Blog Post

The strange case of the MPS capital shortfall

Italy's banking saga continues with the announcement that beleaguered MPS may need to find an additional €3bn. What exactly has changed, and what does it say about ECB decision making?

By: and Date: December 27, 2016 Topic: Finance & Financial Regulation

Before Christmas the Italian government approved a decree authorising the use of up to €20bn of public funds to deal with the precautionary recapitalisation of Monte dei Paschi di Siena (MPS) and possibly other banks. I have discussed the details of the MPS case extensively in the past, for example here). Just when it seemed like Italy’s banking troubles had been put to rest, at least momentarily, the ECB reportedly told the Italian government that MPS now needs to raise €8.8bn of capital – rather that the €5bn previously predicted.

This is obviously a quite significant change. It almost doubles the shortfall and therefore also increases the amount that the state might be expected to chip in. So what can be the reason for this retroactive change? As of now, there seems to be quite a lot of confusion.

Both Reuters and the FT reports link this change to the deteriorating liquidity position of MPS, but this is not convincing. Liquidity is different than capital: if it were not, then we should conclude that whenever a bank (or indeed a state) is illiquid, it is also insolvent. The liquidity position of MPS has reportedly worsened in recent weeks, but the state intervention was already supposed to include a liquidity guarantee to deal with that.

Alternatively, it may be that the ECB thinks the adverse scenario for the current situation of MPS has worsened. As the ECB recently wrote in an explainer, precautionary recapitalisation is limited to the capital injections needed to address a capital shortfall under the adverse scenario of a stress test. The ECB is asked to confirm that the bank has a capital shortfall – and to determine the amount of the shortfall – while confirming that the bank has no shortfall under the baseline scenario in this case.

So it may be that the current adverse scenario for MPS is worse than before. But if the situation has deteriorated to the point that the banks suddenly needs 3.8 more billions, this would probably imply that the baseline scenario is also no longer valid, and the real baseline is much closer to the previous adverse. It would be very important to know just how close, because this could have important consequences on the applicability of precautionary recap.

Let’s recall that the estimated CET1 ratio for MPS under the adverse scenario of the July stress test was -2.2%. If this change in the shortfall comes from a change in the scenario that the ECB think should apply to MPS, and if the new baseline scenario implies a shortfall, then it is difficult to see how this would be compatible with precautionary recap at all. CET1 under the baseline scenario was 8.5bn. As an example, if we were to deduct from this the full additional 3.8bn that have now been requested, this would bring the CET1 ratio under the baseline scenario at 6.7%. The shortfall may be lower, but if this is the reason for the change the new assessment should anyway be made public.

There is a third option. Italian media (for example here) report that Italian officials have been saying very vaguely that this was due to a change in the way the shortfall was computed “in light of what done for Greek banks”.

In the 2015 AQR the ECB had indeed changed the thresholds for computing the capital shortfalls for Greek banks from 8% baseline and 5% adverse (as in the 2014 stress tests) up to 9.5% and 8% respectively. I wrote about this at the time: there was no explanation given in the aggregate AQR report, but the presentation of results for the Greek banks mentioned that the 9.5% was to “reflect the risk profile of the banks”. This augmented requirement is not something that follows automatically from the provisions on precautionary recapitalisation in BRRD, so it may point to a model adjustment. Yet in the Greek case, banks were re-assessed (in the 2015 AQR versus the 2014 stress test) before this additional requirement was imposed. In the MPS case, if confirmed, this looks more like a retroactive twist of the July test from which the previous capital shortfall was obtained. Moreover, if this was indeed the outcome of a model adjustment, then it should probably prompt a re-assessment of the whole system.

So this leaves us with a puzzle. This change in the capital requirement may be the result of a meaningful change to the applicable stress test scenario – which may preclude the option of precautionary recap. Or, it may be the result of a model adjustment – in which case precautionary recap is still an option but the problem could go past MPS and require a re-assessment of the whole system. Both these alternatives have potentially serious consequences, for MPS and potentially the other Italian banks.

The ECB needs to disclose what the justification for this is, and it needs to do it as soon as possible. Transparency and reliability of supervisory actions are crucial elements to the effective functioning of the EU common supervision framework and to finally give certainty to investor as to how banking sector problems should be dealt with.This kind of volatile decision-making certainly go in a different direction.


Republishing and referencing

Bruegel considers itself a public good and takes no institutional standpoint. Anyone is free to republish and/or quote this post without prior consent. Please provide a full reference, clearly stating Bruegel and the relevant author as the source, and include a prominent hyperlink to the original post.

Read article Download PDF More on this topic More by this author
 

External Publication

The Value of Money, Controversial Economic Cultures in Europe: Italy and Germany

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

By: Francesco Papadia Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: June 10, 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: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: April 13, 2021
Read about event More on this topic
 

Past Event

Past Event

Think green act local: the role of the G20 in sustainable infrastructure

In this workshop, invited guests will discuss priorities and proposals for the Italian G20 Presidency for a green local infrastructure agenda.

Speakers: Amar Bhattacharya, Marco Bucci, Adriana Calderon, Maria Demertzis, Matthias Helble, Elly Schlein, Niclas Poitiers and Gelsomina Vigliotti Topic: Energy & Climate Date: March 15, 2021
Read article Download PDF More on this topic
 

Working Paper

COVID-19 credit-support programmes in Europe’s five largest economies

This paper assesses COVID-19 credit-support programmes in five of the largest European economies, and examines how countries have dealt with trade-offs raised by the programmes.

By: Julia Anderson, Francesco Papadia and Nicolas Véron Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: February 24, 2021
Read article More on this topic
 

Blog Post

Growth uncertainty, European Central Bank intervention and the Italian debt

European Central Bank intervention provides a buffer against the uncertainty faced by European Union economies in the face of COVID-19. For the time being, this intervention has alleviated concern about Italy's debt, but without it Italy is vulnerable to a debt crisis.

By: Andrea Consiglio and Stavros Zenios Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: October 28, 2020
Read about event More on this topic
 

Past Event

Past Event

Tackling too-big-to-fail banks: have the reforms been effective?

Evaluation of the global reforms implemented to deal with "too-big-to-fail banks".

Speakers: Alexandre Birry, Claudia M. Buch and Nicolas Véron Topic: Finance & Financial Regulation Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels Date: July 9, 2020
Read article More on this topic
 

Opinion

Why OMT is not the solution for Italy right now

The Outright Monetary Transactions tool is not well suited for Italy right now. Italy needs fiscal support both by itself and by the EU. Italy and the rest of the EU need a fiscal bazooka. We should find a way of backstopping our economies immediately.

By: Maria Demertzis and Bruegel Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: March 16, 2020
Read article More on this topic
 

Blog Post

To save the Italian economy from the Coronavirus, Rome prescribes a stimulus

Faced with a difficult prognosis, the Italian government has prescribed a three-step strategy to treat the worse economic symptoms of the Coronavirus. The medicine is money and the dosage is €4.5 billion

By: Simone Tagliapietra and Bruegel Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: March 3, 2020
Read article More on this topic
 

Blog Post

A European anti-money laundering supervisor: From vision to legislation

In fighting anti-money laundering, the European Commission should act fast toward creating a central supervisory authority.

By: Joshua Kirschenbaum, Nicolas Véron and Bruegel Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: January 24, 2020
Read article
 

Blog Post

Bank regulation in the European Union neighbourhood: limits of the ‘Brussels effect’

The EU model of financial market regulation is increasingly copied by third countries. In this context, the EU’s efforts to promote its model beyond its borders should take into account the underdevelopment of financial markets in many partner countries, and the often insufficient capacity of regulators and supervisors.

By: Alexander Lehmann and Bruegel Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance, Finance & Financial Regulation Date: November 20, 2019
Read article Download PDF
 

Policy Contribution

Crisis management for euro-area banks in central Europe

Euro-area bank integration has decreased as post-financial crisis national rules require banks to hold more capital at home. It might be undermined further by bank resolution planning. Either a Single Resolution Board takes the lead for the entire banking group or independent local intervention schemes need to be developed for crisis resolution.

By: Alexander Lehmann and Bruegel Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance, Finance & Financial Regulation Date: November 19, 2019
Read article More on this topic
 

Opinion

Under swollen tides, Venice says more about our future than our past

While tides high enough to submerge Venice used to be rare, occurring every two to three decades, they have now become increasingly regular. Five of the ten highest tides in recorded history occurred over the last 20 years, with the most recent one having occurred just last year. Is this the new normal?

By: Simone Tagliapietra and Bruegel Topic: Energy & Climate Date: November 18, 2019
Load more posts