English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

After the subprime crisis, with the worsening of asset quality all around Europe, a lack of harmonization emerged concerning credit classification, monitoring, provisioning and writing-off in the banking industry. A wave of analysis and new regulations by the Supervising Authorities aimed at highlighting best practices and creating a common standard, in order to enhance transparency and accounting data comparability across the European Union. A point of particular attention concerned the usage of forbearance measures and the classification and provisioning of forborne positions. This paper deep-dives into this issue leveraging on the public dataset disclosed by the European Banking Authority, following the 2018 EU-wide Transparency Exercise. The purpose of this paper is twofold. On one side, we want to gauge the extension of the forbearance measures’ usage among a sample of major European banks and the drivers of this usage. On the other side, we want to analyze which main factors impact on the loan loss provisioning of forborne positions.

What drives the greater or lesser usage of forbearance measures by banks?