Search

Following the emergence of the financial crisis in August 2007, the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision established in 2010 a new global regulatory framework. In addition to raising capital requirements, it introduced three ratios, two of which set out minimum standards for liquidity and funding risk, i.e. the liquidity coverage ratio and the net stable funding ratio, and one which aims to limit leverage in the banking system, i.e. the leverage ratio. All three ratios can have a number of implications for monetary policy implementation, in particular the liquidity coverage ratio and the net stable funding ratio owing to the special role of central banks in providing liquidity. This paper investigates the extent to which the regulatory initiatives might have already had an impact on banks’ behaviour in Eurosystem monetary policy operations. It also provides an overview of the regulatory state of play and major recent advancements in banks’ compliance with the three Basel III ratios. Based on aggregate data, the empirical evidence generally supports some of the theoretically predicted effects of the three ratios. However, no firm conclusions can be drawn as to whether the introduction of the three ratios could cause a significant change in banks’ recourse to Eurosystem monetary policy operations. This is partly due to the fact that, in aggregate, major developments, such as substantial fluctuations in the recourse to Eurosystem refinancing operations in the years between 2012 and 2015, have been driven by the financial crisis and the gradual recovery from it, as well as by the accommodative stance of monetary policy.

The investment of the ECB reserves in US dollars and yen, delegated to a network of portfolio managers in the Eurosystem’s national central banks, involves a periodic assessment of performance against a common benchmark, controlled by the ECB and subject to revision on a monthly basis. Monetary reward for the best performers is almost entirely absent, and compensation comes mainly as reputational credit following the transmission of the annual report to the Governing Council. Employing a new data set on individual portfolio variables during 2002-2009, we study this peculiar tournament and show the existence of risk-shifting behaviour by reserve managers related to their year-to-date ranking: interim losers increase relative risk in the second half of the year, in the same way as mutual fund managers. In the dollar case, risk-shifting is asymmetric: the adjustment to ranking is generally reduced or entirely offset if reserve managers have achieved a positive interim performance against the benchmark. Yen reserve managers that rank low show a tendency to increase effort, as proxied by portfolio turnover. We also find that reserve managers who ranked low in the previous year tend to reduce risk significantly. Our evidence is consistent with a reserve managers’ anecdote, according to which they obtain a concave reputational reward within their national central banks, which induces risk aversion and explains the observed low usage of the risk budget. Since reserve managers should have a comparative advantage over the tactical benchmark within a monthly horizon, possible enhancements to the design of the tournament are discussed. These might involve an increased reward for effort and performance by means of a convex scoring system linked to monthly, rather than annual, performance.