11 March 2013

ESMA/Maijoor: Regulation of SIFIs and of the shadow banking system

Let me focus on two aspects which are of particular relevance. First, I will highlight the risks from shadow banking for financial stability, the actions taken to address these  risks, and what remains to be done to mitigate them. Afterwards, I will make a few comments on the potential role shadow banking can play in  financing our economies.

I see three broad areas  of risk:

• First, complexity and opacity. Shadow banking links investors and  borrowers in complex ways. The various forms of intermediation  typically provide leverage and maturity transformation, and include  various complicated interactions involving money market funds and  other institutional investors, special purpose vehicles, banks, as well  as leveraged investors. All of these are linked with one another  through the stages of securitisation, repo funding, securities lending,  tranching, and prime brokerage. Not surprisingly, our statistical  knowledge of shadow banking, at present, remains far behind our  insight into other financial activities.
• The second area of risk is the inter-linkages with the financial system. Shadow banking is not a system parallel to conventional banking or finance, but interwoven with our financial system in an organic manner. As a result, risks can easily transmit from traditional finance into shadow banking, and vice versa, and, much to our discomfort, are likely to reinforce each other at times of distress.
• The third risk pertains to the size of the shadow banking system. The EU’s shadow banking sector accounts for €9 trillion of assets, or one-fifth compared to the EU’s banking liabilities. Given its relative size, stability in the shadow-banking world remains a key concern for regulators and supervisors. However, the recent decline in the  sector’s size – down 15 per cent from its 2010 peak – does not imply that risks are fading. They remain as pressing as before.

Let me now turn to what we can expect from shadow banking in positive  terms.

• At 20 per cent of bank liabilities its current role in EU financing flows is clearly constrained;
• The contribution of shadow banking to the financing of real economic activity remains contested. Much of the financing flows remain within the financial system, and their positive impact on real investment finance may, at best, be indirect; and
• With its 15 per cent decline since its 2010 peak, shadow banking certainly is not a driver of financing. In any case, its contraction is stronger than the stagnation we are witnessing in EU bank lending. And tightened  regulatory and supervisory standards may require business model adjustments in shadow banking.

Full speech

© ESMA