Blog Post

European banking supervision: compelling start, lingering challenges

The new European banking supervision system is broadly effective and, in line with the claim often made by its leading officials, tough and fair, but there are significant areas for future improvement.

By: and Date: June 8, 2016 Topic: Finance & Financial Regulation

European banking supervision (also known as the Single Supervisory Mechanism) is the first step in Europe’s banking union. Some 18 months after its official start on 4 November 2014, Bruegel has published what we believe is the first in-depth early assessment of how it works in practice (Schoenmaker & Véron, 2016). We go beyond the European  perspective, and look closely at  nine member states, with country-specific chapters written by recognised local experts. This two-level perspective is still necessary: banking supervision was almost entirely national until 2014, and national idiosyncrasies will continue to shape the system for a long time, both in terms of banking models and structures and in terms of perceptions and politics.

Following the great financial crisis, the euro-area banking system is still characterised by significant variations in bank strength, across banks and across countries. Figure 1 illustrates this heterogeneity by comparing non-performing loan (NPL) rates in several member states. This chart supports the view that Greece, Italy and Portugal, in particular, are still far from having brought their banking systems back to soundness, while Ireland and Spain are, after a major restructuring and recapitalisation of their banking system, more advanced on a path towards recovery.

Figure 1. Non-performing loans (% of total gross loans)

Notes: “Core” refers to a simple average of Austria, Belgium, France, and the Netherlands (Germany is omitted for lack of data availability). Source: Schoenmaker & Véron (2016), based on IMF Financial Soundness Indicators database.

Fig1_SSM_Blog

Assessment

On the basis of data analysis, numerous interviews with officials and market participants, and the nine country-specific chapters, we find the new European banking supervision system to be broadly effective and, in line with the claim often made by its leading officials, tough and fair. These are remarkable achievements given the complexity of the transition from the previous regime. That said, we also identify significant areas for future improvement.

  • European banking supervision is effective. Supervision of cross-border banking groups in the euro area is conducted in a joined-up manner that contrasts with the previous fragmented, country-by-country practice. The key mechanism is the operation of Joint Supervisory Teams (JSTs), which for each supervised banking group enable information sharing between the ECB and relevant national supervisors while providing a clear line of command and decision-making. The size of JSTs (up to several dozen examiners) also allows for specialisation on topics such as capital and governance. Remarkably, the new system has proved its ability to effectively manage crises from the start, with its adept handling of the banking aspects of the Greek crisis of 2015.
  • European banking supervision is tough, at least when it comes to significant (larger) banks. It is generally more intrusive than previous national regimes, with supplementary questions during investigations and more on-site visits. This is illustrated by publicly available information in many countries, and not least by current developments in the Italian banking system. The ECB appears less vulnerable than national authorities to regulatory capture and political intervention. It has not shied away from imposing higher capital requirement add-ons under its Supervisory Review and Evaluation Process (SREP). That said, loopholes persist, not least in terms of lopsided compliance with the Basel III international framework. Furthermore, few changes have been introduced so far for the supervision of less significant banks, which still varies significantly in different countries but appears generally less demanding than that of significant banks. Figure 2 illustrates the strengthening of capital ratios for the 100 significant euro-area banking groups directly supervised by the ECB (the other 29 significant banks supervised by the ECB are subsidiaries and branches of non-euro area banks).

Figure 2. CET1 capital ratio and leverage ratio (in %)

Notes: CET1 capital ratios and leverage ratios are aggregated by computing an average of banks’ ratios weighted by total assets, for the 100 euro-area significant banking groups. Source: Schoenmaker & Véron (2016), based on SNL Financial data.

Fig2_SSM_Blog

  • European banking supervision appears to be broadly fair, at least for significant banks. Among these, we have not found compelling evidence of country- or institution-specific distortions or special treatment by the ECB, for example in the determination of SREP scores. The situation is more complex when it comes to less significant banks that remain subject to national supervision, including those tied together in what EU legislation calls Institutional Protection Schemes. Nevertheless, we found strong differences in domestic systemic buffers for the large banks, which are still set by the national supervisors. Most northern member states generally apply higher systemic buffers of up to 2 or 3 percent, while southern member states apply low systemic buffers of up to 1 percent. Italy and Latvia have even set the systemic buffer for their domestic systemically important banks at 0 percent.
  • European banking supervision makes mistakes. There have been cases of overlapping and redundant data requests. The ECB’s communication on Maximum Distributable Amounts (MDA) was ill-prepared and contributed to volatility on bank equity markets in early 2016.[1] A perhaps more significant concern is that the Supervisory Board appears to act as a bottleneck (eg delays in the decisions on fit-and-proper tests of new managers) and does not optimise its use of delegation for day-to-day decisions.
  • European banking supervision is insufficiently transparent. The ECB’s Supervisory Board and SREP process are seen as a black box by numerous stakeholders. Banks complain about the opacity of the determination of SREP scores, which are based on multiple factors. European banking supervision still provides pitifully little public information about all supervised banks, in stark contrast to US counterparts. In the report, we do our best to provide relevant details on the 129 significant banks currently supervised at the European level, but we strongly believe such information (and more) should be directly and regularly provided by the ECB itself.
  • European banking supervision has not yet broken the bank-sovereign vicious circle and created a genuine single banking market in the euro area. Many lingering obstacles to a level playing field are outside European banking supervision’s remit, including deposit insurance, many macro-prudential decisions, and many other important policy instruments that remain at national level. But even within its present scope of responsibility, European banking supervision maintains practices that contribute to cross-border fragmentation, such as the imposition of entity-level (as opposed to group-level) capital and liquidity requirements, also known as geographical ring-fencing, and the omission of geographical risk diversification inside the euro area in stress test scenarios. It has not yet put an end to the high home bias towards domestic sovereign debt in many banks’ bond portfolios. Nor have many cross-border acquisitions been approved by ECB banking supervision so far.

Even so, we are impressed overall by the achievements of European banking supervision during its first 18 months. At the same time, what remains to be done to achieve the vision of European banking union is daunting. Much of this unfinished business lies beyond the remit of European banking supervisors’ authority, but materially depends on their ability to establish credibility and trust. Almost four years after the inception of banking union in late June 2012, these are still very early days in a momentous transition. On the basis of the assessment presented in the report, we find grounds for cautious optimism.

Reference

Dirk Schoenmaker and Nicolas Véron (editors), “European Banking Supervision: The First Eighteen Months” Bruegel Blueprint #25, June 2016, with country-specific chapters by Thomas Gehrig (Austria), André Sapir (Belgium), Philippe Tibi (France), Sascha Steffen (Germany), Miranda Xafa (Greece), Marcello Messori (Italy), Casper G. de Vries and Dirk Schoenmaker (Netherlands), Antonio Nogueira Leite (Portugal), and David Vegara (Spain).

[1] Supervisors have to decide how much of a bank’s earnings should be retained as capital and how much is allowed to be distributed as dividend or coupons, the latter being known as MDA. ECB banking supervision took a long time to reach the conclusion that MDA should be based on “Pillar-2” capital requirements and that these should therefore be disclosed publicly by the supervised banks, in contrast to most prior practice in the euro area.


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 on this topic

Blog Post

European bank mergers: domestic or cross-border?

As the European economy recovers from the global financial crisis, bank mergers are back on the agenda. While cross-border mergers have been predicted before, most European bank mergers have been domestic until now. What are the odds of cross-border mergers in the upcoming bank-consolidation wave?

By: Patty Duijm and Dirk Schoenmaker Topic: Finance & Financial Regulation Date: June 21, 2018
Read about event More on this topic

Past Event

Past Event

For a stronger and more integrated Europe

This event will feature the presentation of the Economic Survey of the European Union 2018 and Economic Survey of the Euro Area 2018.

Speakers: Angel Gurría, Zsolt Darvas, Pierre Beynet and Aida Caldera-Sanchez Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels Date: June 19, 2018
Read article More on this topic

Blog Post

Is the ECB collateral framework compromising the safe-asset status of euro-area sovereign bonds?

Central banks’ collateral frameworks play an important role in defining what is considered as a safe asset. However, the ECB’s framework is unsatisfactory because it is overly reliant on pro-cyclical ratings from credit rating agencies, and because the differences in haircuts between the different ECB credit quality steps are not sufficiently gradual. In this note, the authors propose how the ECB could solve these problems and improve its collateral framework to protect its balance sheet without putting at risk the safe status of sovereign bonds of the euro area.

By: Grégory Claeys and Inês Goncalves Raposo Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: June 8, 2018
Read about event More on this topic

Past Event

Past Event

What next for banking union?

This event will discuss the future of Banking Union.

Speakers: Maria Demertzis, Philipp Hildebrand and Guntram B. Wolff Topic: Finance & Financial Regulation Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels Date: June 8, 2018
Read article Download PDF

External Publication

The changing fortunes of central banking

What are the major challenges of central banks today? This book discusses the developing role of central banks and the policies they pursue in seeking monetary and financial stabilisation, while also giving suggestions for model strategies.

By: Philipp Hartmann, Haizhou Huang and Dirk Schoenmaker Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance, Finance & Financial Regulation Date: May 29, 2018
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Are SBBS really the safe asset the euro area is looking for?

The European Commission is pushing to create a synthetic euro-area-wide safe asset in the form of sovereign bond-backed securities (SBBS). However, SBBS do not fully fulfil their original promises. If introduced on a massive scale, they might increase the supply of safe assets in good times and loosen the link between sovereigns and banks. But they will not give governments a means to maintain market access during crises, they might change incentives for governments to default, and they could pose a problem to individual bonds not included in SBBS if, in the end, they are put at a regulatory advantage vis-à-vis individual bonds.

By: Grégory Claeys Topic: Finance & Financial Regulation Date: May 28, 2018
Read article Download PDF

External Publication

Central banking in turbulent times

Central banks came out of the Great Recession with increased power and responsibilities. Indeed, central banks are often now seen as 'the only game in town', and a place to put innumerable problems vastly exceeding their traditional remit. These new powers do not fit well, however, with the independence of central banks, remote from the democratic control of government.

By: Francesco Papadia and Tuomas Valimaki Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance, Finance & Financial Regulation Date: May 22, 2018
Read article More on this topic

Blog Post

Completing Europe’s banking union means breaking the bank-sovereign vicious circle

Several euro area leaders, including the German chancellor, her finance minister, and the French president, have recently referred to the need to “complete the banking union.”. These public calls echo those made in more formal settings, and inevitably raise the question of what criteria should be used to assess the banking union’s completeness.

By: Isabel Schnabel and Nicolas Véron Topic: Finance & Financial Regulation Date: May 17, 2018
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Podcast

Podcast

Director's Cut: Post-crisis prognosis for macroeconomics

The global financial crisis prompted the field of macroeconomics to rethink its methods. In this Director's Cut of 'The Sound of Economics', Bruegel deputy director Maria Demertzis addresses the changes made and the problems still unresolved, in conversation with Nicola Viegi, South African Reserve Bank professor of monetary economics at the University of Pretoria, and Frank Smets, director general of economics at the European Central Bank.

By: The Sound of Economics Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: May 15, 2018
Read article More by this author

Blog Post

Europe needs a broader discussion of its future

When thinking about what will determine the prosperity and well-being of citizens living in the euro area, five issues are central. This column, part of VoxEU's Euro Area Reform debate, argues that the important CEPR Policy Insight by a team of French and German economists makes an important contribution to two of them, but leaves aside some of the most crucial ones: European public goods, a proper fiscal stance and major national reforms. It also argues that its compromise on sovereign debt appears unbalanced.

By: Guntram B. Wolff Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance, Finance & Financial Regulation Date: May 4, 2018
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Opinion

The upheaval Italy needs

While Italy remains without a new government, it would be foolish to believe that a country where anti-system parties won 55% of the popular vote will continue to behave as if nothing had happened. But political upheavals sometime provide a unique opportunity for addressing seemingly intractable problems. After its political upheaval, Italy now needs an economic one.

By: Jean Pisani-Ferry Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: April 30, 2018
Read article Download PDF More on this topic

Working Paper

State contingent debt as insurance for euro-area sovereigns

Since the financial crisis, EU countries' economies have recovered to the point that they are exiting their adjustment programmes. Institutional stability mechanisms have been improved at the European level, with the promotion of the banking union and the establishment of a European Monetary Fund, for instance. However, the authors argue that such crisis contingencies should include markets in their risk-sharing, which would require better coordination with institutions.

By: Maria Demertzis and Stavros Zenios Topic: Finance & Financial Regulation Date: April 26, 2018
Load more posts