Bank i Kredyt 51(1), 2020, 1-32

Do CDS spread determinants affect the probability of default? A study on the EU banks

Alessandra Ortolano*, Eliana Angelini

Submitted: 3 July 2019. Accepted: 31 October 2019.

Abstract The paper is an investigation of the principal variables that have affected the EU banks’ credit risk over the decade 2006–2016. In this context we adopt panel Tobit regressions in order to infer our object of analysis on the most significant CDS spread determinants illustrated by recent literature. In fact, the CDS spread should give a measure of credit risk, expressed by the probability of default. In accordance with the insertion of balance sheet, macroeconomic and market variables, we estimate the probability of default through a two-equation Merton model. Our results are analogous with the main trend of CDS spread determinants over time and contribute to continuing to consider the price of credit default swaps as a good indicator of banks’ creditworthiness.

Keywords: probability of default, banks, structural models, CDS spread

JEL: G10, G21, G33

* G. d’Annunzio University, Department of Economic Studies; e-mail: [email protected]. 2 A. Ortolano, E. Angelini

1 Introduction

Over the last decade, European banking creditworthiness has been threatened by important events, such as financial crisis (Beyer, Cœuré, Mendicino 2017), the sovereign crisis (Gourinchas, Martin, Messer 2018; Roman, Bilan 2012) and the growth of non-performing loans (Baudino, Orlandi, Zamil 2018). In this field, the analysis of banks’ probability of default has become a non-trivial object of observation by financial regulators and academics (EBA 2017; Elizondo Flores et al. 2010). The default probability of a bank is not just the likelihood of bankruptcy, but is also the deterioration of its creditworthiness. Consequently, it is the expression of credit risk defined as the possibility that an unexpected change in a counterparty’s creditworthiness might generate a corresponding unexpected alteration in the market value of the associated credit exposure. The probability of default of a bank depends on its specific factors on the one hand, and on market and macroeconomic factors on the other hand. In this context, we intend to analyse the most significant variables affecting the probability of default, adopting CDS spread determinants. Specifically, a credit default swap is a credit derivative whose aim is to protect the buyer against an event of default dealing with the issuer of the underlying asset. Consequently, its price, called the spread, should disclose the market’s credit risk perception and its determinants might explain the main variables causing the reference entity’s credit risk. In particular the CDS spread has shown a leading role in price discovery, with reference to bond markets (e.g. Coudert, Gex 2010; Norden, Weber 2007; Blanco, Brennan, Marsh 2005) and rating announcements (Finnerty, Miller, Chen 2013; Hull, Predescu, White 2004). In more detail, as a market indicator, CDS spread has been affected by high volatility, so we guess more accurate information might be given by the probability of default. Furthermore, the latter is implied in CDS spread and is an expression of credit risk. In accordance with the correlation between these two variables, we observe the influence of CDS spread determinants. Specifically, the related literature spans from accounting variables to market and general variables (Samaniego-Medina et al. 2016). In particular, contemporary research is developing in the study of systemic risk: general factors, indeed, seem to be more crucial than firm specific ones (Ejsing, Lemke 2011; Berndt, Obreja 2010). In this paper, the EU banks’ credit risk is analysed over the period 2006–2016. In particular, the study consists of a two-step analysis: in the first part, there is a calculation of the probability of default on a sample of 40 banks through a two-equation Merton model. This choice is consistent with the intention to estimate this variable under both firm specific and market perspectives. The second part deals with an investigation of the relationship between the estimated probability of default and the main CDS spread determinants: this inferential study is made by the implementation of Tobit regressions for panel data. Specifically, first we present a model for the whole period and then we distinctly analyse two sub-periods (namely 2009–2012 and 2013–2016) in order to focus our attention respectively on the sovereign debt crisis and on the NPL crisis. Our contribution is twofold: an analysis the main variables affecting the EU banks’ credit risk over time and a verification of analogies between the determinants causing the probability of default and CDS spread in order to assess if the latter is still a good indicator of banking credit risk. Do CDS spread determinants affect the probability of default?... 3

2 Literature review

2.1 The estimation of the probability of default

There are various macro-categories of models to estimate the probability of default in order to measure credit risk. In this paper we adopt a model belonging to the class of structural models. They are called in this way because they base the estimation of the probability of default of a company on the value of assets, on the value of debt and on the assets’ volatility. Furthermore, structural models take inspiration from contingent claim analysis, and more specifically, from options theory (Black, Scholes 1973). The two benchmarks are the Merton model (Merton 1974) and the KMV model (Kealhofer 1993; McQuown 1993; Vasicek 1984). In particular, the Merton model is based on the intuition that the insolvency of a company takes place when the asset value is lower than the value of liabilities: if the investments made through the borrowed capital are lower than the expectations, there will be a loss in the equity. The KMV model, benefiting from contingent claim analysis too, assumes that the value of shares is equivalent to the price of a call option on the value of an enterprise, with the same maturity of debt and with a strike price equal to the face value of debt repayment; in addition, the model obtains the probability of default starting from the calculus of the distance-to-default variable. Structural models have been adopted and improved by a very large strand of literature, even recently. For example, Switzer, Tu and Wang (2018), in a study on the relation between corporate governance and default risk for 28 different countries outside North America during the post-financial crisis, measure the risk of default both through Merton-type five-year default probability and through CDS spread. Blanc-Brude and Hasan (2016) develop a structural credit risk model that relies on cash flow data in order to derive credit risk metrics; the model, implemented through project finance debt, appears useful for illiquid assets, for which a time series of prices is not observable, and provides a clear link between an asset’s fundamental characteristic and its risk profile. Erlenmaier and Gersbach (2014), using a Merton model framework, study the relationship between default probabilities and default correlation among two firms, finding that correlation grows if the former rises. Da and Gao (2010), criticizing Vassalou and Xing (2004), study the relationship between the stock market and default risk, measured through a default likelihood indicator derived from structural models. They find that the abnormal returns of risky stocks depend on short-term return reversals due to liquidity shock triggered by clientele change. Other well-known categories of models are the scoring and the VaR models. The scoring models assign a number, namely a score, that expresses the default probability of a firm. The most famous scoring model is Altman’s Z-score (Altman 1968; 1993; 2013), which derives the score through financial ratios. VaR (i.e. value at risk) models allow to measure the market risk associated with a financial asset. It represents the maximum possible loss arising from the detention of a financial asset over a given time horizon and with a specified level of confidence or probability (e.g. Changqing, Yanlin, Mengzhen 2015; Abad, Benito 2013). 4 A. Ortolano, E. Angelini

2.2 CDS spread determinants

Below we illustrate the main recent contributions of literature on CDS spread determinants through the observation of balance sheet, market and macroeconomic variables. Benbouzid, Leonida and Mallick (2018) suggest that CDS spread is driven by asset quality, liquidity and operations income ratio; they also check for bank size, finding a non-monotonic impact on CDS spread. Moreover, they estimate the level of bank size that minimizes the CDS spreads and find that financial institutions that grow beyond this threshold are subject to higher credit risk, implying that small and medium-sized banks are safer than large ones. In this context, they also highlight the “too- -big-to-fail” phenomenon before the onset of the financial crisis. Alexandre, Guillemin and Refait-Alexandre (2016) study the impact of banks’ disclosure on the evolution of the related CDS spreads during the Eurozone sovereign debt crisis. They show the importance of information in terms of reduction of risk premium, since specific disclosure about sovereign exposure has a negative impact on CASC (cumulative abnormal CDS spread change); in contrast, they demonstrate that broad information positively influences CASC. De Vincentiis (2014) compares the riskiness of global systemically important banks (G-SIB) with the no-SIBs, studying their respective CDS spreads. During a crisis period she finds the significance of the bank-specific variables (dimensions, profitability and capital stability) on the one hand, and on the other hand, the significance of the country risk, measured by sovereign CDS spreads for both kinds of banks. Li and Zinna (2014), observing sovereign and bank CDS term structures, distinguish between the influence of systemic and sovereign risk on the banking variables, finding the highest level of systemic risk for Spain and Italy in absolute value; in a relative sense, in contrast, the most important component of risk for the banks of these countries is their respective sovereign risk, since their assets are mostly related to their home countries. Hewavitharana and Rahmqvist (2011) examine the determinants of CDS spreads through leverage, stock return, volatility and interest rate. In a volatile context, they find a positive relationship between interest rate and CDS spreads and a negative relationship between the latter and leverage. The first relationship could be explained by the fact that in a context of economic distress, a firm is unable to meet its short-term debt payments; the second, on the other hand, is unclear. Opposite findings are shown by Ericsson, Jacobs and Oviedo (2009) during a non-crisis period. Demirguc-Kunt, Detragiache and Merrouche (2010) regress the changes of the active banks’ 5Y CDS spreads on the changes of some market variables and banks’ capital variables. Their results confirm the latter variables as not significant, with the exception of leverage ratio. The expected signs of risk- -free interest rate and stock price volatility are confirmed, respectively, with significance and not significance. Calice, Ioannidis and Williams (2011) focus their work on large complex financial institutions and, in a section of the paper, state the relevance of the volatility of assets with respect to the risk of default. Furthermore, they show the interconnection between the CDS market and the banking sector in a systemic risk perspective. Alter and Schüler (2012) explain the phenomenon of “private-to-public” risk transfer in Europe: before government interventions, bank credit spreads disperse to the sovereign CDS market, but after the bailouts there is an increased influence of sovereign CDS spreads on the bank spreads. Do CDS spread determinants affect the probability of default?... 5

Acharya, Drechsler and Schnabl (2011), observing the CDS market over the period 2007–2010, underline a “two-way” feedback between sovereign and financial credit risk in the Eurozone and show an association between the increase in the sovereign CDS and a decrease in banks’ stock returns in the post-bailout period. Analogous conclusions dealt with by Caruana and Avdjiev (2012). Specifically, on balance sheet indicators, Chiaramonte and Casu (2013) focus on a panel of international banks. They find that even if banks record very high levels of leverage, CDS spreads are not high as well until the outbreak of the crisis: this means that before this event, the market did not evaluate leverage as a significant factor of riskiness for banks, unlike the other sectors. Furthermore, in this study the significance of the indicator of asset portfolio quality as a predictor of default emerges. The low explanatory power of leverage ratio for the banking sector is also shown by Düllmann and Sosinska (2007) and Kalemli-Ozcan, Soresen and Yesiltas (2011). More recently Li and Fu (2017) carry out an analysis on CDS spread determinants and find that market value indicators (Tobin’s Q, stock market returns and interest rate), appear to be more important than book value indicators (i.e. ROA, ROE). Their observations deal with two European countries (Germany and France) and two Asian countries (South Korea and Hong Kong).

3 Methodology

3.1 The sample

The sample is made up of 40 banks of the European Union both from the Eurozone (2 Austria, 2 Belgium, 4 Germany, 1 Finland, 4 France, 4 , 2 Ireland, 6 Italy, 1 Netherlands, 2 Portugal, 1 Slovakia, 4 Spain) and outside the Eurozone (1 Czech Republic, 2 , 1 Poland, 3 Sweden)1 (see Table 1). These observation units represent the main EU banks and are derived from a wider sample, after excluding banks that have failed during the period of analysis.

3.2 The estimation of the dependent variable: the probability of default

In this section we outline the method adopted to estimate the one-year probability of default of the banks in the sample. This is a two-equation Merton model, so it belongs to the category of structural models for credit risk assessment. More specifically, our model borrows from Merton’s assumption of log-normal distribution of value of assets and the KMV’s solution of a two-equation model. Even if value of banking assets generally isn’t normally distributed in times of distress (like the period analysed), the estimation of the probability of default for banks is quite similar both under a log-normal and not log-normal distribution hypothesis, as demonstrated by Nagel and Purnanandam (2019).

1 Sources of data: Datastream, Orbis Bank Focus, ECB, Eurostat. 6 A. Ortolano, E. Angelini

The model is based on a system made by two unknowns: asset value and asset volatility.

µT()t E=tt A ()d1t – Le ()d2

= d At/Et E1() where: ln ()At /L + µ + 2 / 2 ()T–t E – current equity value,µT()t () t µT()µT()t t d = E=tt AA ()dd1t – –Le Le d ()d2 1 E=tttt– Aasset()() dvalue,1t1t – Le ()2()d2 T t At σ – asset volatility, d2 = d1 T t – equityE1E1== volatility,()d()d At At/Et/Et σE E1= ()d At/Et – current liabilities book value, == dri rate 2, Lt 2 μl n()1+ER[]i ln ()At /L + µ + / 22 ()T–t = ln ()At /L +() ()µ + 2 / 2 ()T–t d1 = ()()(), d1 = T t T = 1, 1 T t d = t = 0. 2 d1 T t µT()t d2 = d1 T t , E= A d – Le d d2 = d1 T t tt()1t ()2 µT()t dri rate 2 ER –E= REtt A ()d1tRR – Le ()d2 μl == n()1+ER[]i , 2 []ii= ()[]Mf dri rate 2 μl = == 1, dri rate n()1+ ER[]i , Tμl == n()1+ER[]i , T = 1, E1= ()d At/Et = 0. + = d At/Et Tt = 1, ER[]if = RmiE1* arke()tr iskp remium T t = = 0. 1, Thet = 0.first equation derives from Blackln andAt /LScholes + µ formula;+ 2 / 2 inT– thet second formula, equity is like t = 0. ()()()2 ER[]ii – RE = ()[]RRMf dAt= : Et + Lt ln ()At /L + µ + / 2 ()T–t a call on the asset value and its volatility1 (namely= its riskiness), ()depends on the volatility of the asset. ER – RE RR d1 T t ERIf[] theii –equity RE = value()[] RRMfand an estimate of the equity volatilityT t are known, there are two []ii+ ()[]EMft = Et /At assuming d = 1 σE ER[]if = Rmi * arketr iskp remium E ()()1 equations with two unknowns. Thisd2 system= d1 of Tequations t does not have a closed-form solution, but + d2 = d1 T t numericalER[]if routines= Rm+ cani * bearke usedtr is tokp solveremi it.um 2 2 ER[]if = Rmi * arketr iskp remium 2 At : Et + Lt μl()Mo == dridelE ratet /Ob served n 1+ EREMt 1+, ()odel E /Observed E 1 Now it is necessary to estimate the annual equitydri() ratevolatility []i . The estimation2 is based on the μl == n()1σ+E ER[]i , historicalAt=: EtE volatilityEt+/ AtLt assu measuredming ()d over1 = 1 the preceding exchange days (conventionally 260), calculated on At : Et + Lt()T = 1, 2 daily log returns. ()lnT()At= 1, + ()µ – /2 ()T–t–ln()L 2 t DD= 0.= 2 = E Et /At ()assuming ()d 1 = 1 ()IorderMo=delEE toEt t solve//ObAt served() assuthe misystem, EMtng1 the+()d ()1 methodology=odel1 E /Obt =served adopted 0. E proceeds 1Tt as follows. FirstE= A of all,d the – Le knownµT()t variablesd ER at the –current RE time RRt (namely: , , , and ) are inserted. tt()1t ()2 2 []ii= ()[]Mf2Et σE Lt μ T 2 2 ERµT t– RE RR2 ()ModelEln tAt/Ob +served µ – /2 EMt T–1t–+ln ()PDL odel = ФE()[]/ObDDii()served= E() 1[]Mf ()WithMode ()referencelE ()t /Observed() to the EM tunknown()1E=tt+ A ()() variables,odel()d1t – LeE /i.e.Ob servedthe()d 2asset E value 1 (A ) and the asset volatility (σ), DD = t we need to E1assign= () da feasible At/Et initial value. + Tt ER[]if = Rmi * arketr iskp remium 2 PD* = gEPD + 2 = ERd[] ()Atif/Et []= Rmi * arketr iskp remium These ()initialln ()At values + ()µ –are calculated/2 ()T–t– lnE1with()L the() following approximations: DDPD ==ln() ФAt() /LDD + µ() + 2 / 2 T–t DD = ()()()At : Et + Lt d1 = Tt 2 T t Tt lnPD()At* /Li,t =+ +At 0µ: +Et 1+ ()/RO 2Lt ()ELT–t ++2 ()EV 3 ()TIER1 ++4 ()LODT5 ()ENYR ++6 ()GDP i,t = ()it, it, it, it, it, it, PD* = gE()[]PD d1 T t PD = Ф()DD = E Et /At assuming ()d 1 = 1 PDd2 = d=1 Ф()TDD t () = E Et /At ()assuming ()d 1 = 1 PD*i,t =+0 1 ()LEVLit, ++2 ()OD it, 3 ()TENYRGit, ++4 ()DP it, 5 ()PVOL it, + i,t PD* =+ ROEL++d2EV= d T TIERt 1 ++LODTENYR ++GDP idri,t rate0 1 ()it, 22()1it, 3 ()it, 4 ()it,2 5 ()it, 6 ()it, i,t 2 μlPD ==* = gE PDn()1+ER[]i , AfterPD* having = gE() also[]PD inserted the ()BlackMode lEand t /ScholesObserved formulas, EMt 1 the+ () followingodel2 E target/Observed equation E has1 to 2 ()[] dri rate 2 μl == () Mo n()1de+lEER []t i/Ob, served EMt 1+ ()odel E /Observed E 1 be solvedT = 1, in order to minimize the sumPD *ofi,0t squared=+ 12percentage()LEVLit,,++ differences()OD it between34()SCDS modelit,, ++values()GDP and it 5,()PVOL it, + i t PD*i,t =+0 1 ()LEVLit, ++2 ()OD it, 3 ()TENYRGit, ++4 ()DP it, 5 ()PVOL it, + i,t 2 observedPDt = 0.* i values, t =+0 of the1 ()RO equityELit, ++andT2 =()of 1, EVassets, it, as 3shown()TIER 1below:it, ++4 ()LODTit, 5 ()ENYR it, ++6 ()GDP it, i,t PD*i,t =+0 1 ()ROEL++2 ()EV ln ()At3 () TIER + µ1 – ++/24 () ()LOT–DTt–2 ln()L 5 ()ENYR ++6 ()GDP i,t it, PD*it,()=+()lnROitAt, EL + ++µ – it/2EV, T–t–lnTIERL it, 1 ++LOitDT, ENYR ++NPLGL PD*i,0t =+12()LEVLit,,++()t OD= 0.DD it = i34,t()SCDS0 it,,1++()()()GDPi,t ()it 2 ()5,()PVOL()i,t it, +3 ()()i t i,t 4 ()i,t 5 ()i,t 6 ()i,t i,t ER – RE RR () PD[]ii* =+= ()[]LEMfVL++OD DDTENY= RGTt++DP PVOL + 2 PD*i,t =+0 1 ()LEVLit, ++2 ()OD it, 3 ()TENYRGit, ++4 ()DPTtit, 5 ()PVOL it, + i,t Accordingi, tto CAPM0 (Sharpe1 () 1963):it, ER2[]()ii – REit, = 3()()[]RRMfit, , 4 ()it, 5 ()it, i,t PD*i,t =+0 1 ()ROEL++2 ()EV 3 ()TIER1 ++4 ()LODT5 ()ENYR ++6 ()NPLGL i,t so + i,t i,t , where: i,t i,t i,t i,t ER[]if = Rmi * arketr iskp remiPDum = Ф()DD PD* =+ LEVL++OD PDSCDS = Ф()++DD GDP PVOL + R – dailyi,0t log-return 12of() Stoxx Europeit,,ER 600() Banks, = Rmit+ 34*()arketr isit,,kp remi()um it 5,()it, i t M PD*i,0t =+12()LEVLit,,++[]()ifOD it i34()SCDS it,,++()GDP it 5,()PVOL it, + i t R – daily log Euribor. f At : Et + Lt PD* = gE()[]PD PD* = gE()[]PD PD*i,t =+0 1 ()ROEL++At2 (): EtEV+ Lt 3 ()TIER1 ++4 ()LODT5 ()ENYR ++6 ()NPLGL i,t PD*i,t =+0 1 ()ROELi,t ++2 ()EV i,t 3 ()TIER1 i,t ++4 ()LODTi,t 5 ()ENYR i,t ++6 ()NPLGL i,t i,t = E Et /At ()assuming i(),td 1 = 1 i,t i,t i,t i,t i,t PD*i,t =+0 1 ()ROEL++2 ()EV 3 ()TIER1 ++4 ()LODT5 ()ENYR ++6 ()GDP i,t = E Et /At ()assuming ()d 1 it=, 1 it, it, it, it, it, 2 PD*i,t =+0 2 1 ()ROELit, ++2 ()EV it, 3 ()TIER1 it, ++4 ()LODTit, 5 ()ENYR it, ++6 ()GDP it, i,t ()ModelE t /Observed EMt 1+ ()odel E /Observed E 1 2 2 ()ModePDlE *t i,/tOb=+served0 1 EM()t LE1VL+it, ()++odel2 () ODE /Obit, served3 () TENYE 1RGit, ++4 ()DP it, 5 ()PVOL it, + i,t 2 PD*i,t =+0 1 ()LEVL++2 ()OD 3 ()TENYRG++4 ()DP 5 ()PVOL + i,t ()ln ()At + ()µ – /2 ()T–t–ln()L it, it, it, it, it, DD = ln At + µ – 2 /2 T–t–ln L Tt PD()*()i,0t =+()12()LE()VLit,,++()()OD it 34()SCDS it,,++()GDP it 5,()PVOL it, + i t DD = PD*i,0t =+12()LEVL++()OD 34()SCDS ++()GDP 5,()PVOL + i t Tt it,,it it,,it it, PD = DD Ф() PD* =+ ROEL++EV TIER1 ++LODTENYR ++NPLGL PD = i,t DD 0 1 ()i,t 2 ()i,t 3 ()i,t 4 ()i,t 5 ()i,t 6 ()i,t i,t Ф()PD*i,t =+0 1 ()ROEL++2 ()EV 3 ()TIER1 ++4 ()LODT5 ()ENYR ++6 ()NPLGL i,t PD* = gE()[]PD i,t i,t i,t i,t i,t i,t PD* = gE()[]PD

PD*i,t =+0 1 ()ROELit, ++2 ()EV it, 3 ()TIER1 it, ++4 ()LODTit, 5 ()ENYR it, ++6 ()GDP it, i,t

PD*i,t =+0 1 ()ROELit, ++2 ()EV it, 3 ()TIER1 it, ++4 ()LODTit, 5 ()ENYR it, ++6 ()GDP it, i,t

PD*i,t =+0 1 ()LEVLit, ++2 ()OD it, 3 ()TENYRGit, ++4 ()DP it, 5 ()PVOL it, + i,t

PD*i,t =+0 1 ()LEVLit, ++2 ()OD it, 3 ()TENYRGit, ++4 ()DP it, 5 ()PVOL it, + i,t

PD*i,0t =+12()LEVLit,,++()OD it 34()SCDS it,,++()GDP it 5,()PVOL it, + i t

PD*i,0t =+12()LEVLit,,++()OD it 34()SCDS it,,++()GDP it 5,()PVOL it, + i t

PD*i,t =+0 1 ()ROELi,t ++2 ()EV i,t 3 ()TIER1 i,t ++4 ()LODTi,t 5 ()ENYR i,t ++6 ()NPLGL i,t i,t

PD*i,t =+0 1 ()ROELi,t ++2 ()EV i,t 3 ()TIER1 i,t ++4 ()LODTi,t 5 ()ENYR i,t ++6 ()NPLGL i,t i,t µT()t E=tt A ()d1t – Le ()d2

E1= ()d At/Et

ln ()At /L + ()µ + 2 / 2 ()T–t d = 1 T t µT()t E=tt A ()d1t – Le ()d2 d2 = d1 T t

2 μl == dri rate n 1+ER , E1= ()()d At[]/Eti µT()t E=tt A ()d1t – Le ()d2 T = 1, ln ()At /L + ()µ + 2 / 2 ()T–t t = 0.d = E1= ()d At/Et 1 T t ER[]ii – RE = ()[]RRMf 2 d2 = d T t ln ()At /L + ()µ + / 2 ()T–t 1 d = 1 T t ER = Rmdri+ rate* arke tr iskp remi2um []ifμl == i n()1+ER[]i , d2 = d1 T t AtDo: Et TCDS+= 1, Ltspread determinants affect the probability of default?... 7 dri rate 2 t = 0. μl == n()1+ER[]i , = E Et /At ()assuming ()d 1 = 1 T = 1, ER[]ii – RE = ()[]RRMf t = 0. 2 2 ()ModelE t /Observed EMt 1+ ()odel E /Observed E 1 + ER[]if = Rmi * arketr iskp remium ER[]ii – RE = []RRMf 2 () The aforementioned equationln At is +solved µ – if /2the T–differencet–ln L betweenµT()t the estimated and the observed ()()()E= A()d –() Le d DD =At : Et + Lt tt()1t ()2 initial values of E and σ tends to zero. + t E ERTt[]if = Rmi * arketr iskp remium Now, according to Black and Scholes’ formula, it is possible to calculate and in order to obtain d1 d2 = E Et /At assuming ()d 1 = 1 PD = DD ()E1= ()d At/Et the probability of default referredФ() to the sample.At : Et + Lt At this point there are all the elements necessary to 2calculate the distance to default (DD)2 through 2 ()ModelE t /Observed EMt 1+ ()odel E /Observed E 1 the following formula:PD* = gE()[]PD = ln Et()At/ At/L assu + ()µmi +ng / 2d ()T–=t 1 d = E ()()1 1 T t 2 PD* =+ln ()AtRO +EL ()µ –++ /2 EV()T–t–ln()LTIER12 ++LODTENYR ++2 GDP i,t 0 ()1 ()()Moit, delE2 ()t /Observedit, 3 ()EMt 1+it, ()4odel() E it,/Observed5 () E it, 1 6 ()it, i,t DD = d2 = d T t 1Tt PD* =+ LEVL++OD TENYRG2 ++DP PVOL + i,t 0 1 ()μlit , == dri2 () rate it , n 13+()ER2 ,it, 4 ()it, 5 ()it, i,t PD = DD ()ln ()At + ()µ() – /2[] ()i T–t–ln()L Now we can derive the one-yearФ ()probabilityDD = of default (PD) as: T = 1, Tt PD*i,0t =+12()LEVL++()OD 34()SCDS ++()GDP 5,()PVOL + i t PD* = gE()[]PDit,,it it,,it it, tPD = 0. = Ф()DD PD*i,t =+0 1 ()ROELi,t ++2 ()EV i,t 3 ()TIER1 i,t ++4 ()LODTi,t 5 ()ENYR i,t ++6 ()NPLGL i,t i,t PD*i,t =+0 1ER()[]ROiiEL – RE++ =2 ()()EV[]RRMf3 ()TIER1 ++4 ()LODT5 ()ENYR ++6 ()GDP i,t The estimated probabilities of default arePD shown* it=, gEbelow()[]PD in Tableit, 1 and Figureit, 1. it, it, it, + PD*i,t =+0 1ER()[]LEifVL =it, Rm++2 ()i OD* arkeit, tr 3is()TENYkp remiRGumit, ++4 ()DP it, 5 ()PVOL it, + i,t PD*i,t =+0 1 ()ROEL++2 ()EV 3 ()TIER1 ++4 ()LODT5 ()ENYR ++6 ()GDP i,t 3.3 The regression model it, it, it, it, it, it,

PD*i,0t =+12At()LE: VLEt +it,, ++Lt ()OD it 34()SCDS it,,++()GDP it 5,()PVOL it, + i t PD*i,t =+0 1 ()LEVL++2 ()OD 3 ()TENYRG++4 ()DP 5 ()PVOL + i,t In this section there is an inferential analysis based on panel it, generalized itlinear, models, itwhere, it, it, = E Et /At ()assuming ()d 1 = 1 the dependent variable is madePD* byi,t =+ the0 probability1 ()ROEL iof,t ++default2 ()EV beforei,t estimated.3 ()TIER1 i,t ++4 ()LODTi,t 5 ()ENYR i,t ++6 ()NPLGL i,t i,t PD*i,0t =+12()LEVLit,,++()OD it 34()SCDS it,,++()GDP it 5,()PVOL it, + i t Since the latter is a continuous variable delimited among the interval2 [0; 1], we adopt the Tobit 2 ModelE /Observed EM1+ odel /Observed 1 model. ()t t ()E E PD*i,t =+0 1 ()ROEL++2 ()EV 3 ()TIER1 ++4 ()LODT5 ()ENYR ++6 ()NPLGL i,t Random method is used since, as demonstrated by literature (Greenei,t 2002; Baltagii,t 2000; Maddalai,t i,t i,t i,t 2 1987), random effects Tobit regressions for thin samples()ln ()At give + () moreµ – robust/2 ()T– estimationst–ln()L than fixed effects DD = regressions. Tt In particular, PD* indicates the latent dependent variable in order to calculate the Tobit linear regression. Specifically: PD = Ф()DD

PD* = gE()[]PD

PD* =+ ROEL3 ++EV TIER1 ++LODTENYR ++GDP where g() represents the link function for a Tobiti,t transformation.0 1 ()it, 2 ()it, 3 ()it, 4 ()it, 5 ()it, 6 ()it, i,t

The independent variables, listed below,PD *arei,t =+ balance0 1 ()sheetLEVL itratios,, ++2 ()macroeconomicOD it, 3 ()TENY andRG marketit, ++4 () DP it, 5 ()PVOL it, + i,t variables.

ROE – return on equity (profitability PDratio),*i,0t =+12()LEVLit,,++()OD it 34()SCDS it,,++()GDP it 5,()PVOL it, + i t LEV – leverage ratio (capital ratio),

TIER1 – Tier 1 ratio (capital ratio), PD*i,t =+0 1 ()ROELi,t ++2 ()EV i,t 3 ()TIER1 i,t ++4 ()LODTi,t 5 ()ENYR i,t ++6 ()NPLGL i,t i,t LOD – loans over deposits (liquidity ratio),

3 The real dependent PD variable derives from the inverse of the link function g(). µT()t E=tt A ()d1t – Le ()d2

E1= ()d At/Et

ln ()At /L + ()µ + 2 / 2 ()T–t d = 1 T t d2 = d1 T t µT()t E=tt A ()d1t – Le ()d2 dri rate 2 μl == n()1+ER[]i , E= A d – Le µT()t d T tt= 1, E1()= 1t()d At/Et ()2 t = 0. 2 ln ()E1At= /L () +d µ At + /Et / 2 ()T–t = () ERd1 – RE RR []ii= ()T[] Mft ln ()At /L + ()µ + 2 / 2 ()T–t d12 = d T+ t ER[]if 1= Rmi * arketr iskp remium TµT ()tt E=tt A ()d1t – Le ()d2 dri rate 2 μl == n()1+ER[]i , Atd2 =: Etd1 + Lt T t T = 1, driE1= rate () d At/Et 2 μl == n 1+ER[]i , = E Et /At assumi()ng ()d 1 = 1 t = 0. () T = 1, 2 ln ()At /L + µ + / 22 ()T–t 2 = () ()ERdMo1[]deii lE– tRE/ Ob= served()[]RR EMMft 1+ ()odel E /Observed E 1 t = 0. T t 8 A. Ortolano, E. Angelini 2 ERd[]=ii d =– RERm =T+ t* []arkeRRMftr iskp remium []2 if()1ln ()At +i ()µ – /2 ()T–t–ln()L DD = == dri rate +Tt 2, μl= + n()1 ER[]i ERAt[]:if GDPEt + RmLt– grossi * domesticarketr is productkp remi umannual growth, TPD= 1,TENYR= Ф() –DD ten year government bond yield. At=: EtE Et+ /LtAt ()assuming ()d 1 = 1 t = 0.Below, the equation for the overall period of analysis 2006–2016 is shown: PD* = gEPD ()[] 2 2 ()Mo=deElEEt t/At/Ob()assuservedming EMt 1()d 1+ =()1 odel E /Observed E 1 ER[]ii – RE = ()[]RRMf PD* =+ ROEL++EV TIER1 ++LODTENYR ++GDP i,t 0 1 ()it, 22 ()it, 3 ()it, 4 ()2 it, 5 ()it, 6 ()it, i,t 2 ()ModelEln t At/Ob+ served+ µ – EMt/2 1 T–+t– ()lnodelL E /Observed E 1 ER(Model[]if ()= 1) ()Rmi ()* arketr ()iskp remi()um DDPD*= =+ LEVL++OD TENYRG++DP PVOL + i,t 0 1 ()Ttit, 2 ()it, 3 ()it, 4 ()it, 5 ()it, i,t 2 At : InEt() lnorder+ ()LtAt to + ()analyseµ – /2 the ()T– impactt–ln() Lof the Eurozone crisis on the probability of default of banks, DDPD* == =+ Ф DD LEVL++OD SCDS ++GDP PVOL + we studyi,0t the() period12() 2009–2012,Ttit,,() with ita focus34() on macroeconomicit,,() andit market5,() variables.it, i tIn this context, = Et /At assuming d = 1 price Evolatility() (PVOL) is introduced,()1 while the impact of the debt crisis is controlled first through the PD* = gEPD PD *i=,t =+Ф()0 ()DD[]1 ()ROEL++2 ()EV 3 ()TIER1 ++4 ()LODT5 ()ENYR ++6 ()NPLGL i,t ten year government bondi,t yield2 andi,t then with thei,t insertion2 ofi, t a new variable:i,t the sovereign iCDS,t ()spreadModelE (SCDS) t /Ob4served of each EM tcountry1+ of() theodel sample. E /Ob5 served E 1 PDPD** =+= gEPDROEL++EV TIER1 ++LODTENYR ++GDP Belowi,t 0the() []two1 () relatedit, equations2 () itare, shown:3 ()it, 4 ()it, 5 ()it, 6 ()it, i,t ()ln ()At + ()µ – 2 /2 ()T–t–ln()L DDPD*=i,t =+0 1 ()LEROVLEL++22 ()()ODEV 3 ()TENYTIER1RG++++4 ()4 LO()DPDT5 ()5 ()ENPVOLYR +++ 6i,()t GDP i,t Ttitit,, it, it, it, it, it, itit,, it, (Model 2a) PD* =+ LEVL++OD TENYSCDSRG++++GDPDP PVOLPVOL ++ PD ii=,0,tt Ф()0 DD121 ()()itit,,, 2 ()itit, 343 ()it,,it, 4()()itit, 5,5()()it, it, i ti,t

PDPD**ii,0,tt =+= gE0 ()[]121PD()LEROVLELiti,,,t ++++2 ()()ODEV iti,t 343 ()TIERSCDS1 iit,,,t ++++4 ()()LOGDPDTiit,t 55,()()PVOLENYR it,i,t +++i6t ()NPLGL i,t i,t (Model 2b) PD* =+ ROEL++EV TIER1 ++LODTENYR ++NPLGL PD*i,t =+0 1 ()ROELiit,t ++2 ()EV iit,,t 3 ()TIER1 iit,,t ++44 ()LODTiit,,t 55 ()()ENYR iit,,t ++66 ()()GDP it, i,t i,t i,t Finally, a regression for the sub-period 2013–2016, the NPL crisis years, is implemented with deeperPD*i,t =+attention0 1 () toLE theVL itasset, ++ 2quality()OD ofit, banks.3 ()TENY Consequently,RGit, ++4 () GDPDP isit, replaced5 ()PVOL withit ,a +newi,t balance sheet variable: non-performing loans over gross loans ratio (NPLGL).

PD*Thei,0t =+ related12 equation()LEVLit,, ++is the() following:OD it 34()SCDS it,,++()GDP it 5,()PVOL it, + i t

PD*i,t =+0 1 ()ROELi,t ++2 ()EV i,t 3 ()TIER1 i,t ++4 ()LODTi,t 5 ()ENYR i,t ++6 ()NPLGL i,t i,t (Model 3)

4 Results

4.1 The estimated probabilities of default

The estimated yearly probabilities of default are reported in Table 1 and shown graphically in Figure 1. The overall mean is 6.6% (Table 5a), but during the sub-periods, as could be expected, the mean values are higher, i.e. 7.6% and 8.2% respectively (Tables 6a and 7a). As concerns the variability of our results, we have shown the annual standard deviations (Table 1). In particular, we note the lowest values

4 In order to have homogeneity for the unit of measurement, the original SCDS spreads, expressed in basis points, are converted into percentage points. 5 The adoption of two distinct models is also statistically justified by the very high correlation between TENYR and SCDS covariates (+87%, see Table 9). Do CDS spread determinants affect the probability of default?... 9

before the onset of the financial and sovereign crises, namely 2.4% and 3%, respectively, for 2006 and 2007. Starting from 2008, market volatility is reflected in the increase in the variability of our results. In particular, during the sub-period 2009–2012, the standard deviation reaches the values 17.4% and 17.8%, respectively, in 2009 and 2012: the lower values recorded in 2010 and 2011 could be explained by the government bailouts of banks; notwithstanding this, the successive regrowth of the standard deviation might be due to the “sovereign-bank risk nexus” (Fratzscher, Rieth 2019) of the European Union’s banking sector. Moreover, during the sub-period 2013–2016, the additional instability created by the NPL crisis emerges in the highest values of the variability of our estimations, with the greatest standard deviation equal to 21%, in 2015. The standard deviation of the estimated variable shows the variegated situation of credit risk in the EU: in fact, our results testify to higher values of default probability for peripheral European banks than core ones. Nevertheless, in our sample the maximum estimated probability of default (94.25%) concerns , a Belgian bank: we deem this observation unit an outlier.

4.2 The relation between the estimated probability of default and CDS determinants

In this section we illustrate the results of the regression analysis. All the outputs are shown in tables reported. Both parameters for latent (PD* ) and real (PD) probability of default are shown. Model 1 (Table 2) deals with the period as a whole. The log-likelihood and the AIC are the best with respect to other experimented models (respectively 334.78 and -651.55, Table 11).6 Each variable of the regression is significant, with the exception of ROE. All the signs are respected; even if the positive sign of Tier 1 ratio is questionable, this is consistent with the Pearson correlation sign (+10%, Table 8). Moreover, high levels of this ratio could mislead the observants from potential criticalities of banks, in terms of credit risk (Abou-El-Sood 2016). In particular, there are reasonable positive signs for leverage, loans over deposits and ten year government bond yields, in fact, theoretically with respect to: LEV – the higher the liabilities of the company, the higher the probability of default, LOD – the higher the ratio, the lower the liquidity of bank, so the higher its credit risk, TENYR – the higher the government bond yields, the higher the perception of sovereign risk, therefore the higher the growth of banks’ credit risk. The expected negative sign dealing with GDP is respected: it is intuitive that better economic conditions represent a good framework to lessen banking sector credit risk caused by the shortage of customers’ loans repayment (Ghyasi 2016). We also note that the highest correlation between the probability of default and the adopted covariates concern macroeconomic variables (+ 35% for TENYR and -24% for GDP, Table 8): the result confirms the relevance of these factors for banking credit risk assessment over the period analysed, as stated by recent research (Jabra, Mighri, Mansouri 2017).

6 Even if Model 1a reports a slightly better margin for the Akaike test (-1.9), the best log-lik concerns Model 1; furthermore, Model 1a has shown important criticalities in terms of multicollinearity. Moreover, we wanted to test the significance of a non-trivial ratio, like ROE. 10 A. Ortolano, E. Angelini

As concerns the analysis of the period 2009–2012, we observe the results referred to by Model 2a and Model 2b (Tables 3a and 3b). These models provide the best results in terms of log-likelihood and Akaike test compared to other ones (Table 12). In particular, Model 2b seems to be even better than Model 2a (the referred values are respectively 131.65 and -247.30). As already mentioned, in this period of observation there is more focus on the covariates most representative of the systemic risk, such as TENYR, SCDS spread and PVOL (Tamakoshi, Hamori 2013). These variables are the most correlated with the probability of default (respectively 44%, 42% and 50%, Table 9). The results of the two regressions confirm the expected signs. In particular the positive sign for the government bonds, already discussed, is interesting as well as for: – PVOL: the higher the stock volatility, the higher the credit risk transmitted by the market to banks; – SCDS: the higher the spread, the higher the market perception of sovereign risk, so the higher the transfer of riskiness to the banking sector. In particular, the sovereign CDS spread variable is the most significant in the analysis for this sub- -period: as demonstrated (Avino, Cotter 2014) during the Eurozone debt crisis, the SCDS spread has a leading role in the discovery of banking credit risk. Finally, as concerns Model 3 (Table 4), we focus our attention on the specific conditions of banks, with more regard to the balance sheet ratios and on the issue of NPLs. In particular, GDP is replaced with the non-performing loans on gross loans ratio. This choice is justified by the fact that during the period analysed there is greater attention on the asset quality of banks. Meanwhile, the observation of sovereign risk and of the general level of liquidity is still relevant; in this sense we believe that it is important to also insert the TENYR variable. Consequently, this model shows better results in terms of log-lik and AIC (respectively 126.33 and -234.65) compared to Model 3a (Table 13).7 All the signs presented in the correlation matrix (Table 10) are confirmed. In particular, the new covariate is positively correlated with the probability of default by 38%: obviously the higher the percentage of NPL, the higher the riskiness of the bank. Specifically, the regression has shown a significant output for this variable. We also note the very high significance of the leverage ratio. These results confirm the negative relation between the latter and the NPL ratio (Kashif et al. 2016); furthermore, we show the necessity to consider the quality of loans assets under a systemic point of view, as the variable is correlated with macroeconomic variables (Gila-Gourgoura, Nikolaidou 2017; Serwa 2016), like interest rates (Table 10).

5 Conclusions

This paper has investigated credit risk in the EU banking sector. To this purpose, we have inferred probability of banks’ default on CDS spread determinants through a two-step analysis: we have first estimated the dependent variable and then implemented Tobit panel regressions.

7 Even if Model 1 shows better results in terms of log-likelihood and Akaike test in relation to Model 3, it is not consistent with the object of research for the period 2013–2016 and it is also biased by multicollinearity among the covariates. Do CDS spread determinants affect the probability of default?... 11

The probabilities of default have been estimated through a structural model: this choice appears consistent with the aim of studying credit risk both from the perspectives of firms and the market. In the regression analysis we intended to understand both the main variables affecting the probability of default over time and whether they are the same that influence the CDS spread: in this way, we wanted to see if the latter can still be considered a good indicator of banking credit risk. Specifically, the estimation of the probability of default has shown growing values over the years, with a particular increase during the periods of crisis. Overall, as concerns the inferential analysis, we observed the influence of some variables related to CAMELS factors (Chodnicka-Jaworska, Jaworski 2017) and, analogously to recent CDS spread literature, we found a growing impact of macroeconomic and market variables during times of distress (e.g. Annaert et al. 2013). In particular, during periods of crises, in terms of sovereign debt and NPLs respectively, the influence of country credit risk and asset quality problems appears significant. The attention to these two aspects has been highlighted by the analysis of the referred periods (2009–2012 and 2013–2016 respectively), through the insertion of two explanatory variables: sovereign CDS spread variable (SCDS) and non-performing loans over equity (NPLGL). The choice of the SCDS variable is due to the linkage of macroeconomic and policy uncertainty to the banking sector: as stated by academics, this is especially true for countries affected by the sovereign debt crisis (Drago, Di Tommaso, Thornton 2017; Yu 2017). As concerns the study of the period 2013–2016, the adoption of NPLGL allows to observe the impact of the relation between asset quality and the capital structure of banks. This fact is particularly interesting since, as demonstrated (Bonaccorsi di Patti et al. 2014), in time of distress a high level of leverage ratio reduces banks’ resilience: the worsening of assets due to macroeconomic factors becomes more destabilising if the level of equity is too low with respect to debt. This issue is also pivotal from an economic point of view, as credit risk due to NPLs, could reduce the lending activity of banks (Cucinelli 2015). Definitively, we deem that the credit default swap price can still be considered a good indicator of banks’ credit risk, despite the volatility caused by the speculative use of this derivative. As shown throughout the paper, its determinants have had an analogous impact on the default probability. As concerns the perspectives for new research, the insight into banking probability of default could be proceeded by analysing credit risk from a systemic perspective (Giglio, Kelly, Pruitt 2016; Black et al. 2016), with a special focus on asset quality (Bottazzi, De Sanctis, Vanni 2016). In this context we believe it would be interesting to put more attention on the study of NPLs, finding out their main determinants and the possible strategies to reduce banking credit risk (Bruno, Iacoviello, Lazzini 2015). Moreover, as the European banking sector is characterized by linkages in terms of both sovereign and financial exposures, the research may be improved with other methodologies, such as network analysis (Westphal 2015). 12 A. Ortolano, E. Angelini

References

Abad P., Benito S. (2013), A detailed comparison of value at risk estimates, Mathematics and Computers in Simulation, 94, 258–276. Abou-El-Sood H. (2016), Are regulatory capital adequacy ratios good indicators of ? Evidence from US banks, International Review of Financial Analysis, 48(C), 292–302. Acharya V.V., Drechsler I., Schnabl P. (2011), A Pyrrhic victory? Bank bailouts and sovereign credit risk, Working Paper, 17136, NBER. Alexandre H., Guillemin F., Refait-Alexandre C. (2015), Disclosure, banks CDS spreads and the European sovereign crisis, Working Paper, 10, CRESE. Alter A., Schüler Y.S. (2012), Credit spread interdependencies of European states and banks during the financial crisis, Journal of Banking and Finance, 36(12), 3444–3468. Altman E. (1968), Financial ratios, discriminant analysis and the prediction of corporate bankruptcy, Journal of Finance, 23, 589–609. Altman E. (1993), Corporate Financial Distress and Bankruptcy, John Wiley & Sons. Altman E. (2013), Predicting financial distress of companies: revisiting the Z-Score and ZETA models, Handbook of Research Methods and Applications in Empirical Finance. Annaert J., De Ceuster M., Van Roy P., Vespro C. (2013), What determines area bank CDS spreads?, Journal of International Money and Finance, 32(C), 444–461. Avino D., Cotter J. (2014), Sovereign and bank CDS spreads: two sides of the same coin?, Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions & Money, 32(C), 72–85. Baltagi B. (2000), Econometric Analysis of Panel Data, John Wiley and Sons. Baudino P., Orlandi J., Zamil R. (2018), The identification and measurement of non-performing assets: a cross-country comparison, FSI Insights on Policy Implementation, 7, Bank for International Settlement. Benbouzid N., Leonida L., Mallick S.K. (2018), The non-monotonic impact of bank size on their default swap spreads: cross-country evidence, International Review of Financial Analysis, 55, 226–240. Berndt A., Obreja I. (2010), Decomposing European CDS returns, Review of Finance, 14(2), 89–233. Beyer A., Coeuré B., Mendicino C. (2017), Foreword – the crisis, ten years after: lessons learnt for monetary and financial research, Economie et Statistique / Economics and Statistics, 494–496, 45–64. Black F., Scholes M. (1973), The pricing of options and corporate liabilities, The Journal of Political Economy, 81(3), 637–654. Black L., Correa R., Huang X., Zhou H. (2016), The systemic risk of European banks during the financial and sovereign debt crises, Journal of Banking & Finance, 63(C), 107–125. Blanc-Brude F., Hasan M. (2016), A structural model of credit risk for illiquid debt, The Journal of Fixed Income, 26(1), 6–19. Blanco R., Brennan S., Marsh I.W. (2005), An empirical analysis of the dynamic relation between investment–grade bonds and credit default swaps, The Journal of Finance, 60(5), 2255–2281. Bonaccorsi di Patti E., D’Ignazio A., Gallo M., Micucci G. (2014), The role of leverage in firm solvency: evidence from bank loans, Occasional Paper, 244, Bank of Italy. Bottazzi G., De Sanctis A., Vanni F. (2016), Non-performing loans, systemic risk and resilience in financial networks, LEM Working Paper Series, 08, Laboratory of Economics and Management. Do CDS spread determinants affect the probability of default?... 13

Bruno E., Iacoviello G., Lazzini A. (2015), On the possible tools for the prevention of non-performing loans. A case study of an Italian bank, Corporate Ownership & Control, 12(3), 133–145. Calice G., Ioannidis C., Williams J. (2011), Credit derivatives and the default risk of large complex financial institutions, Working Paper, 3583, School of Management, University of Bath. Caruana J., Avdjiev S. (2012), Sovereign creditworthiness and financial stability: an international perspective, Financial Stability Review, 16, Banque de France. Changqing L., Yanlin L., Menghezen L. (2015), Credit portfolio risk evaluation based on the pair copula VaR models, Journal of Finance and Economics, 3(1), 15–30. Chiaramonte L., Casu B. (2013), The determinants of bank CDS spreads: evidence from the financial crisis, The European Journal of Finance, 19(9), 861–887. Chodnicka-Jaworska P., Jaworski P. (2017), Fundamental determinants of credit default risk for European and American banks, Journal of International Studies, 10(3), 51–63. Coudert V., Gex M. (2010), The credit default swap market and the settlement of large defaults, Working Paper, 2010-17, CEPII Research Center. Cucinelli D. (2015), The impact of non-performing loans on bank lending behavior: evidence from the Italian banking sector, Eurasian Journal of Business and Economics, 16(8), 59–71. Da Z., Gao P. (2010), Clientele change, liquidity shock, and the return of financially distressed stocks, Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 45(1), 27–48. Demirguc-Kunt A., Detragiache E., Merrouche O. (2010), Bank capital: lessons from the financial crisis, IMF Working Paper, WP/10/286. De Vincentiis P. (2014), Lo status di banca sistemica gioca un ruolo significativo? Una verifica empirica sui Cds delle maggiori banche europee, Bancaria Special Issue, 12, 12–27. Drago D., Di Tommaso C., Thornton J. (2017), What determines bank CDS spreads? Evidence from European and US banks, Finance Research Letters, 22(C), 140–145. Düllmann K., Sosinska A. (2007), Credit default swap prices as risk indicators of listed German banks, Financial Markets and Portfolio Management, 21(3), 269–292. EBA (2017), Guidelines on PD estimation, LGD estimation and the treatment of defaulted exposures, EBA/GL/2017/16, European Banking Authority. Ejsing J., Lemke W. (2011), The Janus-headed salvation: sovereign and bank credit risk premia during 2008–2009, Economics Letters, 110(1), 28–31. Elizondo Flores J.A. et al. (2010), Regulatory use of system-wide estimations of PD, LGD and EAD, FSI Award 2010 Winning Paper, Bank for International Settlements. Ericsson J., Jacobs K., Oviedo R.A. (2009), The determinants of credit default swap premia, Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 44(1), 109–132. Erlenmaier U., Gersbach H. (2014), Default correlation in the Merton model, Review of Finance, 18, 1775–1809. Finnerty J.D., Miller C.D., Chen R. (2013), The impact of credit rating announcements on credit default swap spreads, Journal of Banking & Finance, 37(6), 2011–2030. Fratzscher M., Rieth M. (2019), Monetary policy, bank bailouts and the sovereign-bank risk nexus in the euro area, Review of Finance, 23(4), 745–775. Ghyasi A. (2016), Effect of macroeconomic factors on credit risk of banks in developed and developing countries: dynamic panel method, International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, 6(4), 937–1944. 14 A. Ortolano, E. Angelini

Giglio S., Kelly B., Pruitt S. (2016), Systemic risk and the macroeconomy: an empirical evaluation, Journal of Financial Economics, 119(3), 457–471. Gila-Gourgoura E., Nikolaidou E. (2017), Credit risk determinants in the vulnerable economies of Europe: evidence from the Spanish banking system, International Journal of Business and Economic Sciences Applied Research, 10(1), 60–71. Gourinchas P.O., Martin P., Messer T. (2018), The economics of sovereign debt, bailouts and the Eurozone crisis, mimeo, CEPR. Greene W.H. (2002), The behavior of the fixed effects estimator in nonlinear models, Working Papers, EC-02-05, Stern School of Business, New York University. Jabra W.B., Mighri Z., Mansouri F. (2017), Determinants of European bank risk during financial crisis, Cogent Economics & Finance, 5(1). Kalemli-Ozcan S., Soresen B., Yesiltas S. (2011), Leverage across firms, banks and countries, Working Paper, 17354, National Bureau of Economic Research. Kashif M. et al. (2016), Loan growth and bank solvency: evidence from the Pakistani banking sector, Financial Innovation, 22(2). Kealhofer S. (1993), Portfolio Management of Default Risk, KMV Corporation. Hewavitharana D., Rahmqvist J. (2011), Determinants of Credit Default Swap Spreads: a Regime-shifting Approach, Lund University. Hull J., Predescu M., White A. (2004), The relationship between credit default swap spreads, bond yields, and credit rating announcements, Journal of Banking & Finance, 28(11), 2789–2811. Li M.C., Fu X. (2017), Determinants of credit default swap spreads: a four-market panel data analysis, Journal of Finance and Economics, 5(1), 9–31. Li J., Zinna G. (2014), How much of bank credit risk is sovereign risk? Evidence from the Eurozone, Working Paper, 990, Bank of Italy. Maddala G. (1987), Limited dependent variable models using panel data, Journal of Human Resources, 22, 307–338. Merton R.C. (1974), On the pricing of corporate debt: the risk structure of interest rates, Journal of Finance, 29(2), 449–470. McQuown J.A. (1993), Market vs. Accounting Based Measures of Default Risk, KMV Corporation. Nagel S., Purnanandam A. (2019), Bank risk dynamics and distance to default, Working Paper, CESifo Working Paper Series, 7637, CESifo Group. Norden L., Weber M. (2009), The co-movement of credit default swap, bond and stock markets: an empirical analysis, European Financial Management, 15(3), 529–562. Roman A., Bilan I. (2012), The euro area sovereign debt crisis and the role of ECB’s monetary policy, Procedia Economics and Finance, 3, 763–768. Samaniego-Medina et al. (2016), Determinants of bank CDS spreads in Europe, Journal of Economics and Business, 86, 1–15. Serwa D. (2016), Using nonperforming loan ratios to compute loan default rates with evidence from European banking sectors, Econometric Research in Finance, 1, 47–65. Sharpe W.F. (1963), A simplified model for portfolio analysis, Management Science, 9(2), 277–293. Switzer L.N., Tu Q., Wang J. (2018), Corporate governance and default risk in financial firms over the post-financial crisis period: international evidence, Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions & Money, 52, 196–210. Do CDS spread determinants affect the probability of default?... 15

Tamakoshi G., Hamori S. (2013), Volatility and mean spillovers between sovereign and banking sector CDS markets: a note on the European sovereign debt crisis, Applied Economics Letters, 20(3), 262–266. Vasicek O.A. (1984), The Philosophy of Credit Valuation: the Credit Valuation Model, KMV Corporation. Vassalou M., Xing Y. (2004), Default risk in equity returns, Journal of Finance, 59, 831–868. Westphal A. (2015), Systemic risk in the European Union: a network approach to banks’ sovereign debt exposures, International Journal of Financial Studies, 3(3), 244–279. Yu S. (2017), Sovereign and bank interdependencies – evidence from the CDS market, Research in International Business and Finance, 39, 68–84. 16 A. Ortolano, E. Angelini

Appendix

Table 1 Estimated 1-year probabilities of default (%)

Coun- Bank 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 try Erste Bank AT 0.0013 0.0214 11.3802 12.5521 0.6499 2.5887 1.2421 0.1496 0.3369 0.0571 1.2100 Raiffeisein AT 0.1388 0.1378 19.9823 8.7844 1.6466 3.8253 1.7096 0.0254 1.2341 1.8268 0.3414 Dexia BE 0.0000 0.0359 22.8580 17.8459 1.0382 19.6051 81.8931 92.1384 94.2523 82.6617 78.5243 Kbc BE 0.0001 0.0005 17.8605 42.9350 1.7806 9.2255 5.4217 0.0832 0.0194 0.0020 1.4266 Komercni CZ 0.0010 0.0002 4.6179 1.5108 0.0190 0.0827 0.0014 0.0006 0.0000 0.0001 0.0035 DE 0.0000 0.0008 10.9768 8.1137 0.1130 2.5760 0.4595 0.0031 0.0017 0.0609 5.0432 DE 0.0201 0.0505 16.9895 15.3462 0.0484 7.0341 3.0058 1.4104 0.0687 0.0117 2.6059 Oldenburgische DE 0.0004 0.0000 0.9107 0.0000 0.0000 0.2789 5.2301 1.2911 0.5066 0.3310 4.1039 Umweltbank DE 0.3074 0.0099 0.5247 0.2185 0.0067 0.4536 0.0863 0.0167 0.6941 0.0408 1.1443 DK 0.0000 0.0001 4.3222 2.9154 0.1920 1.0602 0.0799 0.0029 0.0000 0.0007 0.4136 DK 0.0013 0.0038 4.3558 3.8345 0.2671 5.6768 0.0412 0.0002 0.0009 0.0001 0.5589 Alandsbanken FI 0.1281 1.7088 1.2778 0.9125 0.6126 2.3333 2.8642 2.8256 0.7601 0.7533 0.4897 Bnp Paribas FR 0.0001 0.0063 7.0703 6.8205 0.8275 6.0508 0.8893 0.0111 0.0011 0.0181 1.7191 FR 0.0938 0.6078 21.0389 19.0177 1.0917 4.1189 1.8163 0.0883 0.0224 0.0780 2.8843 Credit Agricole FR 0.0016 0.0025 13.6560 5.0653 1.5305 6.3699 3.0810 0.1030 0.0300 0.0814 2.0650 Societe FR 0.0002 0.0213 11.8453 5.6002 2.3322 10.5916 3.1705 0.1846 0.0241 0.0415 3.5456 Generale GR 0.0032 0.0026 3.8666 5.5396 8.2749 27.4157 44.2052 16.5831 1.4238 57.9601 19.7663

Eurobank GR 0.0019 0.0019 2.9150 6.8875 10.9372 29.1574 52.1272 67.2399 8.0791 63.6779 34.6116 Ergasias

National Bank GR 0.0476 0.0012 9.9012 6.2688 5.7469 20.3922 29.4034 31.1368 5.5515 69.0042 30.3454 of Greece

Piraeus Bank GR 0.0005 0.0035 0.0445 5.3925 5.3566 6.1934 39.9120 32.1413 32.7963 24.6892 77.5244 Allied Irish IE 0.0003 0.0907 23.3827 76.5610 29.9724 35.5197 10.1566 7.1893 5.9234 10.5089 12.2838 Bank IE 0.0000 0.1237 43.5979 76.4810 25.7042 23.2742 3.6090 0.6083 0.7127 0.1255 7.0524 IT 0.0000 0.0043 9.7546 6.7776 0.9536 7.8806 7.6572 0.2479 0.1997 0.1787 10.4555 IT 0.0001 0.0000 4.7223 2.5188 0.8273 8.2518 2.4263 0.1779 0.1300 0.0826 5.0267 Mps IT 0.0000 0.0000 0.8089 0.3142 0.1174 3.4115 9.5726 2.7722 16.0134 4.7379 24.9590 Bpm IT 0.0001 0.0111 4.9237 8.1553 0.4828 3.7701 5.8116 1.3121 3.0206 0.4914 17.5933 Mediobanca IT 0.0000 0.0000 0.0382 0.2749 0.1107 0.5897 1.5797 0.4650 0.1073 0.0301 4.5596 Ubi IT 0.0000 0.0000 0.3674 1.1081 0.0681 3.2483 2.4953 0.4623 0.7346 0.2657 6.8629 Do CDS spread determinants affect the probability of default?... 17

Coun- Bank 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 try

Van Lanschot NL 0.0116 0.0000 0.0077 0.0057 0.0013 0.0035 0.0128 0.1146 0.0036 0.0179 0.5353 Kempen

Bank Pekao PL 0.0330 0.0129 2.5547 3.1983 0.0011 0.1538 0.0016 0.0001 0.0002 0.0006 0.0045 Banco Comercial PT 0.0000 0.0714 1.2391 0.2799 0.3616 3.1291 4.7774 2.2977 6.9877 3.3889 10.7004 Portugues Banco Bpi PT 0.0033 0.0001 2.4482 0.1603 0.3258 1.9702 1.2842 0.7268 1.1137 3.3594 1.1133 Vseobecna SK 0.0000 0.0000 0.0523 1.9835 4.4289 0.6791 1.9801 1.6934 5.2014 1.5411 3.7892 Uverova Banca SE 0.0013 0.0875 12.0110 14.6453 0.1128 0.8142 0.0015 0.0012 0.0000 0.0002 0.3509 SE 0.0010 0.0001 3.2560 5.0227 0.0207 0.3209 0.0024 0.0000 0.0000 0.0049 0.4994 Halendsbanken SE 0.0007 0.0002 2.6635 3.0017 0.0005 0.0302 0.0002 0.0000 0.0000 0.0016 0.4760 SP 15.2395 19.1470 34.9278 29.7639 30.0656 31.2084 42.7197 36.7448 33.1377 34.2728 52.2021 Banco SP 0.0000 0.0000 3.4814 1.2493 1.1721 0.4316 0.3900 0.0037 0.0002 0.1130 3.0060 Santander SP 0.0002 0.0910 2.5758 0.3707 0.8126 0.7238 1.5614 0.3040 0.0293 0.0041 0.4297 Bbv Argentaria SP 0.0000 0.0000 2.4481 0.8780 0.9079 0.9231 0.5487 0.0034 0.0017 0.0049 2.0035 Std. dev. 2.4 3 10 17.4 7.5 9.6 17.8 19 16 21 19 18 A. Ortolano, E. Angelini

Table 2 Regression results: 2006–2016

Variables PD* (Tobit) t-value PD Pr(>|t|)

-1.769e-01 Intercept -5.708 -1.831869e-01 1.14e-08 *** (3.099e-02) -7.779e- 06 ROE -0.311 -3.348211e-05 0.755614 (2.499e-05) 1.535e-05 LEV 2.797 2.708538e-05 0.005158 ** (5.490e-06) 1.002e-02 TIER1 6.416 9.304568e-03 1.39e-10 *** (1.561e-03) 3.299e-04 LOD 4.162 2.587386e-04 3.16e-05 *** (7.927e- 05) 1.735e-02 TENYR 6.616 2.165324e-02 3.68e-11 *** (2.623e-03) -5.767e-03 GDP -3.318 -3.366672e-03 0.000906 *** (1.738e-03) LogLik 334.775 AIC -651.5499

Notes: Standard errors are reported between parentheses. Significance codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1.

Do CDS spread determinants affect the probability of default?... 19

Table 3a Regression results: 2009–2012

Variables PD* (Tobit) t-value PD Pr(>|t|)

-1.763e-01 Intercept -3.525 -1.778909e-01 0.000424 *** (5.002e-02) 9.942e-06 LEV 1.641 7.825915e- 06 0.100710 (6.057e-06) 3.729e-04 LOD 2.185 2.106018e-04 0.028915 * (1.707e-04) 1.146e-02 TENYR 3.187 8.660292e-03 0.001438 ** (3.596e-03) -7.088e- 03 GDP -2.673 -4.873829e-03 0.007518 ** (2.652e-03) 3.828e-03 PVOL 2.218 5.307751e-03 0.026566 * (1.726e-03) LogLik 126.62 AIC -237.24

Notes: Standard errors are reported between parentheses. Significance codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1. 20 A. Ortolano, E. Angelini

Table 3b Regression results: 2009–2012

Variables PD*(Tobit) t-value PD Pr(>|t|)

-1.330e-01 Intercept -2.549 -1.498391e-01 0.0108 * (5.219e-02) 1.400e-05 LEV 2.385 1.108484e-05 0.0171 * (5.870e-06) 3.886e-04 LOD 2.262 1.974230e-04 0.0237 * (1.718e-04) 8.289e-04 SOVCDS 4.703 6.327701e-04 2.57e-06 *** (1.763e-04) -7.784e- 03 GDP -3.156 -5.325199e-03 0.0016 ** (2.467e-03) 3.717e-03 PVOL 2.295 5.503724e-03 0.0217 * (1.620e-03) LogLik 131.65 AIC -247.30

Notes: Standard errors are reported between parentheses. Significance codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1. Do CDS spread determinants affect the probability of default?... 21

Table 4 Regression results: 2013–2016

Variables PD*(Tobit) t-value PD Pr(>|t|)

-1.894e-01 Intercept -3.132 -0.1727660220 0.001735 ** ( 6.046e-02) -9.980e-04 ROE -2.962 -0.0006404325 0.003061 ** (3.370e-04) 1.138e-04 LEV 3.487 0.0002077859 0.000488 *** (3.264e-05) 7.213e-03 TIER1 1.973 0.0041359406 0.048508 * (3.656e-03) 1.844e-04 LOD 0.883 -0.0001716661 0.377120 (2.088e-04) 1.147e-02 TENYR 1.816 0.0270416300 0.069365. (6.315e-03) NPLGL 4.113e-03 2.906 0.0031506336 0.003666 ** (1.416e-03) LogLik 126.33 AIC -234.65

Notes: Standard errors are reported between parentheses. Significance codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1. 22 A. Ortolano, E. Angelini

Table 5a Descriptive statistics of probability of default 2006–2016

Min. Q1 Median Mean Q3 Max.

0.0000 0.01578 0.70337 6.60025 5.03084 94.25233

Table 5b Descriptive statistics of the covariates 2006–2016

Q1 1st. Median Mean Q3 Max.

ROE -4298.470 2.335 7.490 -11.479 14.133 120.810

LEV -9357.70 404.7 634.2 699.6 884.2 9973.7

TIER1 -7.300 8.575 11.175 11.308 13.158 28.700

LOD 46.32 117.98 145.29 169.26 191.93 1002.19

TENYR 0.090 2.121 3.797 3.877 4.430 22.498

GDP -9.1000 -0.3000 1.2000 0.9216 2.6000 25.1000 Do CDS spread determinants affect the probability of default?... 23

Table 6a Descriptive statistics of probability of default 2009–2012

Min. Q1 Median Mean Q3 Max.

0.00000 0.3852 2.1579 7.5739 6.7883 81.8931

Table 6b Descriptive statistics of the covariates 2009–2012

Min. Q1 Median Mean Q3 Max.

LEV -9357.7 460.1 666.1 604.7 903.1 6103.5

LOD 79.69 122.62 145.53 169.40 198.50 524.69

PVOL 12.10 25.67 30.73 31.25 36.89 54.97

TENYR 1.403 3.004 3.979 4.968 5.424 22.498

GDP -9.1000 -3.7250 0.2000 -0.8869 1.9000 6.0000

SOVCDS 0.0249 0.1430 0.4147 13.7617 1.1993 359.3228 24 A. Ortolano, E. Angelini

Table 7a Descriptive statistics of probability of default 2013–2016

Min. Q1 Median Mean Q3 Max.

0.00000 0.02169 0.49053 8.20211 4.21784 94.25233

Table 7b Descriptive statistics of the covariates 2013–2016

Min. Q1 Median Mean Q3 Max.

ROE -225.700 1.137 5.680 1.879 10.393 98.140

LEV 35.8 301.2 461.5 610.2 768.5 5166.9

TIER1 7.47 11.85 12.90 14.06 16.20 28.70

LOD 76.14 111.13 132.81 162.30 188.90 598.18

TENYR 0.0900 0.8425 1.7142 2.5155 2.8925 10.0542

NPLGL 0.200 3.765 5.925 11.222 13.355 58.040 Do CDS spread determinants affect the probability of default?... 25

Table 8 Correlation matrix 2006–2016

PD ROE LEV TIER1 LOD TENYR GDP

PD 1 -0.11 0.12 0.10 0.21 0.35 -0.24

ROE -0.11 1 0.20 0.21 -0.05 -0.30 0.20

LEV 0.12 0.20 1 0.01 0.25 -0.24 0.05

TIER1 0.10 0.21 0.01 1 0.06 -0.30 0.15

LOD 0.21 -0.04 0.25 0.02 1 -0.03 -0.06

TENYR 0.35 -0.30 -0.24 -0.30 -0.03 1 -0.45

GDP -0.24 0.20 0.05 0.15 -0.06 -0.44 1

Table 9 Correlation matrix 2009–2012

PD LEV LOD TENYR GDP PVOL SCDS

PD 1 -0.07 0.15 0.44 -0.30 0.49 0.42

LEV -0.07 1 0.07 -0.37 0.12 -0.16 -0.42

LOD 0.15 0.07 1 -0.05 0.01 0.14 -0.02

TENYR 0.44 -0.36 -0.05 1 -0.51 0.52 0.87

GDP -0.30 0.12 0.01 -0.51 1 -0.22 -0.41

PVOL 0.50 -0.16 0.14 0.52 -0.22 1 0.42

SCDS 0.42 -0.42 -0.03 0.87 -0.41 0.42 1 26 A. Ortolano, E. Angelini

Table 10 Correlation matrix 2013–2016

PD ROE LEV TIER1 LOD TENYR NPLGL

PD 1 -0.34 0.53 0.14 0.39 0.44 0.38

ROE -0.34 1 -0.16 0.06 -0.04 -0.24 -0.32

LEV 0.53 -0.16 1 0.16 0.77 -0.13 -0.15

TIER1 0.14 0.06 0.16 1 0.19 0.02 -0.08

LOD 0.39 -0.04 0.78 0.19 1 -0.10 -0.08

TENYR 0.44 -0.23 -0.13 0.02 -0.10 1 0.72

NPLGL 0.38 -0.32 -0.15 -0.08 -0.08 0.72 1

Table 11 Log-likelihood and Akaike test 2006–2016

ROE LEV TIER 1 LOD TENYR GDP Log-lik AIC

Model 1 × × × × × × 334.78 -651.55

Model 1a × × × × × 334.73 -653.45

Model 1b × × × × × 330.85 -645.71

Model 1c × × × × × 315.16 -614.32

Model 1d × × × × × 326.13 -636.26

Model 1e × × × × × 305.52 -595.03

Model 1f × × × × × 329.35 -642.70 Do CDS spread determinants affect the probability of default?... 27

Table 12 Log-likelihood and Akaike test 2009–2012

ROE LEV TIER 1 LOD TENYR GDP PVOL SCDS Log-lik AIC

Model 2a × × × × × 126.62 -237.24

Model 2b × × × × × 131.65 -247.30

Model 2c × × × × × × × 126.99 -233.99

Model 1 × × × × × × 125.20 -232.40

Table 13 Log-likelihood and Akaike test 2013–2016

ROE LEV TIER 1 LOD TENYR GDP NPLGL Log-lik AIC

Model 3 × × × × × × 126.33 -234.65

Model 3a × × × × × × 124.80 -231.60

Model 1 × × × × × × 131.02 -244.05 28 A. Ortolano, E. Angelini

Figure 1 Estimated probabilities of default 2006–2016

2006 %PD2007 %PD 0.152394995 0.191469551 1E-0 5 15578 15E-07 19E-10 196E-05 0.017088158 0.006078341 5.45409E-06 5.23393E-06 0.003074141 5.4517E-07 6.2531 3.51 8.791 7.021 0.001388139 0.001280586 0.001377666 3.29429E-05 6.74424E-06 9.92804E-05 4.32857E-0 5 3.20596E-05 2.91095E-06 6.92025E-08 8.19806E-07 3.90966E-07 6.60836E-09 6.27475E-09 3.73165E-08 2.18083E-06 7.87102E-10 2.49017E-05 2.56309E-05 2.14031E-06 8.47594E-06 3.82944E-05 0.001237295 3.28432E-07 4.91892E-09 2.81005E-09 2.68097E-07 3.71273E-06 7.83713E-08 2.08669E-06 2.77171E-10 8.85105E-07 3.53349E-07 2.30454E-06 0.000938379 0.0001 0.00090733 0.00090988 0.000875319 0.000714443 0.000475994 0.000505046 0.000329617 0.000359186 0.000200517 0.000213019 0.000213565 0.000 11 147 0.000129269 1.25355E-05 1.01906E-05 1.32984E-05 1.17033E-06 1.62944E-05 1.9232E-05 1.67387E-07 1.27806E-10 1.15762E-09 1.89099E-05 1.21337E-05 1.53773E-09 2.4322E-10 1.32663E-05 1.00599E-05 1.28033E-06 1.99813E-08 1.55018E-07 1.44107E-06

UBI UBI KBC KBC MP S MP S BPM BPM TIXIS TIXIS

DEXIA DEXIA INTESA INTESA

NA NA

NORDEA NORDEA

KOMERCNI KOMERCNI BANCO BPI BANCO BPI UNICREDIT UNICREDIT SWEDBANK SWEDBANK RAIFFEISEN RAIFFEISEN JYSKE BANK JYSKE BANK BANKINTER BANKINTER ERSTE BANK ERSTE BANK BANK PEKAO BANK PEKAO ALPHA BANK ALPHA BANK BNP PARIBAS BNP PARIBAS ARGENTARIA ARGENTARIA MEDIOBANCA MEDIOBANCA DANSKE BANK DANSKE BANK UMWELTBANK UMWELTBANK PIRAEUS BANK COMMERZBANK COMMERZBANK ALANDSBANKE N ALANDSBANKE N DEUTSCHE BANK DEUTSCHE BANK BBV BBV BANCO SABADELL BANCO SABADELL CREDIT AGRICOLE CREDIT AGRICOLE HALENDSBANKEN HALENDSBANKEN BANK OF IRELAND BANK OF IRELAND OLDENBURGISCHE OLDENBURGISCHE ALLIED IRISH BANK ALLIED IRISH BANK SOCIETE GENERALE SOCIETE GENERALE BANCO SANTANDE R BANCO SANTANDE R V LANSCHOT KEMPEN V LANSCHOT KEMPEN EUROBANK ERGASIAS NAT. BANK OF GREECE NAT. BANK OF GREECE VSEOBECNA UVEROVA BANCA VSEOBECNA UVEROVA BANCA BANCO COMERCIAL PORTUGUE S BANCO COMERCIAL PORTUGUE S

2008 %PD 2009 %PD 10185 0.765609615 0.764810337 0.435979242 0.349277561 13715 0.233826973 18452714 0.228579562 13802257 0.429350252 0.210389326 0.199823067 0.178605186 0.169895294 1080833 0.297639055 0.136559514 0.1201 0.1 0.1 0.109768299 0.09901209 0.09754621 0.190177431 0.178459361 0.153461807 0.146453448 0.070703123 0.125520673 0.04923699 0.0461790 11 0.047222617 0.043558387 0.04322242 0.087844044 0.081553161 0.038666341 0.081 0.034813705 0.068875466 0.032559521 0.067776022 0.06820492 0.062687691 0.029150452 0.026634821 0.056001882 0.025758335 0.05539645 0.025546571 0.053925235 0.024482329 0.024480772 0.050653333 0.05022724 0.038344854 0.031982808 0.030016888 0.029154081 0.01277786 0.01239058 0.025187976 5.68423E-05 0.009106892 0.019834679 0.008088598 0.015107935 0.01 0.005246553 0.012493072 0.0036736 0.009125383 0.008779841 7.70159E-05 3.59207E-07 0.000522823 0.003706555 0.000382063 0.000445081 0.003142305 0.002799474 0.002749316 0.0021852 0.001602533

UBI UBI KBC KBC MP S BPM MP S BPM

TIXIS TIXIS

DEXIA DEXIA INTESA INTESA NA

NA

NORDEA

NORDEA

KOMERCNI BANCO BPI KOMERCNI UNICREDIT BANCO BPI SWEDBANK UNICREDIT RAIFFEISE N SWEDBANK JYSKE BANK BANKINTER RAIFFEISEN JYSKE BANK BANKINTER ERSTE BANK BANK PEKAO ERSTE BANK BANK PEKAO ALPHA BANK BNP PARIBAS ALPHA BANK ARGENTARIA BNP PARIBAS ARGENTARIA MEDIOBANCA MEDIOBANCA DANSKE BANK UMWELTBANK PIRAEUS BANK DANSKE BANK UMWELTBANK PIRAEUS BANK COMMERZBANK COMMERZBANK ALANDSBANKEN DEUTSCHE BANK ALANDSBANKEN DEUTSCHE BANK BBV BBV BANCO SABADELL CREDIT AGRICOLE HALENDSBANKE N BANCO SABADELL CREDIT AGRICOLE BANK OF IRELAND HALENDSBANKEN BANK OF IRELAND OLDENBURGISCHE OLDENBURGISCHE ALLIED IRISH BANK SOCIETE GENERALE ALLIED IRISH BANK SOCIETE GENERALE BANCO SANTANDER V LANSCHOT KEMPEN EUROBANK ERGASIAS V LANSCHOT KEMPEN EUROBANK ERGASIAS NAT. BANK OF GREECE NAT. BANK OF GREECE VSEOBECNA UVEROVA BANCA VSEOBECNA UVEROVA BANCA BANCO COMERCIAL PORTUGUES BANCO COMERCIAL PORTUGUES

2010 %PD2011 %PD 0.299723558 0.257041895 0.300655587 0.291574412 0.355196695 0.312083663 191 0.274157269 15232 0.232742178 0.203921625 18937 0.196051427 174171 129928 106724 128177 1720995 0.109371541 0.105916241 0.082749275 0.092254817 0.082517924 0.078806219 0.070340597 0.057468617 0.063698815 0.061934371 0.053566495 0.06050817 0.05676762 0.044288809 0.041 0.038252841 0.037700866 0.0341 0.032482864 0.031290719 0.023322368 0.025887232 0.025760373 0.02333279 0.017806282 0.019701666 0.016466345 0.015304622 0.01 0.010916668 0.010382438 0.009536167 0.010601622 0.009079305 0.008273441 0.008275494 0.008125892 0.009230563 5.08041E-0 6 0.008141791 0.006498571 0.007238179 0.006125523 0.006790925 0.005896772 0.0036157 11 0.004535634 0.002671 0.004316386 0.00482847 0.003257935 0.003208804 0.002788947 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001920108 6.66933E-0 5 2.73166E-09 3.51527E-0 5 0.001537847 0.000681021 0.000484209 0.000189656 0.000302039 0.000207007 0.00082728 1.26501E-05 1.05097E-05

UBI UBI KBC MP S KBC BPM MP S BPM TIXIS

TIXIS

DEXIA DEXIA INTESA INTESA NA NA

NORDEA

NORDEA

KOMERCNI BANCO BPI UNICREDIT KOMERCNI BANCO BPI SWEDBANK

RAIFFEISEN UNICREDIT JYSKE BANK BANKINTER SWEDBANK RAIFFEISEN JYSKE BANK BANKINTER ERSTE BANK BANK PEKAO ERSTE BANK BANK PEKAO ALPHA BANK BNP PARIBAS ALPHA BANK ARGENTARIA BNP PARIBAS ARGENTARIA MEDIOBANCA MEDIOBANCA DANSKE BANK UMWELTBANK PIRAEUS BANK DANSKE BANK UMWELTBANK PIRAEUS BANK COMMERZBANK COMMERZBANK ALANDSBANKEN DEUTSCHE BANK ALANDSBANKEN DEUTSCHE BANK BBV BBV BANCO SABADELL CREDIT AGRICOLE HALENDSBANKEN BANK OF IRELAND BANCO SABADELL CREDIT AGRICOLE HALENDSBANKEN OLDENBURGISCHE BANK OF IRELAND OLDENBURGISCHE ALLIED IRISH BANK SOCIETE GENERALE ALLIED IRISH BANK SOCIETE GENERALE BANCO SANTANDER BANCO SANTANDER V LANSCHOT KEMPEN EUROBANK ERGASIAS V LANSCHOT KEMPEN EUROBANK ERGASIAS NAT. BANK OF GREECE NAT. BANK OF GREECE VSEOBECNA UVEROVA BANCA VSEOBECNA UVEROVA BANCA BANCO COMERCIAL PORTUGUES BANCO COMERCIAL PORTUGUES Do CDS spread determinants affect the probability of default?... 29

Figure 1, cont’d

2012 %PD 2013 %PD 19763 1 144 7 6 5 6 6 7 5 5 5 0.818931237 0.921384261 0.672399398 1367513 1405 1004 16492 0.521272065 1 0.442051869 0.427197263 0.3991 14598 0.367448493 0.321413274 0.31 0.294034458 0.165831 0.101565974 0.095726478 0.076571871 0.071892749 0.0581 0.054217433 0.052300898 0.047774366 0.036090209 0.031704653 0.028255566 0.027722346 0.030810004 0.030057682 0.028641596 0.022976921 5.65821E-06 0.024953278 0.024262849 0.01693407 0.019801225 0.01291 0.018163292 0.014103953 0.017096386 0.01312131 0.015796736 0.015613802 0.012841647 0.012420994 0.00464991 0.007267626 0.006083136 0.0001 0.008893142 3.74676E-05 3.35161E-0 3.14432E-05 2.85378E-05 2.29414E-0 0.004623173 0.003039833 0.002479408 0.005486541 0.001778609 0.001846155 2.41323E-0 2.49128E-0 0.001495528 0.004595499 0.001030218 0.001 0.000882695 0.003900225 0.000832433 0.000254401 1.49135E-0 3.3519E-05 1.16733E-05 0.000167351 1.50015E-0 0.000862951 0.000798887 0.000412164 0.000127782 1.61291E-0 1.45485E-0 1.35225E-0

UBI UBI KBC KBC MP S MP S BPM BPM

TIXIS TIXIS

DEXIA DEXIA INTESA

INTESA

NA NA

NORDEA NORDEA

KOMERCNI BANCO BPI KOMERCNI BANCO BPI UNICREDIT UNICREDIT SWEDBANK SWEDBANK RAIFFEISE N RAIFFEISE N JYSKE BANK JYSKE BANK BANKINTER BANKINTER ERSTE BANK ERSTE BANK BANK PEKAO BANK PEKAO ALPHA BANK ALPHA BANK BNP PARIBAS BNP PARIBAS ARGENTARIA ARGENTARIA MEDIOBANCA MEDIOBANCA DANSKE BANK DANSKE BANK UMWELTBANK UMWELTBANK PIRAEUS BANK PIRAEUS BANK COMMERZBANK COMMERZBANK ALANDSBANKEN ALANDSBANKEN DEUTSCHE BANK DEUTSCHE BANK BBV BBV BANCO SABADELL BANCO SABADELL CREDIT AGRICOLE CREDIT AGRICOLE HALENDSBANKEN HALENDSBANKE N BANK OF IRELAND BANK OF IRELAND OLDENBURGISCHE OLDENBURGISCHE ALLIED IRISH BANK ALLIED IRISH BANK SOCIETE GENERALE SOCIETE GENERALE BANCO SANTANDER BANCO SANTANDE R V LANSCHOT KEMPEN V LANSCHOT KEMPEN EUROBANK ERGASIAS EUROBANK ERGASIAS NAT. BANK OF GREECE NAT. BANK OF GREECE VSEOBECNA UVEROVA BANCA VSEOBECNA UVEROVA BANCA BANCO COMERCIAL PORTUGUE S BANCO COMERCIAL PORTUGUE S

2014 %PD 2015 %PD 2 5 5 5 6 6 5 0.82661684 0.942523347 0.690041749 0.636779351 121 0.579600743 17252 137174 130 11 0.342727537 0.331376923 0.327962661 1 0.246891531 0.160134177 0.105088785 0.080791208 0.069876502 0.059233977 0.055514841 0.052014456 0.047379073 0.033889086 0.033594255 0.030205772 0.018268228 0.01541 0.01 0.014238239 0.012340987 0.007532916 0.001 6.95938E-06 4.08841E-0 4.89076E-0 6.49955E-06 0.004913829 4.89544E-0 0.007601067 0.007345807 0.007126851 0.006940519 0.0001 0.00331025 0.002657469 3.05894E-09 2.81788E-07 0.005066149 9.48863E-06 0.001787254 3.78085E-08 3.55443E-05 2.26498E-06 2.07266E-06 0.001254966 0.000825655 0.000779741 0.000814152 0.000571073 0.000609354 0.000408418 0.000415162 0.000301303 0.000181355 0.003368593 1.98798E-05 7.3895E-07 0.000179109 1.07597E-0 1.50847E-0 1.62178E-0 0.001997292 0.001299609 0.001072781 0.000686772 0.000292968 0.000224481 0.000300279 0.000240609 0.000194221 1.65644E-05 1.76001E-10 1.42579E-07 1.14482E-05 1.74705E-05

UBI UBI KBC KBC MP S BPM MP S BPM TIXIS

TIXIS

DEXIA DEXIA INTESA

INTESA

NA NA

NORDEA

NORDEA

KOMERCNI BANCO BPI KOMERCNI BANCO BPI UNICREDIT UNICREDIT SWEDBANK RAIFFEISE N SWEDBANK JYSKE BANK BANKINTER RAIFFEISE N JYSKE BANK BANKINTER ERSTE BANK BANK PEKAO ERSTE BANK BANK PEKAO ALPHA BANK ALPHA BANK BNP PARIBAS ARGENTARIA BNP PARIBAS MEDIOBANCA MEDIOBANCA DANSKE BANK UMWELTBANK DANSKE BANK PIRAEUS BANK UMWELTBANK PIRAEUS BANK COMMERZBANK COMMERZBANK ALANDSBANKEN DEUTSCHE BANK ALANDSBANKEN DEUTSCHE BANK BBV BB V ARGENTARIA BANCO SABADELL CREDIT AGRICOLE HALENDSBANKEN BANCO SABADELL CREDIT AGRICOLE BANK OF IRELAND HALENDSBANKEN BANK OF IRELAND OLDENBURGISCHE OLDENBURGISCHE ALLIED IRISH BANK SOCIETE GENERALE ALLIED IRISH BANK SOCIETE GENERALE BANCO SANTANDER BANCO SANTANDE R V LANSCHOT KEMPEN V LANSCHOT KEMPEN EUROBANK ERGASIAS EUROBANK ERGASIAS NAT. BANK OF GREECE NAT. BANK OF GREECE VSEOBECNA UVEROVA BANCA VSEOBECNA UVEROVA BANCA BANCO COMERCIAL PORTUGUES BANCO COMERCIAL PORTUGUES

2016 %PD 195 6 11 9 15906 5 11 0.785243042 0.775243906 11 0.522021 133244 0.3461 1442752 1 0.303453984 0.249590027 0.197662973 0.175932939 0.122837677 0.1045549 0.107003657 0.070523936 0.068628744 0.050431977 0.050267223 0.04559595 0.041039266 0.037891648 0.035456434 0.030060 0.028843092 0.026059131 0.020650282 0.020035499 0.017190697 0.01 0.014266107 0.012099725 0.01 0.003509 0.005588973 3.52814E-05 0.004896735 0.005353271 4.53002E-0 0.004993989 0.004760274 0.004136109 0.004297271 0.003413915 UBI KBC MP S BPM TIXIS

DEXIA INTESA

NA NORDEA

KOMERCNI BANCO BPI UNICREDIT SWEDBANK RAIFFEISEN JYSKE BANK BANKINTER ERSTE BANK BANK PEKAO ALPHA BANK BNP PARIBAS ARGENTARIA MEDIOBANCA DANSKE BANK UMWELTBANK PIRAEUS BANK COMMERZBANK ALANDSBANKEN DEUTSCHE BANK BBV BANCO SABADELL CREDIT AGRICOLE HALENDSBANKEN BANK OF IRELAND OLDENBURGISCHE ALLIED IRISH BANK SOCIETE GENERALE BANCO SANTANDER V LANSCHOT KEMPEN EUROBANK ERGASIAS NAT. BANK OF GREECE VSEOBECNA UVEROVA BANCA BANCO COMERCIAL PORTUGUES 30 A. Ortolano, E. Angelini

Do CDS spread determinants affect the probability of default? A study on the EU banks

Extended summary

The paper is an investigation of the principal variables that have affected the EU banks’ credit risk over the decade 2006–2016. More specifically, we intend to analyse the most significant variables affecting the probability of default, adopting CDS spread determinants. In fact, the default probability of a bank is the expression of credit risk, defined as the possibility that an unexpected change in a counterparty’s creditworthiness might generate a corresponding unexpected alteration in the market value of the associated credit exposure. The probability of default of a bank depends on its specific factors on the one hand, and on market and macroeconomic factors on the other hand. In this context, we intend to analyse the most significant variables affecting the probability of default, adopting CDS spread determinants. Specifically, a credit default swap is a credit derivative whose aim is to protect the buyer against an event of default dealing with the issuer of the underlying asset. Consequently, its price, called the spread, should disclose the market’s credit risk perception and its determinants might explain the main variables causing the reference entity’s credit risk. In particular the CDS spread has shown a leading role in price discovery, with reference to bond markets (e.g. Coudert, Gex 2010; Norden, Weber 2007; Blanco, Brennan, Marsh 2005) and rating announcements (Finnerty, Miller, Chen 2013; Hull, Predescu, White 2004). In more detail, as a market indicator, CDS spread has been affected by high volatility, so we guess more accurate information might be given by the probability of default. Furthermore, the latter is implied in CDS spread and is an expression of credit risk. In accordance with the correlation between these two variables, we observe the influence of CDS spread determinants. Specifically, the related literature spans from accounting variables to market and general variables (Samaniego-Medina et al. 2016). In particular, contemporary research is developing in the study of systemic risk: general factors, indeed, seem to be more crucial than firm specific ones (Ejsing, Lemke 2011; Berndt, Obreja 2010). In this context our study consists of a two-step analysis: in the first part, there is a calculation of the probability of default on a sample of 40 banks through a two-equation Merton model. This choice is consistent with the intention to estimate this variable under both firm specific and market perspectives. The second part deals with an investigation of the relationship between the estimated probability of default and the main CDS spread determinants: this inferential study is made by the implementation of Tobit regressions for panel data. Specifically, first we present a model for the whole period and then we distinctly analyse two sub-periods (namely 2009–2012 and 2013–2016), in order to focus our attention respectively on the sovereign debt crisis and on the NPL crisis. Our contribution is twofold: an analysis of the main variables affecting the EU banks’ credit risk over time and a verification of analogies between the determinants causing the probability of default and CDS spread, in order to assess if the latter is still a good indicator of banking credit risk. Specifically, the estimation of the probability of default shows growing values over the years, with a particular increase during the periods of crisis. Overall, as concerns the inferential analysis, we observe the influence of some variables related to CAMELS factors (Chodnicka-Jaworska, Jaworski 2017) and, analogously to recent CDS spread literature, we find a growing impact of macroeconomic and market variables during times of distress (e.g. Annaert Do CDS spread determinants affect the probability of default?... 31

et al. 2013). In particular, during periods of crises, in terms of sovereign debt and NPLs respectively, the influence of country credit risk and asset quality problems appears significant. Definitively, we deem that the credit default swap price can still be considered a good indicator of banks’ credit risk, despite the volatility caused by the speculative use of this derivative. As shown throughout the paper, its determinants have an analogous impact on the default probability. As concerns the perspectives for new research, the insight into banking probability of default could be proceeded by analysing credit risk from a systemic perspective (Giglio, Kelly, Pruitt 2016; Black et al. 2016 ), with a special focus on asset quality (Bottazzi, De Sanctis, Vanni 2016). In this context we believe it would be interesting to put more attention on the study of NPLs, finding out their main determinants and the possible strategies to reduce banking credit risk (Bruno, Iacoviello, Lazzini 2015). Moreover, as the European banking sector is characterized by linkages in terms of both sovereign and financial exposures, the research may be improved with other methodologies, such as network analysis (Westphal 2015).