Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Obviously, as can be seen in the graphs above and as noted by Piatkowski/Rybinski, there is
significant variation in CEE countries’ banking sector/economic health. The Czech Republic, for
example, has relatively low levels of external imbalances, a reasonable loan-to-deposit ratio, and
scant fx-denominated lending to households. However, even countries like the Czech Republic
could still be affected by a negative chain reaction sweeping across the region. Banking systems in
the region are likely only as strong as their weakest link – or in this case, weakest country. That’s
because of the ‘common lender’ phenomenon.
Because the same Western European parent banks operate in multiple countries across the region,
this opens the door to contagion via the ‘common lender’ channel. This paves the way for problems
in just one of these countries to have ripple effects into other countries in the region due to the fact
that they share foreign parent bank(s) in common. As the Oesterreichische Nationalbank (Central
Bank of Austria) states in a recent financial stability report: “It should be borne in mind that
contagion may also arise if problems occur at sister banks and, stress spreads to other institutions
within the banking group through the parent bank (e.g. through adverse effects on the parent bank’s
liquidity or capital adequacy).”
The matrix below gives a sense of the high degree to which Eastern European countries’ banking
systems are dominated by a similar concentrated set of Western European banks.
As seen in the chart below, UniCredit (Italy), Raiffeisen (Austria), and KBC (Belgium) each operate
in more than ten emerging Europe countries. A problem in one country could potentially lead these
banks to cut exposure to the rest of the region. Meanwhile, problems in one Baltic state are likely to
strongly affect the other Baltics since the same Swedish foreign parent banks (Swedbank, SEB)
dominate their banking sectors. But as these Swedish parents have scant operations in other CEE
countries, the ‘common lender’ channel between the Baltics and the rest of CEE is weak.
Fitch brings up the point that a major foreign parent bank might be willing to bail out a local
subsidiary in trouble, but may find it more difficult to help out if faced with similar calls for
financing from other subsidiaries in the region. In a different twist on the same point,
Piatkowski/Rybinski say that foreign banks are not likely to be selective about which local
subsidiaries to support – a failure of any CEE subsidiary could lead to a run on subsidiaries in other
countries.
To sum up, Eastern European countries – despite varying degrees of macro vulnerabilities/banking
system soundness are largely in the same boat. Due to the ‘common lender’ channel, not to mention
psychological contagion, banking sector problems in one country are likely to ripple through to
other countries in the region.
How Exposed Are Western European Parent Banks?
So far, we’ve shown that Eastern European banks are likely to see a spike in NPLs this year due to a
number of different vulnerabilities – high fx-denominated lending, weakening currencies, sharp
economic contractions, heavy reliance on non-deposit funding. And we’ve also shown that troubles
in one country’s banking sector have the potential to create a negative chain reaction across the
region via the ‘common lender’ channel. But how much could Eastern Europe’s potential woes
affect Western European countries?
As seen in the graph above, Austria is far and away the Western European country most heavily
exposed to the CEE region (via Austrian-based banks like Raiffeisen and Erste Bank). Notably,
however, other Western European countries’ total exposure is far less. According to a recent IMF
working paper on financial contagion within Europe, the size of the absolute exposure is not
economically significant in France, Germany, Italy and Portugal. This suggests Austria’s banking
system could be in serious trouble if problems in CEE banking sectors arise. Nevertheless, it also
suggests that Evans-Pritchard’s claim that “Failure To Save Eastern Europe Will Lead To
Worldwide Meltdown” is over-dramatic.
What Can Be Done?
As I noted in my April 2008 post, Europe’s regulatory system lags behind banks’ cross-border
reach. It’s currently a fragmented system, which is ill-equipped to deal with a cross-border banking
crisis. There is no harmonization of EU member states’ bank insolvency laws. Guidelines merely
bind the national authorities to favor private-sector rescues where possible, and urge them to decide
in advance who would pay the bill for banks that operate in more than one country if a state bailout
is required. This means that if a cross-border bank needs to be unwound, the process is likely to be
extremely messy. This highlights the need for a single EU regulator, rather than the current swath of
different national regulators. In the meantime, let’s hope a bailout is not required.