Banks in EU “window dress” to escape higher capital charges, says BIS paper, BFSI News, ET BFSI

[ad_1]

Read More/Less


LONDON: Some of the European Union‘s biggest banks are holding less capital than they should by using transactions to temporarily compress their balance sheets, a research paper from the Bank for International Settlements said on Thursday.

After several banks had to be rescued by taxpayers during the global financial crisis over a decade ago, global regulators now designate the biggest among them as globally systemic banks or G-SIBs to face tougher capital rules.

Each year, G-SIBs are slotted into buckets, with tougher rules for those in the higher buckets.

The paper from the BIS, a forum for central banks based in Basel, Switzerland, said “window dressing” or using transactions to compress assets and liabilities at the end of the year, is blurring data used by regulators and thus affecting the actions they take.

The volume and riskiness of assets and liabilities determine how much capital must be held, but banks are able to “manage down” their G-SIB score and reduce their capital surcharges, the paper said.

“Up to 13 banks in the EU would have faced more intense supervision and higher capital requirements in the absence of window dressing,” the paper said, without naming them.

“Of these, three banks would have been added to the G-SIB list, whereas 10 banks would have been allocated to a higher G-SIB bucket in at least one year,” the paper added.

Window dressing has long been a bugbear of regulators, but the paper from the BIS suggests that regulators should be taking a more granular approach to designating G-SIBs, which affect the stability of the financial system.

“Our findings underscore the importance of supervisory judgement in the assessment of G-SIBs and call for greater use of average as opposed to point-in-time data to measure banks’ systemic importance,” the paper said. (Reporting by Huw Jones)



[ad_2]

CLICK HERE TO APPLY

Bank loans: Forbearance emergency medicine, not staple diet, says Economic Survey

[ad_1]

Read More/Less


The current regulatory forbearance on bank loans has been necessitated by the Covid-19 pandemic.

Keeping in mind the negative consequences of prolonged regulatory forbearance following the 2008 global financial crisis (GFC), policymakers should lay out thresholds of economic recovery for withdrawal of the current regulatory forbearance on bank loans, economists in the finance ministry said.

“Remember that forbearance represents emergency medicine that should be discontinued at the first opportunity when the economy exhibits recovery, not a staple diet that gets continued for years,” the economists said in the Economic Survey 2020-21. An Asset Quality Review (AQR) exercise must be conducted immediately after the forbearance is withdrawn and the legal infrastructure for the recovery of loans needs to be strengthened de facto, they added.

The current regulatory forbearance on bank loans has been necessitated by the Covid-19 pandemic. Regulatory forbearance for banks involved relaxing the norms for restructuring assets, where restructured assets were no longer required to be classified as non-performing assets (NPAs) and therefore did not require the levels of provisioning that NPAs attract.

During the GFC, forbearance helped borrowers tide over temporary hardship caused due to the crisis and helped prevent a large contagion. However, the forbearance continued for seven years, though it should have been discontinued in 2011, when GDP, exports, IIP and credit growth had all recovered significantly. Given relaxed provisioning requirements, banks exploited the forbearance window to restructure loans even for unviable entities, thereby window dressing their books. The inflated profits were then used by banks to pay increased dividends to shareholders. As a result, banks became severely under-capitalised.

Concerned that the actual situation may be worse than reflected on the banks’ books, RBI initiated an AQR to clean up bank balance sheets.

While gross NPAs increased from 4.3% in 2014-15 to 7.5% in 2015-16 and peaked at 11.2% in 2017-18, the AQR could not bring out all the hidden bad assets in the bank books. This led to a second round of lending distortions, thereby exacerbating an already grave situation.

The prolonged forbearance policies following the GFC thus engendered the recent banking crisis that brought down investment rates and thereby economic growth in the country, the Survey noted.

Get live Stock Prices from BSE, NSE, US Market and latest NAV, portfolio of Mutual Funds, Check out latest IPO News, Best Performing IPOs, calculate your tax by Income Tax Calculator, know market’s Top Gainers, Top Losers & Best Equity Funds. Like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.

Financial Express is now on Telegram. Click here to join our channel and stay updated with the latest Biz news and updates.



[ad_2]

CLICK HERE TO APPLY