conference organized by the Italian Presidency of the European Council in Rome.

By: Nicolas Véron Topic: European Parliament, Finance & Financial Regulation, Italian Parliament Date: September 30, 2014
Read article

Opinion

Adam Posen
Nicolas Véron

Europe's half a banking union

Even with all the risks in mind, we are convinced that in terms of financial stability and beyond, the half a banking union that has been undertaken will be transformative and positive for the European Union.

By: Adam Posen and Nicolas Véron Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance, Finance & Financial Regulation Date: September 19, 2014
Read article More by this author

Blog Post

Guntram B. Wolff

Three questions on the Banco Espírito Santo case for banking union

As shares were suspended in Portugal's third largest bank, Banco Espírito Santo last week, sovereign spreads in the euro area increased and bank stocks were weakened.

By: Guntram B. Wolff Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance, Finance & Financial Regulation Date: July 14, 2014
Read article More by this author

Blog Post

Nicolas Véron

Euro crisis turning point: Two years of Banking Union

The anniversary of Europe’s banking union is worth celebrating. Two years ago, and for lack of alternative options, Europe’s leaders avoided their usual muddling-through complacency to do something radical—and it worked. They may need to muster such stamina again. 

By: Nicolas Véron Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance, Finance & Financial Regulation Date: July 2, 2014
Read article More on this topic

Blog Post

Silvia Merler
Guntram B. Wolff

The European Parliament improves banking union

After a round of negotiation which lasted a full 16 hours, the Parliament and the Council reached a provisional agreement on the proposed Single Resolution Mechanism (SRM) that, together with the Single Supervisory Mechanism (SSM) will constitute its core architecture.

By: Silvia Merler and Guntram B. Wolff Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: March 24, 2014
Load more posts