Why the Prudential provisioning backstop won’t hurt (too much) Italian Banks

ECB published on 4th October an addendum to the Guidelines on NPL Mangement published the last march. A public consultation will be open until 8th December.

The main point of this update is the suggestion of Prudential provisioning backstop for
non-performing exposures.

Table on Backstop

This basically means that, within a certain amount of time, Non performing exposures will have to be fully provisioned. The time frame is different between secured and unsecured loans.

Cattura

Should Italian banks worry about this?

Current best practice already sets provisioning of unsecured loan at 80-90% at the Unlikely To Pay and 90-100% at Non Performing Loan classification date while coverage of secured loans is normally driven by Collateral Assets’ expected liquidation value.

After 2 years for unsecured loans and 7 years for secured ones

  1. either the collection process should be finished
  2. or at least it should be quite clear if further collections have to be expected or not

In the first case it is correct to write off any residual claim if there are any. In the second case banks should be able to provide enough argument to justify the deviation from the recommended 100% provisioning.

Considering that the new guidelines will be applicable only to newly classified at Non Performing Exposures and that the 100% provisioning is strongly suggested, but not mandatory significant consequences can hardly be expected for Italian Banks.

Additional comments in the folllowing post

Stay tuned on Italian Banks and NPL Market  Join the Linkedin Group – Entering Italian NPL Market  and follow  #Liberi Di Scegliere via @blastingnews

@massimofamularo

Linkedin

GLG – Gerson Lehrman Group – Council Member

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Italian Banks and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Why the Prudential provisioning backstop won’t hurt (too much) Italian Banks

  1. All good and well, but would this addendum go beyond what the auditors should do under IFRS9? See the first figure in the document and the explanation, as well as the last paragraph of the document.

    Cetier

  2. Pingback: Excusatio non petita | Massimo Famularo (ENG)

  3. Pingback: Why Carige and Creval experience proves that ECB was right on guide lines | Massimo Famularo (ENG)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s