Blog Post

T-(rompe-l’Oeil)-LTRO

I already pointed out that several important points were quite vague in the initial ECB T-LTRO announcement. Some of these have been clarified, but the most important issue is still unaddressed - how (if at all) will banks be prevented from using the funds to buy government bonds?

By: Date: July 4, 2014 European Macroeconomics & Governance Tags & Topics

Yesterday the ECB’s Governing Council unveiled further technical details on its new programme of Targeted Long-Term Refinancing Operations (TLTRO). This was announced on the 5th of June and at present it constitutes the main hope for the ECB to be able to fight the risk of deflation in the euro area, given that no asset purchase programme has yet been announced. I already pointed out that several important points were quite vague in the initial ECB announcement. Some of these have been clarified, but the most important issue is still unaddressed – how (if at all) will banks be prevented from using the funds to buy government bonds?

The first clarification concerns the criteria behind the allocation of funds. As a reminder from my previous piece, the TLTRO will work in two phases. Under the first phase, banks will be able to borrow up to an initial allowance, in two operations in September and December 2014. The Initial allowance is defined as 7% of the outstanding amounts of loans to euro area non-financial corporations and households, excluding loans to households for house purchase, as of 30 April 2014.

This was known since the beginning, but it is interesting to learn that banks will be given the possibility to participate to the TLTRO as standalone borrowers or in “TLTRO groups”, provided they can qualify as sufficiently “closely linked”. This can potentially leverage the effectiveness of the TLTRO. The borrowing limits applicable to the leading institution of a TLTRO group will be calculated on the basis of the outstanding amounts of eligible loans and eligible net lending granted by all members of the TLTRO group in aggregate. The funds will then be presumably spread out across the members of the group, so that some members could benefit from a larger amount of funds than they could get if they were participating as standalone borrowers.

More interesting are the criteria that will apply for the second phase of the TLTRO, the one that should allows “leveraging” the measure beyond the initial allowances and at the same time imposing the incentive for banks to actually use the funds for lending to the economy. Between March 2015 and June 2016, banks will in fact be able to borrow additional amounts that can cumulatively reach up to three times each bank’s net lending provided between 30 April 2014 and the respective allotment reference date, in excess of a specified benchmark. It goes without saying that the definition of the benchmark is crucial for the success of the programme.

The  ECB has specified yesterday how the benchmark will be computed, and as anticipated, it looks rather generous. In particular, the benchmark will differ depending on the net lending position of banks. For banks that had positive or zero eligible net lending in the 12-month period up to 30 April 2014, the benchmark will be set at zero eligible net lending (see Chart 1). This basically means that in order to qualify for the 6 TLTROs conducted from 2015 on, banks will just need not to shrink their balance sheet and perhaps do a little bit better than they did over last year, depending on how much they wish to leverage in the second phase (the bigger their net lending from now on, and the larger the amount they will be able to borrow under the second wave of TLTROs).

For banks that instead had negative eligible net lending over last year, the benchmark will be a function of the average monthly eligible net lending achieved in the twelve months to 30 April 2014 (so a negative bechmark) until June 2015, then it will be set to zero as for the other banks.

Source: ECB

In practice, this is nothing but a complicated way to say that it should be rather easy for banks to qualify for the funds. “Virtuous” banks, who were already increasing their lending to the economy over last year will be required basically not to shrink their balance sheet or do a little better than they were doing. Banks that were instead contracting their balance sheet will be allowed some more time before having to turn to positive net lending. Over that period they will be just required to deleverage at a slower pace than they were doing until now, but they will be able to borrow.

Up to here, positive news that should favour a big take up of the TLTRO – Draghi proved optimist in the press conference, anticipating that banks could decide to borrow in the order of 1trn. However, one point remains apparently unaddressed and it is a crucial one. The ECB in fact has not added clarity about how (if at all) banks will be prevented from using the funds to buy government bonds. Banks could use part of the funds borrowed in Phase 1 to buy government bonds and still qualify for Phase  2, but even in case they were not to qualify the only consequence at the moment appears to be that they would be forced to repay the funds earlier but could still enjoy the profits of a carry trade in the meantime. More generally, there seems to be no specific constraints once the funds are borrowed and, as noted by several analysts, there seems to be no penalties in view for the banks that do not meet the benchmarks. This is definitely not a second order issue, as it could be appreciated over the last 2 and ½ years, and it constitutes an important flaw of the previous LTRO operations.

Until there is a clear solution to the issue of monitoring the use of funds, the additional “T” is just a Trompe-l’œil.


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.

View comments
Read article More by this author

Blog Post

Zsolt Darvas

Single market access from outside the EU: three key prerequisites

In relative terms, Norway’s current net financial contribution to the EU is similar to the UK’s. Switzerland and Liechtenstein pay surprisingly little, while Iceland is a net beneficiary. Relative to their population, Switzerland, Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein received about twice as large an inflow of EU immigrants as the UK. These countries also have to adopt the vast majority of EU regulation to gain access to the single market.

By: Zsolt Darvas Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: July 19, 2016
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Opinion

Guntram B. Wolff

The difficulties of defining EU-UK economic relations

Negotiations on the UK's exit from the EU have not yet begun, but the UK leadership needs to find a balance between single market access and free movement. There are also tensions between the demands of voters and what EU partners can plausibly agree. Guntram Wolff doubts the likelihood of a Norway- or Switzerland-style deals, and urges caution on all sides.

By: Guntram B. Wolff Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: July 19, 2016
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Marek Dabrowski

Iran: from isolation to economic cooperation

With some sanctions temporarily lifted, now is the chance for Iran to reintegrate into the global economy and political system. But comprehensive economic and political reforms are needed.

By: Marek Dabrowski Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: July 15, 2016
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Zsolt Darvas

Brexit vote boosts case for inclusive growth

In the United Kingdom’s Brexit referendum, income inequality and poverty boosted ‘leave’ votes, in addition to geographical differences and larger shares of uneducated and older people in UK regions, according to my regression analysis. The actual presence of immigrants did not have a significant effect on the results. Disadvantaged people voted in smaller proportions. Turnout was also low among the young and residents of Scotland, Northern Ireland and London, who were more likely to vote ‘remain’.

By: Zsolt Darvas Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: July 13, 2016
Read about event More on this topic

Past Event

Past Event

Does the euro area need a sovereign insolvency mechanism?

The sovereign debt crisis shook the Euro to its foundations. It soon became clear that there was no mechanism to allow a tidy insolvency of a state wishing to remain inside the euro area. To face future crises, does the EU need a sovereign insolvency mechanism?

Speakers: Jochen Andritzky, Lars Feld, Zsolt Darvas and Guntram B. Wolff Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels Date: July 12, 2016
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Jérémie Cohen-Setton

The great risk shift and populism

What’s at stake: For many commentators, Brexit was the signal of a broad populist backlash and illustrated the need to articulate policies that address the grievances of those citizens who have been left behind by recent economic changes.

By: Jérémie Cohen-Setton Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: July 11, 2016
Read article Download PDF More on this topic More by this author

Policy Contribution

Cover

An Italian job: the need for collective wage bargaining reform

Italy’s current system of centralised wage bargaining needs to be reformed. The system was designed without regard for the underlying industrial structure and geographical heterogeneity of the Italian economy. This has fostered perverse incentives and imbalances within Italy.

By: Alessio Terzi Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: July 6, 2016
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Opinion

Guntram B. Wolff

市场与公投承诺不可兼得

未来几个月市场的动荡还将持续,直到英国与欧盟关系的条款最终敲定。英国与欧盟保持密切关联的政治可能性越高,市场反应将会越积极。相反,如果英国采取孤立主义,以及欧洲大陆的惩罚性情绪越高,那么英国和欧盟的股市下跌将会越严重。

By: Guntram B. Wolff Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: July 6, 2016
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Opinion

Schoenmaker pic

登录 注册 丢了“欧盟护照”伦敦金融城伤不起

 作为全球金融中心,伦敦一部分的吸引力来自于其窗口作用——在伦敦扎根可以直接打入泛欧洲经济区(EEA)的内部市场。这么说来,金融企业有一个英国经营牌照就如同有一本“欧盟护照”,境外机构可以在整个欧洲经济区提供金融服务,畅通无阻。

By: Dirk Schoenmaker Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: July 5, 2016
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Dalia Marin

Inequality in Germany – how it differs from the US

The pay gap between workers and CEOs in Germany is driven by a lack of managers. Income inequality could fall if there were more managers available for companies to hire. Firms should start hiring more CEOs who are women or from abroad.

By: Dalia Marin Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: July 5, 2016
Read article More on this topic

Blog Post

Alvaro Leandro
jaume

Spanish unemployment and the effects of the 2012 labour market reform

What’s at stake: Spain is currently the EU country with the second highest level of unemployment, after Greece. The high and persistent level of unemployment and the appropriate labour market reforms are a major topic of discussion in Spain. We review arguments made in the blogosphere and by international organisations on the reasons for Spain’s stubbornly high unemployment, and various assessments of the labour market reforms of 2012.

By: Alvaro Leandro and Jaume Martí Romero Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: July 4, 2016
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Zsolt Darvas

No Lehman moment on currency markets after Brexit vote

While the pound sterling has lost a lot of its value right after the Brexit vote, from a historical perspective neither the fall of the exchange rate, nor its current level, is unprecedented. The situation is not as severe as it was in the aftermath the collapse of Lehman Brothers.

By: Zsolt Darvas Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: June 30, 2016
Load more posts