Summary:
By the end of 2017, nine countries and zones, whose combined GDP was more than 30% of the world total, had adopted a negative interest rate policy (NIRP). These countries and zones have a common feature: their financial sectors are all bank-dominated, with bank revenues heavily relying on net interest income (NII). Since the implementation of NIRP, the banks' net interest margins (NIMs) have dropped significantly. European banks' share of NII has decreased by 5%, and their NIMs have decreased by 10 basis points. The NII of Japan's banking sector has decreased by 9%, and its NIM has dropped by 0.1%. Bank behaviors under different monetary stances are subject to heated debate. Since the wide implementation of NIRP, much attention has been drawn to its transmission mechanism. However, due to a lack of data, very few academic studies have examined the effects of NIRP on banks' NIMs. Practically, there has recently been significant progress in Chinese banks' international banking activities. It has been difficult for Chinese banks to maintain a stable performance in NIRP zones. This study examines banks' NIM-adjusting behaviors under NIRP, especially the different behaviors of banks with specific features. It enriches the theoretical understanding of the transmission mechanism of NIRP and its micro-impacts on banks. In addition, it provides solid references for banks' NIM management under an NIRP environment. Building on Busch and Memmel (2017), this study develops a model to explain how banks' NIMs respond to adjustments in policy rates. Due to mismatches between maturity of assets and liabilities, banks' NIMs tend to show a positive co-movement with policy rates. Under NIRP, the positive relation is greatly strengthened due to a flatter yield curve and the price sticky feature of retail deposits. This study also explains why, under NIRP conditions, banks with larger sizes and higher levels of internationalization are less responsive to policy changes, whereas banks with higher shares of retail business and banks that are more reliant on NII are more responsive. Following our theoretical analysis, we carry out an empirical study to test our hypothesis. The empirical study is based on annual unbalanced panel data of major listed European banks and uses a dynamic panel model and one-step system generalized moments method (GMM) estimation. The dataset includes 102 listed commercial banks from 18 European countries. Given the substantial changes in accounting standards after the wide implementation of IFRS 9 (on January 1, 2018), this study focuses on the 2004 to 2017 period. All of the sample banks are headquartered in NIRP areas. By the end of 2017, the total assets of the sample banks made up more than 70% of the total banking assets in these 18 European countries. All of the bank-level data are drawn from the SNL database. The macro-level data such as policy interest rates are obtained from corresponding central bank websites. The results show that an increase (decrease) in policy rate leads to an increase (decrease) in banks' NIMs. Under NIRP, the above-mentioned sensitivity is significantly enhanced, especially when interest rates decrease. Banks with different specific features response differently to changes in policy rates. Specifically, larger banks and banks with higher levels of internationalization are less affected by adjustments in policy rates, whereas banks with higher percentages of retail business and interest income are more likely to be affected by changes in policy interest rate. To address the adverse impacts of NIRP, European and Japanese banks are trying to increase non-bank and non-interest income to compensate for the loss caused by decreased NIMs. They are also reducing assets in NIRP areas by expanding overseas businesses, enhancing cost management by cutting staff and streamlining physical outlets, encouraging digital and scientific transformations to improve efficiency, and conducting mergers and acquisitions to improve competitiveness. Chinese bank branches operating in NIRP areas have limited access to non-interest income due to regulatory limitations. Their main strategy is to refine their portfolio allocations, which includes increasing inter-bank and bond financing in NIPR areas on the liability side, which allows them to enjoy the low cost of financing and increase the sensitivity of liability cost to the policy rate. On the asset side, they can enhance cooperation with branches outside NIRP areas to increase the proportion of loans outside these areas. They could also flexibly adjust the pricing and re-pricing strategies on both sides by absorbing fixed rate, long-term liabilities and extending floating rate assets with short re-pricing periods.
熊启跃, 王书朦. 负利率对银行净息差影响机制研究——基于欧洲主要上市银行的经验证据[J]. 金融研究, 2020, 475(1): 110-129.
XIONG Qiyue, WANG Shumeng. Impacts of Negative Interest Rate Policies on Banks' Net Interest Margin:Evidence from Major European Listed Banks. Journal of Financial Research, 2020, 475(1): 110-129.
[1]陈卫东、张兴荣和熊启跃,2018,《中国银行业净息差管理面临的挑战与改进策略研究—与美国银行业的比较分析》,《金融监管研究》第1期,第1～19页。 [2]李宏瑾,2015,《利率市场化对商业银行的挑战与应对》,《国际金融研究》第2期,第65～76页。 [3]刘莉亚、李明辉、孙莎和杨金强,2014,《中国银行业净息差与非利息收入的关系研究》,《经济研究》第7期,第110～124页。 [4]马理和娄田田,2015,《基于零利率下限约束的宏观政策传导研究》,《经济研究》第11期,第94～105页。 [5]马理和黎妮,2017,《零利率与负利率的货币政策传导研究》,《世界经济研究》第11期,第3～16页。 [6]牛慕鸿、张黎娜和张翔,2017,《利率走廊、利率稳定性和调控成本》,《金融研究》第7期,第16～28页。 [7]彭建刚、王舒军和关天宇,2016,《利率市场化导致商业银行利差缩窄吗？—来自中国银行业的经验证据》,《金融研究》第7期,第48~63页。 [8]孙国峰和何晓贝,2017,《存款利率零下限与负利率传导机制》,《经济研究》第12期,第105～118页。 [9]熊启跃、赵阳和廖泽洲,2016,《国际化会影响银行的净息差水平吗？—来自国际大型银行的经验证据》,《金融研究》第7期,第64～79页。 [10]熊启跃和王书朦,2017,《负利率环境下国际大型银行净息差管理经验及启示》,《金融监管研究》第2期,第65～80页。 [11]于研和魏文臻杰,2015,《银行利差与表外业务的内生性研究—基于中国上市商业银行2008—2013年的实证分析》,《国际金融研究》第8期,第64～74页。 [12]Alessandri, P. and B. Nelson, 2014. “Simple Banking: Profitability and the Yield Curve”, Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, 47(1): 143～175. [13]Altunbas, Y., Gambacorta, L., and D. Marques-Ibanez, 2014. “Does Monetary Policy Affect Bank Risk-Taking？”, BIS Working Papers No.298. [14]Agarwal, R. and M. Kimball, 2015. “Breaking Through the Zero-Lower Bound”, IMF Working Paper, No.15224. [15]Bond, D., Harrison, M. and E. J. O’ Brien, 2003. “Investigating Nonlinearity: A Note on the Implementation of Hamilton's Methology”, Trinity Economics Paper, No.12. [16]Beer, C. and E. Gnan, 2015. “Implications of Ultra-low Interest Rates for Financial Institutions' Asset Liability Management - a Policy-Oriented Overview”, Monetary Policy & the Economy, 2, 52～76. [17]Bernhardsen, T. and K. Lund, 2015. “Negative Interest Rates: Central Bank Reserves and Liquidity Management”, Economic Commentaries, No. 2. [18]Bernanke, B., 2016. “ What Tools Does the Fed Have Left？ Part 1: Negative Interest Rates”, Brookings Institution. [19]Brunnermeier, K. and Y. Koby, 2016. “The ‘Reversal Interest Rate’-An Effective Lower Bound on Monetary Policy”, BIS Research Network Meeting. [20]Bech, L. and A. Malkhozov, 2016. “How Have Central Banks Implemented Negative Policy Rates？”, BIS Quarterly Review, No. 1. [21]Busch.R and C. Memmel, 2017. “Banks' Net Interest Margin and the Level of Interest Rates”, Credit and Capital Markets, 50(3), 363～392. [22]Claudio, B. and G. Leonardo, 2017. “Monetary Policy and Bank Lending in a Low Interest Rate Environment: Diminishing Effectiveness？”, Journal of Macroeconomics, 54, 217～231 [23]CGFS, 2018a. “Structural Changes in Banking After the Crisis”, January, 2018, No. 60. [24]CGFS, 2018b. “Financial Stability Implications of a Prolonged Period of Low Interest Rates”, July, 2018, No. 61. [25]Fabozzi, F. J. and R. Tunaru, 2007. “On Some Inconsistencies in Modeling Credit Portfolio Products”, International Journal of Theoretical and Applied Finance, 10(8), 1305～1321. [26]FSB, 2018. “Global Shadow Banking Monitoring Report 2017” , March, 5, 2018. [27]Grisse, C. 2015. “The Zero Lower Bound and Movements in the Term Structure of Interest Rates”, Economics Letters, 131, 66～69. [28]Hesna, G. and P. Rich, 2014. “What Is the Impact of a Low Interest Rate Environment on Bank Profitability？”, Chicago Fed Letter, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, July. [29]Ireland, N., 2009. “On the Welfare Cost of Inflation and the Recent Behavior of Money Demand”, The American Economic Review, 99, 1040～1052. [30]Ioannidou, V, Ongena, S. and J. L., Peydro, 2015. “ Monetary Policy, Risk-Taking and Pricing: Evidence from a Quasi-natural Experiment”, Review of Finance, 19, 95～144. [31]Jobst, A. and H. Lin, 2016. “Negative Interest Rate Policy (NIRP): Implications for Monetary Transmission and Bank Profitability in the Euro Area”, IMF Working Paper, No.172. [32]Krugman, P.R., 1998. “It's Back: Japan's Slump and the Return of the Liquidity Trap”, Brookings Panel on Economic Activity, 29, 137～206. [33]Meltzer, A., 1963. “The Demand for Money: the Evidence from the Times Series”, Journal of Political Economy, 71, June, 219～246. [34]Peshev, P. and I, Beev, 2016. “Negative Nominal Interest Rates on Loans: the Newly-Established Normal Practice？”, Economic Alternatives, 2, 149～158. [35]Rognlie, M., 2015. “What Lower Bound？ Monetary Policy with Negative Interest Rates”, Job Market Paper, November 23. [36]Xiong, Q., 2013. “The Role of the Bank Lending Channel and Impacts of Stricter Capital Requirements on the Chinese Banking Industry”, BOFIT Discussion Papers 7/2013, Bank of Finland, Institute for Economies in Transition. [37]Zaid, S. and J. Garin, 2016. “Optimal Monetary Policy and Imperfect Financial Markets: a Case for Negative Nominal Interest Rates” Economic Inquiry, 54, 215～228.
