The term ‘shadow banking’ was first coined in 2007 to describe parts of the financial intermediation process conducted outside of the commercial banking system. It encompasses all non-bank credit intermediation and spans wholesale markets-based finance (such as certain types of investment funds and securitisation vehicles, as well as activities such as securities financing transactions) and alternative lending channels.
The negative connotations associated with the name stem from the role of complex, opaque and lightly regulated financing activities in the 2008 financial crisis. Shadow banking was thus seen as a source of systemic risk that required containment.
Seven years later, the shadow banking debate has changed dramatically: with traditional bank lending constrained by more stringent regulatory capital and liquidity requirements, the focus on shadow banking has shifted from containing risks to enabling capital markets to revive economic growth.
Within this context, a new CFA Institute study on Shadow Banking suggests that nonbank credit in the form of markets-based finance can provide a potential solution to reviving the real economy by helping to channel capital to productive enterprises. However, in order to put shadow banking on a sustainable footing, it is necessary to increase standardisation and simplification of issuance structures, as well as boosting transparency more generally, in order to support investor interests.
The scope of regulation surrounding markets-based finance is already quite broad. In the EU and the US, for example, regulation of investment funds marketed to retail investors is comprehensive, while new rules for money market funds have been established (among other things). In this context, the term ‘shadow banking’ is somewhat misplaced and should not be construed with unregulated activities.
On the other hand, there are other parts of the shadow banking system that are mostly unregulated, such as peer-to-peer lending, microfinance companies, trust-based loan provision, and other alternative lending channels, and it is in this domain that risks to investor protection are most likely to emerge.
The renewed interest in shadow banking coincides with the European Commission’s policy initiative to establish a ‘Capital Markets Union’ (CMU). The objective of CMU is to tackle the barriers to the flow of capital in Europe and diversify sources of finance for companies. The initiative comes against a backdrop of weak economic growth and concomitantly accommodative central bank policies. With constrained bank lending, expanding the pool of capital available to European companies is arguably more important than ever. In this context, shadow banking can play a pivotal role in unlocking capital markets and better connecting investors with the financing needs of the economy.
To realise the potential benefits from shadow banking, policymakers must tackle product and market fragmentation within securitisation markets by incentivising more simplified, standardised issuance structures, as well as implementing a more robust framework regarding the use of collateral associated with securities financing transactions. By doing so, shadow banking can support a variety of investor needs and enhance the efficient functioning of the financial system.