Because the monetary disaster, stress exams have grow to be an essential supervisory and monetary stability software (Constâncio 2017). In opposition to this background, an essential query is whether or not stress exams contribute to monetary stability by selling danger discount within the banking sector, as current proof suggests (Cortes et al. 2017, Acharya et al. 2018, Steri and Pierret 2018). Stress exams provide deep insights into banks’ vulnerabilities to supervisors and the general public via an intense supervisory course of. Latest proof means that supervisory scrutiny decreases banks’ risk-taking actions (Rezende and Wu 2014, Hirtle et al. 2018, Bonfim et al. 2018, Kandrac and Schlusche 2019). In the identical vein, in a current research, we present that increased supervisory scrutiny led to a disciplining impact for banks within the a part of the European Banking Authority (EBA) EU-wide stress take a look at carried out by the ECB in 2016.
How supervisory scrutiny is exerted in stress exams
In Europe, stress exams contain interactions between banks and supervisors on banks’ danger administration practices in addition to confidential communications about greatest stress-testing practices and methods. We use information on these confidential interactions to approximate how a lot scrutiny was exerted on Single Supervisory Mechanism (SSM) banks underneath the direct supervision of the ECB in the course of the 2016 EU-wide stress take a look at. These interactions come up as a part of the constrained bottom-up method pursued within the EBA-coordinated workout routines (see Determine 1). On this context, banks use their very own inner fashions to generate projections (e.g. for credit score losses). In the meantime, banks’ projections are challenged by the competent supervisory authorities usually by making use of top-down fashions and different challenger instruments. Within the presence of fabric deviations between these two units of projections, ‘flags’ are triggered and are later mentioned between supervisors and banks. Banks must both adjust to or clarify the problems raised within the interactions with the ECB. We assemble the scrutiny measure by counting the flags associated to credit score danger projections. Intuitively, banks that acquired extra flags needed to work more durable on their resubmissions and had lengthier and doubtless extra intense interactions with supervisors whereas banks that acquired no flags in precept had no additional interactions with supervisors.
Determine 1 Simplified illustration of 1 high quality assurance cycle underneath the constrained bottom-up method
Supply: Personal illustration primarily based on Mirza and Zochowski (2017).
Scrutiny measures the depth of stress exams
We apply a differences-in-differences method the place we use the stress take a look at as a remedy and the concerned scrutiny as a measure of the depth of the remedy. In a primary step, we evaluate the credit score danger of banks that had been a part of the stress take a look at and banks that weren’t a part of the stress take a look at 4 quarters earlier than and 4 quarters after the 2016 stress take a look at. In a second step, we evaluate credit score danger of banks that had been topic to a extra intense supervisory scrutiny and banks that acquired much less or none.1 The 2016 EU-wide stress take a look at was executed on important establishments (SIs). Much less important establishments (LSIs) weren’t examined and we subsequently use them because the management group.2
The impact of supervisory scrutiny on credit score danger
We focus our evaluation on credit score danger, which accounts for a big a part of the stress testing projections and on common for 86% of danger publicity quantities in financial institution stability sheets. To measure credit score danger on the financial institution stage, we use the risk-weight density (RWD), i.e. the combination danger weight assigned to complete credit score danger exposures in keeping with regulatory requirements.
Determine 2 Estimate and 90% confidence interval of the differential impact on RWD between examined and non-tested banks earlier than and after the reported quarter.
We discover no important distinction in RWD between the remedy and the management group earlier than the stress take a look at (2015q1 and 2015q4; see Determine 2) however important adverse variations for the interval after the take a look at (2017q1 to 2017q4). The discount in RWD of examined banks after the stress take a look at was on common 4.2 share factors decrease than the discount of not-tested banks. This impact is economically materials because it quantities to a change of about 20% of the usual deviation of RWD.3 These outcomes affirm the findings primarily based on US information that ‘treating’ banks with stress exams can have an effect on their danger.
Determine 3 Marginal impact and common impact estimates with 90% confidence intervals of the differential impact of scrutiny depth on RWD
Second, we present that the extra interactions banks had with supervisors, the upper their discount in RWD after the stress take a look at train (see Determine 3). We discover that these banks that acquired extra scrutiny (the half with scrutiny depth above the median) exhibit a 5.6 share level higher lower in credit score danger than the half that acquired much less scrutiny.4 All in all, these findings present novel proof that the tighter and extra intrusive supervisory scrutiny related to the EU-wide stress-test has the potential to boost banks’ danger administration practices and to induce decrease financial institution danger.
We contribute to the rising proof on the effectiveness of supervisory scrutiny. Our outcomes counsel that stress exams carried out making use of a sturdy high quality assurance of banks’ projections and fashions have disciplining results on stress-tested banks’ danger. Nevertheless, it must be famous that one of many stress exams’ main goals is to appropriately assess banks’ danger profiles. Our findings don’t present data on how nicely this goal is met. The doable strategic underreporting of banks’ vulnerabilities underneath a bottom-up method might undermine the reliability of the stress take a look at outcomes from this angle (Niepmann and Stebunovs 2018). Pursuing a extra unbiased top-down method whereas retaining supervisory interactions with banks throughout and after the stress take a look at may be extra appropriate to attain this aim. We, subsequently, with our evaluation, solely ship one perception amongst many that might serve the coverage dialogue on the longer term stress take a look at design in Europe.
Acharya, V, A Berger and R Raluca (2018), “Lending Implications of U.S. Financial institution Stress Checks: Prices or Advantages?”, Journal of Monetary Intermediation 34: 58—90.
Bonfim, D, G Cerqueiro, H Degryse and S Ongena (2020), “On-site inspecting zombie lending”, CEPR Dialogue Paper No. 14754.
Constâncio, V (2017), “Macroprudential stress tests: A new analytical tool”, VoxEU.org, 22 February.
Cortés, Okay, Y Demyanyk, L Li, E Loutskina and P E Strahan (2020), “Stress exams and small enterprise lending”, Journal of Monetary Economics 136(1): 260—279.
ECB (2019), “What makes a bank significant?”, European Central Financial institution Banking Supervision.
Hirtle, B, A Kovner and M Plosser (2020), “The Impression of Supervision on Financial institution Efficiency”, The Journal of Finance 75(5): 2765—2808.
Ivanov, I and J Wang (2019), “The impression of financial institution supervision on company credit score”, Working Paper.
Kandrac, J and B Schlusche (2017), “The impact of financial institution supervision on danger taking: Proof from a pure experiment”, Finance and Economics Dialogue Sequence No. 79, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Kok, C, C Müller, S Ongena and C Pancaro (2021), “The Disciplining Effect of Supervisory Scrutiny in the EU‑wide Stress Test”, CEPR Dialogue Paper No. 16157.
Mirza, H and D Zochowski (2017), “Stress Take a look at High quality Assurance from a High-Down Perspective”, Macroprudential Bulletin 3.
Niepmann, F and V Stebunovs (2018), “How EU banks modelled their stress away in the 2016 EBA stress tests”, VoxEU.org, 30 July.
Pierret, D and R Steri (2019), “Pressured Banks”, Swiss Finance Institute Analysis Paper No. 58.
Rezende, M and J Wu (2014), “The consequences of supervision on financial institution efficiency: Proof from discontinuous examination frequencies”, Midwest Finance Affiliation 2013 Annual Assembly Paper.
1 We additionally evaluate banks that acquired extra remedy to banks that acquired much less remedy excluding banks that acquired no remedy in any respect, i.e. the impact of supervisory scrutiny throughout the examined banks.
2 Important establishments are these SSM banks that fulfil sure standards (ECB 2019). LSIs are SSM banks that don’t fulfil any of the factors. LSIs are instantly supervised by the nationwide competent authorities underneath the oversight of the ECB which ensures the consistency of the regulatory framework and supervisory practices utilized to those banks. To account for the variations between SIs and LSIs, we embrace robustness checks the place we use matching and pattern exclusions to estimate the impact in a pattern with minimized variations.
3 The imply of RWD of examined banks earlier than the stress take a look at is 43.7 share factors with a typical deviation of twenty-two.5 share factors.
4 A rise in supervisory scrutiny depth by 10% decreases RWD on common by round 0.27 share factors.