A comparative analysis of the US and EU retail banking markets - Wsbi

More documents

Recommendations

Info

100% Graph 9: Structure of the assets in the US, 1992 – 2003 (in %) – FDIC insured institutions 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 ■ Cash and due from depository institutions ■ Securities ■ Federal funds sold & reverse repurchase agreements ■ Net loans and leases ■ Bank premises and fixed assets ■ Other assets Source: ESBG calculations based on FDIC data 100% Graph 10: Lending to the private sector in the US and the Euro area, 2004 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Austria Belgium Germany Spain Greece France Finland Italy Ireland Luxembourg Netherlands Portugal Euro area US ■ Consumer loans ■ Housing loans ■ Other loans to households ■ Business loans Source: for US data: Flow of Funds Accounts of the Unites States, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System; for EU data: Aggregated balance sheet of euro area monetary financial institutions, excluding the Eurosystem, National Bank of Belgium. 90
5.3.1.1.2 Bank assets Looking at graph 9, it can be seen that loans and leases have consistently represented more than half of the assets of FDIC-insured credit institutions over the years, and this proportion has remained steady throughout. Apart from ‘other assets’, no significant change in proportion of total assets can be observed for any of the different asset classes (figures for graph 9 can be found in table J of the table annex). In terms of bank loans to the private sector as a proportion of GDP, it can be seen in Table 11 that in 1980, these represented 35% of GDP, while the equivalent proportion in 2000 was of the order of 49%. 5.3.1.1.3 Loan composition As can be seen in graph 10 opposite, lending to households in 2004 represented more than two/thirds of all lending to the private sector, while the remainder of lending to the private sector was loans to business. Of lending to households, 88% was home lending (representing 62% of total lending to the private sector), and 9% was consumer lending (representing 6% of total lending to the private sector). Note that these figures include all private sector lending, and therefore not just lending by credit institutions (figures relating to graph 10 can be found in the table annex in table K). 100% Graph 11: Structure of the liabilities in the EU, 1992 – 2003 (in %) 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 ■ Borrowing from Central bank ■ Interbank deposits ■ Non-bank deposits ■ Bonds ■ Other liabilities Source: ESBG calculation based on OECD data: “Bank Profitability”, 2002 & 2004. 5.3.1.2 Europe 5.3.1.2.1 Bank liabilities Aggregate data for the EU 15 reveals that non-bank deposits have remained by far the main single source of funds for European banks over the period 1992-2003. Such deposits have also represented a relatively steady source of total bank liabilities, representing 45.7% of total bank liabilities in 1992 and 42.6% in 2003. This is in spite of the fact that market based funding has grown significantly in Europe in the last two or so decades, as can be evidenced by looking at the rising ratios of stock market funding and equity issues to GDP between the years 1980 and 2000 in table 11 (find figures for the structure of liabilities in the EU in table L of the table annex). 91
Page 1:
September 2006 RESEARCH A COMPARATI
Page 4 and 5:
IE UK FR BE NL LU DK DE SE CZ AT SL
Page 6 and 7:
The following WSBI/ESBG committees
Page 8 and 9:
4 Regulation and supervision compar
Page 10 and 11:
6.5 Issues of competition in retail
Page 12 and 13:
To finish, if we had to pick from a
Page 14 and 15:
In the US, credit institutions have
Page 16 and 17:
Following the same logic, the EU co
Page 18 and 19:
In that context, it is tempting to
Page 21 and 22:
3. INSTITUTIONAL COMPARISON 3.1 Sec
Page 23 and 24:
The market share of the US banking
Page 25 and 26:
FDIC-insured commercial banks are i
Page 27 and 28:
The subsidiary stock institution is
Page 29 and 30:
Regulatory reform over the past thi
Page 31 and 32:
State credit unions were first exem
Page 33 and 34:
There has however been much effort
Page 35 and 36:
3.2.2.2.2.2 Ownership and corporate
Page 37 and 38:
Hermann Schulze-Delitzsch and Fried
Page 39 and 40: In contrast, building societies in
Page 41 and 42: The commitment of savings banks is
Page 43 and 44: 4. REGULATION AND SUPERVISION COMPA
Page 45 and 46: In addition, for regulations define
Page 47 and 48: The European Parliament has to be k
Page 49 and 50: In fact, it should be mentioned her
Page 51 and 52: As far as coordination at the feder
Page 53 and 54: Despite the trend towards the estab
Page 55 and 56: Another important factor in the cho
Page 57 and 58: In the European Union, contrary to
Page 59 and 60: Although younger than CESR, both CE
Page 61 and 62: 4.2.5.1.1.1.1 Limitation of the geo
Page 63 and 64: 4.2.5.1.1.3 Recent trend: regulatio
Page 65 and 66: Another important common feature be
Page 67 and 68: The best execution rule was first m
Page 69 and 70: 4.3.2.2.4 National Market System ru
Page 71 and 72: The ISD set a basis for the develop
Page 73: Best execution rules exist in both
Page 76 and 77: The decline of savings institutions
Page 78 and 79: Relative to population, the Europea
Page 80 and 81: 5.2.2 Size of credit institutions 5
Page 82 and 83: 5.2.2.2 European Union In Europe, t
Page 84 and 85: 5.2.3 Concentration and consolidati
Page 86 and 87: 5.2.3.2 European Union Average CR5
Page 88 and 89: In terms of the nature of consolida
Page 92 and 93: In terms of growth of the volume of
Page 94 and 95: 5.3.2 Efficiency of credit institut
Page 96 and 97: Table 16: Evolution of the Return o
Page 98 and 99: Finally, looking at cost-income rat
Page 100 and 101: 9. The last couple of decades have
Page 102 and 103: 102
Page 104 and 105: Furthermore, the average outstandin
Page 106 and 107: Under an open-end credit, the credi
Page 108 and 109: Table 19: Evolution of outstanding
Page 110 and 111: 6.2.1.2.2 Regulatory framework over
Page 112 and 113: 6.2.1.3 Comparison 6.2.1.3.1 Size o
Page 114 and 115: In terms of market competition, the
Page 116 and 117: The residential mortgage market in
Page 118 and 119: Funding by retail deposits represen
Page 120 and 121: In sharp contrast, the US mortgage
Page 122 and 123: 6.2.3.1.2 Lenders to small business
Page 124 and 125: The securitisation process requires
Page 126 and 127: Factoring is also continuously gain
Page 128 and 129: 6.2.3.2.4 Securitisation of small b
Page 130 and 131: The above fears can hardly be allay
Page 132 and 133: - ACH credits and debits: the stati
Page 134 and 135: 6.3.2.1.2 Financial intermediaries
Page 136 and 137: It should be noted that two of the
Page 138 and 139: Assuming that technology, globalisa
Page 140 and 141:
The report adds: “although it bou
Page 142 and 143:
Graph 19: Use of different distribu
Page 144 and 145:
In terms of funding of the business
Page 146 and 147:
Since then, established banks have
Page 148 and 149:
148
Page 150 and 151:
MoU Memorandum of Understanding OTC
Page 152 and 153:
Annex 2: Statistical appendix Table
Page 154 and 155:
Table F: Share of US banking indust
Page 156 and 157:
Table L: Structure of the liabiliti
Page 158 and 159:
Table R: Number of ATMS in the EU a
Page 160 and 161:
F - Federal Deposit Insurance Corpo
Page 162 and 163:
162
show all

A comparative analysis of the US and EU retail banking markets - Wsbi

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?