Bad Banks: The German scheme.

Bad Bank; Bankenpolitik; Bankenkrise; Deutschland;

German Bad Bank Plan: Government Should Take Over Toxic Assets at Zero Cost

With Germany's banking sector still suffering from the effects of the financial crisis, public discussion of plans to place toxic assets in one or more bad banks has gained steam in recent weeks. The following paper presents a bad bank plan from the German Institute for Economic Research. The key element of the plan is the valuation of troubled assets at their current market value - assets with no market would thus be valued at zero. The current shareholders will cover the losses arising from the depreciation reserve in the amount of the difference of the toxic assets' current book value and their market value. Under the plan, the government would bear responsibility for the management and future resale of toxic assets at its own cost and recapitalize the good bank by taking an equity stake in it. In extreme cases, this would mean a takeover of the bank by the government. The risk to taxpayers from this investment would be acceptable, however, once the banks are freed from toxic assets. A clear emphasis that the government stake is temporary would also be necessary. The government would cover the bad bank's losses, while profits would be distributed to the distressed bank's current shareholders. The plan is viable independent of whether the government decides to have one centralized bad bank or to establish a separate bad bank for each systemically relevant banking institute. Under the terms of the plan, bad banks and nationalization are not alternatives but rather two sides of the same coin. This plan effectively addresses three key challenges. It provides for the transparent removal of toxic assets and gives the banks a fresh start. At the same time, it offers the chance to keep the cost to taxpayers low. In addition, the risk of moral hazard is curtailed.Financial crisis, Bad bank, Recapitalization

Bad Bank(s) and Recapitalization of the Banking Sector

With banking sectors worldwide still suffering from the effects of the financial crisis, public discussion of plans to place toxic assets in one or more bad banks has gained steam in recent weeks. The following paper presents a plan how governments can efficiently relieve ailing banks from toxic assets by transferring these assets into a publicly sponsored work-out unit, a so-called bad bank. The key element of the plan is the valuation of troubled assets at their current market value – assets with no market would thus be valued at zero. The current shareholders will cover the losses arising from the depreciation reserve in the amount of the difference of the toxic assets’ current book value and their market value. Under the plan, the government would bear responsibility for the management and future resale of toxic assets at its own cost and recapitalize the good bank by taking an equity stake in it. In extreme cases, this would mean a takeover of the bank by the government. The risk to taxpayers from this investment would be acceptable, however, once the banks are freed from toxic assets. A clear emphasis that the government stake is temporary would also be necessary. The government would cover the bad bank’s losses, while profits would be distributed to the distressed bank’s current shareholders. The plan is viable independent of whether the government decides to have one centralized bad bank or to establish a separate bad bank for each systemically relevant banking institute. Under the terms of the plan, bad banks and nationalization are not alternatives but rather two sides of the same coin. This plan effectively addresses three key challenges. It provides for the transparent removal of toxic assets and gives the banks a fresh start. At the same time, it offers the chance to keep the cost to taxpayers low. In addition, the risk of moral hazard is curtailed. The comparison of the proposed design with the bad bank plan of the German government reveals some shortcomings of the latter plan that may threaten the achievement of these key issues.financial crisis, financial regulation, toxic assets, bad bank

Bad Bank(s) and Recapitalization of the Banking Sector

With banking sectors worldwide still suffering from the effects of the financial crisis, public discussion of plans to place toxic assets in one or more bad banks has gained steam in recent weeks. The following paper presents a plan how governments can efficiently relieve ailing banks from toxic assets by transferring these assets into a publicly sponsored work-out unit, a so-called bad bank. The key element of the plan is the valuation of troubled assets at their current market value - assets with no market would thus be valued at zero. The current shareholders will cover the losses arising from the depreciation reserve in the amount of the difference of the toxic assets' current book value and their market value. Under the plan, the government would bear responsibility for the management and future resale of toxic assets at its own cost and recapitalize the good bank by taking an equity stake in it. In extreme cases, this would mean a takeover of the bank by the government. The risk to taxpayers from this investment would be acceptable, however, once the banks are freed from toxic assets. A clear emphasis that the government stake is temporary would also be necessary. The government would cover the bad bank's losses, while profits would be distributed to the distressed bank's current shareholders. The plan is viable independent of whether the government decides to have one centralized bad bank or to establish a separate bad bank for each systemically relevant banking institute. Under the terms of the plan, bad banks and nationalization are not alternatives but rather two sides of the same coin. This plan effectively addresses three key challenges. It provides for the transparent removal of toxic assets and gives the banks a fresh start. At the same time, it offers the chance to keep the cost to taxpayers low. In addition, the risk of moral hazard is curtailed. The comparison of the proposed design with the bad bank plan of the German government reveals some shortcomings of the latter plan that may threaten the achievement of these key issues.Financial crisis, financial regulation, toxic assets, Bad Bank

Dealing with the Bad Loans of the Chinese Banks

Chinese banks suffer from serious financial fragility manifested by high proportions of non-performing loans and low capital-adequacy ratios. A key policy introduced recently by the Chinese government to reduce financial risks is the establishment of four asset management companies (AMCs) for dealing with bad loans. Drawing on the experiences of the Resolution Trust Corporation in the United States and bank restructuring in the Central European transition economies, we argue that the original AMC design will not be successful in resolving the existing non-performing loans (NPLs) nor will it prevent the creation of new bad loans. We recommend a modification of the current proposal that redefines the relationships between the parent banks and the AMCs by transferring the deposits of problem enterprises along with their NPLs from parent banks to AMCs.http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/39741/3/wp357.pd

Bad banks: The case of Germany

This paper discusses the instrument of equalisation claims, which has successfully been used in two previous German debt crises as a method for stabilizing the balance sheets of financial institutions. A modern version of this method would swap temporarily illiquid assets for government bonds with open maturit , in order to avoid the problem of evaluating the toxic assets in advance. Not only will this method save taxpayers' money, but it also upholds the market principle of liability, thereby avoiding incentives for inefficient risk-prone behaviour in the financial sector. The current German bad bank approach principally follows this approach, but severely suffers from unnecessary complexity and voluntary participation. --Financial Crisis,Bad Banks,German History,equalisation claims

Dealing with the Bad Loans of the Chinese Banks

Chinese banks suffer from serious financial fragility manifested by high proportions of non-performing loans and low capital-adequacy ratios. A key policy introduced recently by the Chinese government to reduce financial risks is the establishment of four asset management companies (AMCs) for dealing with bad loans. Drawing on the experiences of the Resolution Trust Corporation in the United States and bank restructuring in the Central European transition economies, we argue that the original AMC design will not be successful in resolving the existing non-performing loans (NPLs) nor will it prevent the creation of new bad loans. We recommend a modification of the current proposal that redefines the relationships between the parent banks and the AMCs by transferring the deposits of problem enterprises along with their NPLs from parent banks to AMCs.bad loans, stae-owned banks, asset management companies, China

Bad loans and efficiency in Italian Banks

The problem of taking into account the quality attributes of different goods has a long tradition in economics A strand of literature deals with the environmental impacts in the measurement of efficiency and productivity growth. Färe et al. (1989) indeed started what has become now a relatively vast literature extending efficiency measurement when some outputs are undesirable. The central notion of this paper is that of weak disposability of outputs. To credit firms for their effort to cut off on pollutants, technology is modeled so that it can handle the case when the reduction of some (bad) outputs requires the reduction of some of the other outputs and/or the increase of inputs.Besides the concept of output weak disposability, an interesting and useful idea for this setting is the directional distance function, a generalization of the radial distance function introduced to production economics by Chambers, Chung and Färe (1996). In this fashion it is possible to evaluate the performance of the firms that need to increase the production of the good outputs and decrease that bad outputs.

Banking sector problems: Causes, Resolutions and Consequences

Until the mid 1980s, commercial banking was the main lever of soft budgetary constraint. Commercial banks were under the control of their founding enterprises and their basic function was to approve the cheapest possible credit to their founders. The process of reforming commercial banking began during the last ten to twelve years. Since then, new laws and other regulations have been passed that are suitable for a market economy. In late 1991, a so-called linear rehabilitation of the banks began in which the majority of bad credits by banks were written off. The linear rehabilitation of the banks did not contain measures that would lead to changes in bank operations. Banks continued to approve credit to “their” enterprises. Therefore, in 1996 the government was forced to rehabilitate three large banks. These rehabilitations were conducted in a serious manner and were based on the transfer of bad bank credits to a special agency, recapitalization, replacing shareholders and replacing bank management. After these rehabilitations, there was a large drop in the interest rate. In 1998, there was a new bank crisis that chiefly affected new banks, which had highly aggressive interest rate policies. The fundamental cause of the new bank crisis was the inappropriate credit policies of these banks, exacerbated by various external shocks. The central bank began to intervene very quickly but only after the bank crisis occurred. Although many banks failed, it is not possible to speak about the end of the banking crisis. There are still many internal weaknesses in bank operations entwined with currency and credit risks, bank investment in enterprise shares, the maturity-gapping of assets and liabilities and the discrepancy between the information about banks and the possibilities for complying with regulations. These internal bank weaknesses open the possibility for similar banking problems in the future, which should be eliminated on time. The fiscal expenditures incurred to date for the rehabilitation of banks can be estimated in the amount of 31 percent of GDP, placing Croatian among the countries with the highest expenditures for bank rehabilitation

Does Bad Credit Affect the Profitability of State-Owned Banks Listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange?

This study aims to examine and analyze whether bad credit have a significant effect on the profitability of state-owned banks listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange.This study uses data from state-owned bankslisted on the Indonesia Stock Exchange during the period 2010 to 2017. The analyzed banks are 4 banks based on sample criteria. The analysis method used is panel data analysis by using Microsoft Exel and Eviews 10 software.The results of this study found that bad credit has a negative and significant impact on bank profitability where the greater the bad credit can lead to the smaller the ability of banks to make profit Keywords: bad credit, profitability, state-owned banks, Indonesia Stock Exchange DOI: 10.7176/RJFA/11-2-08 Publication date: January 31st 202