European banks: Recovery running out of steam?

Brexit means that the EU is going to lose one of the largest contributors to its budget. The UK paid in a total of EUR 15.1 bn in the first two years of the current budget period 2014-2020, second only to Germany. This is a pattern similar to the previous budget period 2007-2013. [more]

The debate about whether a negative interest rate policy (NIRP) helps or hinders the transmission mechanism of monetary policy continues to rage. The BIS and many others – including us* – long ago issued warnings about throwing open the monetary floodgates and the side effects of negative central-bank interest rates, and now Mark Carney, the governor of the Bank of England, has also clearly rejected negative interest rates, despite using all the means at his disposal to prevent the UK economy from sliding into recession after the Brexit shock. The package of measures he launched in August significantly exceeded market expectations, but Carney has ruled out negative interest rates, referring to the adverse impact on the capital markets. [more]

The mid-term review of the EU’s multiannual financial framework 2014-2020 is scheduled for the end of 2016. The scenario of a Brexit taking effect in the upcoming years and the potential impact thereof might well be discussed as part of the review. However, given current uncertainties about timing and circumstances of the UK leaving the European Union, it is still too early to fully adapt accounts. Yet, two things seem certain for the time being: First, a Brexit taking effect during the second half of the budgetary planning period would certainly prompt the need for further adjustments. Second, it would also affect funding for regional and cohesion policy as one of the largest EU budgetary items. [more]

Is Brexit going to impact on the EU investment plan? The short answer is „yes“. But the more interesting question is how it is going to play out both on the day-to-day operations, progress with the plan and the future of the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) in particular. [more]

The issue of future EU-UK relations has many facets. Among those widely overlooked so far are the consequences for the coordination of social security systems. Will the EU’s social and labour law-related standards still apply in the UK after Brexit? Will British pensioners living in France or Spain still be allowed to reside there and to receive a full pension? What about EU citizens’ access to services from Britain’s National Health Service (NHS)? Will bankers who have migrated from London to Frankfurt still be eligible to receive the German child benefit for their children who stayed behind? [more]

One of the widely discussed patterns of the UK-referendum vote is its demographic distribution. Some surveys find that voters older than 65 were more than twice as likely to have opted for “leave” than those younger than 25 years.* Demographic differences with respect to perceptions of Europe are not unique to the UK. [more]

Following the UK referendum, Brexit will also leave traces on German industry. After all, 7.5% of all German exports went to the UK in 2015, making it Germany’s third most important export market after the United States and France. The automotive and pharmaceutical industries are likely to be hit the hardest by Brexit. This is because the UK accounts for 12.8% and 10.5%, respectively, of these two industries’ total exports. In addition, they both generally have an above-average export ratio. The UK referendum is likely to have an impact on individual companies’ investment decisions and German companies’ UK pricing structures in the short term. [more]

What this victory for the Leave campaign ends up meaning for the future of Britain is debatable. What is not in doubt is that Europe without its brightest star will be a darker place. Adding to the gloom is the fact this was avoidable. Britain voting to go it alone mirrors a wider distrust in the European project – a manifestation of its weak economic situation. [more]

After two years of recovery, European banks suffered a setback in the first quarter of 2016. Capital market revenues were hit by concerns about global economic growth and banks’ own business models. Cost cuts and a further decline in loan loss provisions helped only somewhat to smooth the fall in profitability. Still, net income was about the same as in Q1 2014, and progress continued in other areas. [more]

The Juncker Plan set out to boost investment in Europe and can show some progress so far. After operating for about a year, a total of EUR 12.8 bn financing of the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) has been approved by the European Investment Bank and the European Investment Fund. This is expected to trigger EUR 100 bn of total investment according to estimates by the institutions. The European Commission has already called for extension of EFSI beyond the initial three year period ideally increasing its scale and scope. However, considerations about EFSI’s future need to be based on thorough evaluation of effectiveness and demonstrated added value. After the first year, there is -quite naturally- more information on activity than evidence on impact. To that effect, continuous monitoring and mid-term stock-taking are key to inform the debate about EFSI's future. [more]

Since the ECB’s announcement to include investment-grade corporate bonds in its QE programme (CSPP), corporate bond issuance has surged in the euro area. However, even though this is a boon for issuers, benefits for the real economy may be quite limited. The value added for SMEs is hard to see, and funds raised will most likely be used predominantly for refinancing of existing debt and for stock buybacks instead of new investments. Moreover, potential side effects of the corporate bond programme such as inefficiencies in the pricing of risks and deterioration in liquidity could increase the distortions in bond markets. [more]

Over the past century central banks have become the guardians of our economic and financial security. The Bundesbank and Federal Reserve are respected for achieving monetary stability, often in the face of political opposition. But central bankers can also lose the plot, usually by following the economic dogma of the day. When they do, their mistakes can be catastrophic.
Today the behaviour of the European Central Bank suggests that it too has gone awry. After seven years of ever-looser monetary policy there is increasing evidence that following the current dogma, broad-based quantitative easing and negative interest rates, risks the long-term stability of the eurozone. [more]