At this time of uncertainty, how are the banks coping with the COVID-19 shock, and are they prepared for Brexit?.... In the severe scenario, however, up to €1.4 trillion of non-performing loans would potentially be generated, which is even higher than what we experienced in the last crisis.
Right across Europe, hopes of a quick rebound in economic
activity are starting to fade as COVID-19 cases begin to rise once
again. A “second wave” will no doubt put further pressure on the world
economy. At this time of uncertainty, how are the banks coping with the
COVID-19 shock, and are they prepared for Brexit? We can now speak to
the man responsible for leading the supervision of banks across Europe:
Andrea Enria is Chair of the Supervisory Board of the European Central
Bank.
You’ve had meetings with senior people in
the Irish banking system over the last few days. How satisfied are you
that the European banking system, in general and in Ireland, will be
able to withstand the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic?
Well,
European banks have entered this crisis with much stronger capital and
liquidity positions, and a much improved asset quality. So this has
enabled them to continue lending to households, corporates and small
businesses, without materially tightening lending standards in the first
phase of the crisis. And that’s also thanks to the policy measures
taken by the ECB and national governments. So far, the ability of the
banking sector to react has been fairly good. But of course, this is one
of the harshest recessions on record, and it will have an impact on
banks’ balance sheets. We ran what we call the vulnerability analysis in
July, and we tried to estimate how banks’ balance sheets would change
in different scenarios. In the scenarios that our economists consider
the most likely, banks would be able to withstand a sort of short-lived
and deep recession, like the one we are experiencing.
Of course,
if the recovery is weaker and more delayed than expected, then the
impact on the banks’ balance sheets will be harsher. And it could lead
to a significant deterioration in asset quality. In the severe scenario,
however, up to €1.4 trillion of non-performing loans would potentially
be generated, which is even higher than what we experienced in the last
crisis. So we need to prepare, and that’s what we are urging the banks
to do.
The banks’ main priority over the past few months
has been to tackle the consequences of the pandemic, but they also need
to be preparing for Brexit. Are the banks on track to finish their
preparations by the end of the year, given that many will be operating
in a more fragile environment?
Well, we think that we
have done everything possible in preparation for Brexit, as supervisors.
We asked the banks to make all the necessary preparations and we think
that they have moved significantly in the right direction. They are now
ready to take the hit, to some extent. Licences are in place, or the
temporary recognition of licences is in place, to continue serving
customers on both sides of the Channel. We have target operating models
which have been defined for banks that will relocate business, and banks
are well on track to achieve their target operating models on time. The
European Commission recently decided to grant temporary equivalence to
UK central counterparties, which was also essential to avoid financial
stability concerns, especially in the clearing of derivatives.
So,
all in all, the preparation has been done: I met with my team and we
cannot think of anything else that we could do, or that we could ask the
banks to do. But still, Brexit will of course have macroeconomic
effects on top of the impact of COVID-19. And financial markets have not
yet fully priced in the possibility of the United Kingdom leaving the
European Union without a trade deal. The fact that we are prepared for a
shock doesn’t mean that the negative effects will not materialise, of
course.
As payment breaks come to an end, and the banks
come under pressure to keep non-performing loans down, are you satisfied
that consumers will be adequately protected. What message did you
convey to the banks in this regard?
Well, payment breaks
have been an essential element of the response to this crisis
originating from the pandemic. So they [the payment breaks] have been
fundamental to prevent the necessary containment measures (which were
taken to deal with the pandemic) from causing an unnecessary destruction
of productive capacity, and especially to prevent them from harming
households’ finances too. It was a very important element of the policy
response to create breathing space in the period of the lockdowns and to
bridge to the recovery. Now, as the situation evolves, it’s clear that
banks may well have to consider extending payment breaks for their
customers. Still, as supervisors, we think it is also important that the
banks take into consideration the impact that this has on their asset
quality: they should avoid the build-up of unrecognised non-performing
loans, and eventually distinguish good customers from bad customers that
are unlikely to pay.
So it is now time for banks to start
becoming more active in recognising their asset quality issues, also to
avoid a huge cliff-edge effect at the end of the payment breaks. Banks
need to become more active in this respect, and that’s a point that we
brought to their attention with a letter in July.
Andrea Enria, thanks for joining us.
SSM
© ECB - European Central Bank
Key
Hover over the blue highlighted
text to view the acronym meaning
Hover
over these icons for more information
Comments:
No Comments for this Article