Opinion

Eurozone QE and bank profitability: Why it is too early to taper

In the eyes of the critics, the quantitative easing programs have been of little help to growth and inflation and have instead been an attack on savers, undermining the profitability of banks and insurances. Do these arguments stand scrutiny?

By: , and Date: December 8, 2016 Topic: Macroeconomic policy

This op-ed will be published in El Economista, Finance, Hospodárské Noviny, and Tagesspiegel.

logo-economista-campus

Finance (slovenia) logo

HOSPODARSKE_NOVINY_logo

Tagesspiegel

 

 

The quantitative easing (QE) programs that started in the second quarter of 2015 remain controversial, especially in Germany. The total sums involved amount to just over 9% of euro-area GDP.

But in the eyes of the critics, the programs have been of little help to growth and inflation and have instead been an attack on savers, undermining the profitability of banks and insurances. Do these arguments stand scrutiny?

There is a fairly broad but cautious agreement that QE has stimulated demand. The causality is hard to prove, but since the launch of QE growth has picked up in both of its main aspects: investment and consumption. Studies document the positive impact on asset prices and a reduction in long term borrowing costs.

The bigger question is when we should begin to exit the programme. Some argue that the time is now. For example, the German Council of Economic Advisors agree that QE has managed to stimulate demand, but feel that the “exceptionally loose monetary policy by the European Central Bank is no longer appropriate.”

Critics of QE worry that ECB-chief Draghi is stoking dangerous inflation and punishing savers. But there are no signs of that happening soon. Core inflation (excluding volatile energy prices) is currently at 0.8%. Furthermore, market forecasts predict below-target inflation for some time to come. A recent survey of prominent economists by the CEPR showed that the majority disagree with calls to rapidly end QE.  So, if inflation and aggregate demand are still far from where they ought to be, there is little need to taper QE on that account.

Another line of complaint against QE is that it squeezes the profitability of banks. This is a valid concern, because weak profitability encourages banks to tighten the supply of credit to the real economy. Improving access to credit was the very purpose of the ECB’s QE programme, so it would be counterproductive to carry on if the programme is hurting bank profits.

Banks themselves are pessimistic about the ECB’s policies. In the ECB’s bank lending survey, banks acknowledge that QE has helped raise asset prices and thus support their balance sheets. But at the same time, they claim that the fall in long-term yields has reduced their ability to make profits in the future. Their overall assessment is negative.

We took a closer look at the actual data on bank profits and found two main trends. First, banks’ net interest income has actually been very stable since 2010, a period with both very low interest rates and unconventional monetary policy actions like QE. Banks’ ability to generate stable operating profits has therefore not yet been affected by lower yields.

Second, actual bank profits have been much more volatile, and even negative at times, over the same period. This is the direct result of non-performing loans that pre-date the QE programme. And indeed, overall profitability is improving for many banks as they manage to resolve their bad debts. And we should not forget that QE improves the general economic outlook, and so also helps banks generate profits.

It is also fair to note that there are important differences between eurozone countries. Banks in countries with persistent issues around bad loans are not able to create credit and generate profits. We also found that bank profitability in Germany has been low for many years now compared to European partners – pointing to specific German issues distinct from QE.

Finally, this is a debate in flux and vigilance is important. We have not found a major impact on average bank profitability so far. However, the interest margin on new lending has recently been falling. This may eventually lower overall interest income and could possibly dent banks’ profitability. Aiming to compensate for that, some banks have already been able to increase fees.

It is true that lower yields could put banks under pressure to move towards other, possibly more fee-based, models. But so far QE has had a neutral overall effect on bank profitability. It is non-performing loans and legal risks that still remain the biggest threat to banks, and this is where banks and policymakers should concentrate their energies.

Erratum: the size of the QE program in relation to GDP quoted at the start of the blog was wrongly calculated and is now corrected.


Republishing and referencing

Bruegel considers itself a public good and takes no institutional standpoint.

Due to copyright agreements we ask that you kindly email request to republish opinions that have appeared in print to [email protected].

Read article More on this topic
 

Blog Post

How have the European Central Bank’s negative rates been passed on?

Negative rate cuts are not that different from ‘standard’ rate cuts. Like them, they reduce banks’ margins, but this effect does not appear to be amplified below 0%.

By: Grégory Claeys and Lionel Guetta-Jeanrenaud Topic: Macroeconomic policy Date: July 7, 2021
Read article More on this topic More by this author
 

Opinion

What to expect from the ECB’s monetary policy strategy review?

Emphasis will be placed on greening monetary policy and clarifying the ECB's price stability objective, but is this enough?

By: Maria Demertzis Topic: Macroeconomic policy Date: June 23, 2021
Read article More on this topic More by this author
 

Blog Post

Inflation!? Germany, the euro area and the European Central Bank

There is concern in Germany about rising prices, but expectations and wage data show no sign of excess pressures; German inflation should exceed 2% to support euro-area rebalancing but is unlikely to do so on sustained basis.

By: Guntram B. Wolff Topic: Macroeconomic policy Date: June 9, 2021
Read article Download PDF More by this author
 

External Publication

European Parliament

What Are the Effects of the ECB’s Negative Interest Rate Policy?

This paper explores the potential effects (and side effects) of negative rates in theory and examines the evidence to determine what these effects have been in practice in the euro area.

By: Grégory Claeys Topic: Banking and capital markets, European Parliament, Testimonies Date: June 9, 2021
Read article
 

Blog Post

European governance

Emergency Liquidity Assistance: A new lease of life or kiss of death?

Use of Emergency Liquidity Assistance to prop up euro-area banks needs to be more transparent; available evidence suggests its use has not always been within the rules.

By: Francesco Papadia and Leonardo Cadamuro Topic: European governance, Macroeconomic policy Date: May 28, 2021
Read article
 

Opinion

European governance

The ECB needs political guidance on secondary objectives

While EU Treaties clearly stipulate that the ECB “shall support the general objectives of the European Union”, it is not appropriate to simply stand by, wishing that the ECB will use its discretionary power to act on them. Political institutions of the EU should prioritise the secondary goals to legitimise the ECB’s action.

By: Pervenche Béres, Grégory Claeys, Nik de Boer, Panicos O. Demetriades, Sebastian Diessner, Stanislas Jourdan, Jens van ‘t Klooster and Vivien Schmidt Topic: European governance, Macroeconomic policy Date: April 22, 2021
Read article More on this topic More by this author
 

Opinion

European governance

More Europe or less Europe?

Europe is often a ship with multiple captains. The boat moves forward in calm seas, but when the slightest wind puts it off course, it is not easy to steer that boat. It is not so much a question of more Europe rather than less, but of achieving ‘one Europe’. A ‘more-or-less Europe’ is an invitation to go nowhere.

By: Maria Demertzis Topic: European governance Date: April 14, 2021
Read about event More on this topic
 

Past Event

Past Event

An alpine divide? Comparing economic cultures in Germany and Italy

A discussion of Italian and German macro-economic cultures and performances.

Speakers: Thomas Mayer, Patricia Mosser, Marianne Nessén, Hiroshi Nakaso, Francesco Papadia, André Sapir and Jean-Claude Trichet Topic: Macroeconomic policy Date: April 13, 2021
Read article More on this topic More by this author
 

Opinion

Central banks don’t have to pick winners and losers to fight climate change

Disclosures and financial regulation don’t get enough respect as tools to reduce emissions.

By: Rebecca Christie Topic: Banking and capital markets Date: March 11, 2021
Read article More on this topic More by this author
 

Podcast

Podcast

Can central banks save the planet?

“We are not going to lead our society to a low-carbon economy by continuing to finance the status quo. “

By: The Sound of Economics Topic: Green economy Date: February 24, 2021
Read article More on this topic More by this author
 

Blog Post

A brown or a green European Central Bank?

The European Central Bank portfolio is skewed towards the brown economy, reflecting a bias in the market. Can and should the bank deviate from the market allocation?

By: Dirk Schoenmaker Topic: Green economy Date: February 24, 2021
Read article More on this topic More by this author
 

Opinion

Central banking’s brave new world

Ever since the 2008 financial crisis, central bankers have been busy developing new policy instruments to fight fires and ward off emerging threats. Nonetheless, many secretly dreamed of returning to the good old days of cautious conservatism (with financial stability taken seriously).

By: Jean Pisani-Ferry Topic: Global economy and trade Date: February 24, 2021
Load more posts