‘Don’t Crunch My Credit’: Member State Governments’ Preferences on Bank Capital Requirements

Across Europe, banks remain, to this day, the main suppliers of finance to the European economy, but also a source of systemic risk. As such, regulating them requires that policymakers find an appropriate balance between restricting their risk-taking behaviour and increasing lending to support economic growth. However, the ‘varieties of financial capitalism’ that characterize national banking sectors in Europe mean that the adoption of harmonised capital requirements has different effects across countries, depending on the country-specific institutional setting through which banks provide lending to the national economy. This article conducts a new analysis of Member State governments’ positions in the post-financial crisis reform of the EU capital requirements legislation, expanding the scope of previous studies on the topic. Here, I examine in detail the positions of Member States on a wider set of issues and for a broader set of countries than the existing literature. Building on the varieties of financial capitalism approach, I explain these positions with regard to structural features of national banking sectors. I find that Member State governments’ positions reveal a general agreement with the proposed increase of bank capital requirements, while seeking targeted exemptions and preferential treatment that they deem necessary to preserve their domestic supply of retail credit.

Macroprudential regulation as part of the Mexican policy toolkit

The objective of this work is to assess the effect of implementing countercyclical macroprudential regulation in Mexico with the objective of verify whether this type of policy is welfare-improving. Using a DSGE model, two kinds of macroprudential rules are tested: countercyclical bank capital requirements and countercyclical loan-to-value ratios. Results suggest that these rules are welfare-improving and avoid the formation of credit bubbles as well as facilitate loans in the presence of macroeconomic crises. Results suggest that the use of countercyclical rules is effective in keeping the debt level according to its long-term equilibrium. This paper presents a theoretical framework to analyze banking regulation for policy purposes and is the first attempt to analyze countercyclical regulation in Mexico using a microfounded model. Results can be used to rationalize the use of macroprudential tools during the COVID‑19 pandemic given the current interventions in the Mexican banking system.

Market Risk Measurement

This chapter presents a preliminary analysis on how some market risk measures dramatically increased during the COVID-19 pandemic, with measures computed over longer horizons experiencing more pronounced effects. We provide examples when regulatory market risk measurement proved to be suboptimal, overestimating risk. A further issue was the large number of Value-at-Risk ‘exceptions’ during the first few months of the crisis, which normally leads to overinflated bank capital requirements. The current regulatory framework should address these problems by suggesting improvements to the calculation of risk measures and/or by modifying the rules which determine capital requirements to make them appropriate and realistic in crisis situations.