J_Bus_Account_Financ_Perspect Journal of Business Accounting and Finance Perspectives J_Bus_Account_Financ_Perspect Journal of Business Accounting and Finance Perspectives 2603-7475 10.35995/jbafp2010007 J_Bus_Account_Financ_Perspect-2-7 Article Increased Uncertainty, Credit Supply, and Non-Performing Loans in the Eurozone Kostis Pantelis C. Department of Economics, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, 5 Stadiou Street, 10562 Athens, Greece; pkostis@econ.uoa.gr 18 02 2020 2 1 7 27 08 2019 13 02 2020 © 2020 Copyright by the authors. 2020 Licensed as an open access article using a CC BY 4.0 license.

This paper examines the role of economic uncertainty in the Eurozone countries by analyzing the credit supply and the evolution of non-performing loans following the 2008 global financial crisis. The discussion centers on how greater economic uncertainty restricts credit supply and increases the number of non-performing loans. Quarterly data for the Eurozone countries are studied for the period 2005 to 2016. To test the aforementioned hypothesis, an index of economic uncertainty for the Eurozone countries is calculated. Panel data analysis is performed using fixed effects estimation. This approach allows for individual heterogeneity, with different intercepts across countries and quarterly time dummies to control for time-specific effects that are common to all countries in the sample. The primary conclusions of the analysis are as follows: (1) When economic uncertainty increases, total gross loans decrease, and the number of non-performing loans increases. (2) When uncertainty increases, loans to deposit-takers, other domestic sectors, and general government decrease, while loans to financial corporations increase as a means of supporting the financial sector. (3) The most vulnerable Eurozone economies play a prominent role in these overall effects. In these economies, the effects of the recent global financial crisis are most pronounced, with uncertainty increasing significantly over the study period.

 credit crisis Eurozone loan supply non-performing loans uncertainty index How to cite Pantelis C. Kostis. Increased Uncertainty, Credit Supply, and Non-Performing Loans in the Eurozone. J. Bus. Account. Financ. Perspect., 2020, 2(1): 7; doi:10.35995/jbafp2010007. 1. Introduction

The effects of uncertainty on economic activity vary, but their primary consequence is to shape behaviors and actions that deviate from the framework of rationalization and maximization of wealth and prosperity. Uncertainty also affects the development of modern production models. A sharp increase in uncertainty due to political or economic shocks may have a direct, strong, and enduring impact on the economy (Alexopoulos and Cohen, 2008; Baker et al., 2011). Output, employment, productivity, and investment decline in response to an unexpected increase in uncertainty (Petrakis et al., 2014).

These consequences have led to considerable debate regarding banks’ lending behavior during economic crises (Djiogap and Ngomsi, 2012; Ladime et al., 2013; Micco and Panizza, 2006; Olokoyo, 2011; Swamy and Sreejesh, 2012). Banks’ credit policy decisions are determined by variables that relate directly to bank operations. Such variables include size and capitalization, as well as macroeconomic variables such as GDP and monetary policy (Djiogap and Ngomsi, 2012; Ladime et al., 2013), which worsen substantially when uncertainty is high. It has also been observed that non-performing loans (NPLs) are an inevitable consequence of an abundant credit supply in times of economic growth (Balgova et al., 2016).

The decline in bank lending during crises can be attributed to one of two reasons. The first is the reduction in credit supply, perhaps due to greater uncertainty, information asymmetry, and moral hazard. The second reason relates to changes in demand for credit. During recessions and crises, economic conditions are unfavorable, so profitable investments are scarce, and the risk of unemployment for consumers is high (Bernanke and Gertler, 1995). Thus, under conditions of high uncertainty and economic recession, the credit supply and, consequently, the evolution of NPLs are likely to be affected.

This paper assesses how greater economic uncertainty reduces credit supply and increases the number of NPLs. It is examined whether uncertainty was a critical factor for the Eurozone economies after the recent global financial crisis. In particular, it is studied how uncertainty—which is inherent in economic policymaking and decision making—drives credit supply in the Eurozone economies and how uncertainty affects NPLs. The goal is to build a new measure of economic uncertainty for all Eurozone countries.

This paper enriches the literature by contributing to the debate on the degree to which uncertainty affects economic performance in the Eurozone countries. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first objective economic uncertainty index for all Eurozone economies. This economic uncertainty index offers a more complete measure than variables that express uncertainty, because these variables are indications rather than measures of uncertainty. This is also the first time that a measure of economic uncertainty has been linked to credit supply and the evolution of NPLs for the Eurozone countries in the midst of the crisis. In this paper, the effects of uncertainty on credit supply are separated according to the category of credit supply. The impact of uncertainty on each category is examined. The economic uncertainty index offers a useful, reliable tool to address the role of uncertainty in economic activity and provide guidance to help policymakers design better economic policies and address uncertainty.

The structure of this article is as follows: Section 2 presents the theoretical background, Section 3 describes the data and method, Section 4 presents and discusses the empirical results, and Section 5 presents the conclusions.

 2. Literature Review <italic><bold>2.1. The Effects of Economic Uncertainty on Economic Outcomes</bold></italic> 

Following a financial crisis, numerous factors lead to greater uncertainty and risk in the economy (Furceri and Mourougane, 2009). Such factors include lower demand for goods and lower capital investment. Thus, some major challenges surround the measurement of uncertainty, its evolution during economic cycles, and its impact on economic activity (Petrakis et al., 2014).

The effects of uncertainty on economic outcomes are particularly acute and may have direct, dynamic, and enduring economic consequences (Alexopoulos and Cohen, 2008; Baker et al., 2011). Many researchers report that uncertainty negatively affects economic outcomes through political factors (Bonn and Pfeifer, 2011; Fernandez-Villaverde et al., 2011; Pastor and Veronesi, 2011a, 2011b) over both the short and long term (Driver and Moreton, 1991). In contexts of high uncertainty, investments and decision making by firms are also negatively affected (Bhagat and Obreja, 2011; Chen et al., 2011; Dixit and Pindyck, 1994; Durnev, 2010). These negative effects may lead to economic recession (Belke and Goecke, 2005; Bloom, 2009). Meanwhile, uncertainty may affect consumption in the economy (Alexopoulos and Cohen, 2009; Bernanke, 1983; Romer, 1990) and push employees to seek higher wages, which negatively affects employment, investments, and GDP (Belke and Goecke, 2005; Blackburn and Pelloni, 2005). Bloom (2009) argues that the suspension of investment and employment decisions because of uncertainty may lead to economic recession.

Bloom et al. (2011) conclude that uncertainty has had a major impact on the US economy. An increase in political uncertainty between 2006 and 2011 has prompted large, sustained negative effects on economic outcomes in the US. They also conclude that uncertainty has counter-cyclical effects on the industry sector. These effects entail macroeconomic and microeconomic shocks of uncertainty on economic activity. In the UK, Denis and Kannan (2013) found that uncertainty significantly affected economic activity by suppressing industrial production and GDP by 0.6% and 0.3%, respectively.

Petrakis et al. (2014) examined the extent to which uncertainty inhibited the effective functioning of the Eurozone economies, especially after the recession of 2008. They concluded that negative events affected economic activity. In particular, negative uncertainty disturbances had substantial effects on the economic activity and production of the manufacturing sector in the peripheral Eurozone countries. Empirical analysis showed that the effects of uncertainty disturbances fell after 5 months for Portugal, 7 months for Spain, 8 months for Germany, 10 months for Greece, and 13 months for Italy.

The impact of uncertainty may also be due to other factors, such as a rise in funding costs (Fernandez-Villaverde et al., 2011; Gilchrist et al., 2010; Pastor and Veronesi, 2011a, 2011b), an increase in society’s uncertainty avoidance (Panousi and Papanikolaou, 2012), and an intensification of the agency problem (DeMarzo and Sannikov, 2006; Narita, 2011).

 <italic><bold>2.2. Economic Crises, Uncertainty, Credit Supply, and Non-Performing Loans</bold></italic> 

No empirical study has examined the relationships between high uncertainty and changes in credit supply and the number of NPLs. Most studies have linked credit supply to business cycles (Aggelopoulos et al., 2016; Asea and Blomberg, 1998; Calomiris and Mason, 2003; Holmstrom and Tirole, 1997; Keeton, 1999; Lown and Morgan, 2006; Nehls and Schmidt, 2004; Peek and Rosengren, 2000). Studies have focused on the level of financial development in relation to business cycles (Bernanke and Lown, 1991; Borio et al., 2013, 2014; Rogoff, 2015) or the effect of changes in macroeconomic aggregates on credit supply (Bayoumi and Melander, 2008; Black and Strahan, 2002; Cappiello et al., 2010; Ciccarelli et al., 2010; De Bondt et al., 2010; Lown and Morgan, 2002; Lown et al., 2000; Swiston, 2008).

Other studies have linked credit supply to financial crises. Economic crises are usually accompanied by reductions in bank lending (Cornett et al., 2011; Del Prete et al., 2017; Dihn et al., 2013). For example, in the recent global financial crisis, banks not only reduced credit to domestic (Cetorelli and Goldberg, 2012; Ivashina and Scharfstein, 2009) and international borrowers (Herrmann and Mihaljek, 2010; Popov and Udell, 2012; Takats, 2010), but also set stricter credit standards (Asea and Blomberg, 1998; Ivashina and Scharfstein, 2009) and tightened credit control and the monitoring of their portfolios (De Haas and Van Horen, 2009).

During the period before the recent global financial crisis, there was a significant increase in credit supply (Baron and Xiong, 2017; Demirguc-Kunt and Detragiache, 2002; English and Reid, 1994; Kaminsky et al., 1998; Kaminsky and Reinhart, 1999; Lopez-Salido et al., 2016; Schularick and Taylor, 2012; Weinberg, 1995). In general, there was also broader growth in financial markets, mainly because of new technologies in the financial sector (Panopoulou, 2005; Rinaldi and Sanchis-Arellano, 2006).

However, this increase in credit supply during periods of economic growth usually leads to problems in the financial sector because credit is supplied without due care. Therefore, credit supply to individuals and legal entities with weak creditworthiness tends to increase (Greenwood and Hanson, 2013; Keeton, 1999). The credit expansion of economies is usually guided by overoptimism about the future of the financial system (Kindleberger, 1978; Minsky, 1977). Long periods of economic prosperity tend to increase this overoptimism. This fuels credit expansion, which may destabilize the financial system and the economy (Baron and Xiong, 2017), leading to banking crises, housing crises, and economic recessions (Borio and Lowe, 2002; Lopez-Salido et al., 2016; Mian and Sufi, 2009; Schularick and Taylor, 2012).

When the financial system becomes threatened by credit risk, which is due to the credit expansion that leads to financial crisis and recession, the economy reacts by adopting tighter credit standards and imposing stricter credit controls (Ivashina and Scharfstein, 2009; Takats and Upper, 2013). Credit supply therefore falls, and credit demand drops as individuals and firms seek to reduce rather than increase their debt when revenues are limited (Ashcraft and Campello, 2007; Chatelain et al., 2003; Gertler and Gilchrist, 1994). Credit supply changes substantially after a financial crisis (Blalock et al., 2005; Desai et al., 2004; Eichengreen et al., 2001; Tomz and Wright, 2005).

An increase in the number of NPLs is a direct, inevitable consequence of financial crises (Balgova and Plekhanov, 2016). At the time of the recent global financial crisis, individuals and firms in most European countries had debts that they could not repay (Aiyar et al., 2015a, 2015b). Accordingly, the number of NPLs increased because of both the broader macroeconomic scenario and the prevailing conditions in banking institutions.

Numerous studies have linked the emergence of NPLs to economic growth (Beck et al., 2013, 2015; Fofack, 2005; Jimenez and Saurina, 2006; Khemraj and Pasha, 2009; Salas and Saurina, 2002; Skarica, 2014; Ozili, 2015). This link is because the positive GDP growth rate usually entails greater income, which improves the debtors’ ability to repay debts, so the number of NPLs decreases. Conversely, when the economy is in decline (shrinking or negative GDP growth), the level of bad debt rises (Borio et al., 2001).

Besides GDP growth, other macroeconomic factors also seem to increase the number of NPLs. Such factors include unemployment (Bofondi and Ropele, 2011; Klein, 2013; Louzis et al., 2012; Nkusu, 2011; Skarica, 2014), inflation (Beck et al., 2015; Klein, 2013; Skarica, 2014), management quality (Louzis et al., 2012), credit expansion (Klein, 2013), stock prices, exchange rates, lending rates (Beck et al., 2015), income tax, the production gap (Anastasiou et al., 2016), and risk (Espinoza and Prasad, 2010).

Factors that relate to the banking system itself are also responsible for the evolution of NPLs. One such factor is capital adequacy, as measured by the equity-to-assets ratio (Klein, 2013). Banks with low capital adequacy are motivated to provide credit at higher risk, which increases the probability of NPLs, whereas high capital adequacy and tight credit control reduce the number of NPLs (Boudriga et al., 2009). Other factors include maturity, credit costs, the size of banks (Rajan and Dhal, 2003), and financial development in general. Loans in foreign currency and exchange rates play a role as well (Tanasković and Jandrić, 2015).

The emergence of NPLs also affects macroeconomic performance. Studies have shown that a high number of NPLs reduces credit as a percentage of GDP, slows down economic growth, increases unemployment (Aiyar et al., 2015a; Aiyar et al., 2015b; Espinoza and Prasad, 2010; Klein, 2013; Nkusu, 2011), and undermines trust in the market (Cucinelli, 2015; Jorda et al., 2013; Kwan and Eisenbeis, 1995; Peek and Rosengren, 2000, 2005). In addition, a high number of NPLs burdens bank balances and hinders bank profitability because capital requirements restrict the creation of new credit. The problem is that having a high number of NPLs occupies bank capital that could otherwise be used to increase borrowing. A high number of NPLs thus negatively affects credit supply.

 3. Method and Data

To explore the relationships between uncertainty and credit supply and between uncertainty and the number of NPLs, we used an unbalanced panel of quarterly data for 19 Eurozone countries (see Table A1 in Appendix A) for the period 2005 to 2016. The study period was chosen because of the availability of data on credit supply and NPLs from the IMF financial soundness indicators (FSIs) database. To examine the effects of economic uncertainty on credit supply and NPLs, we employed the following baseline estimation equation: Y i t = a i + β   U I i t +   λ t + u i t , where i denotes the Eurozone country (Nmax = 19) and t the quarter (tmax = 48). The dependent variable, Y, is a vector of variables that represent the loan supply and NPLs; αi is a set of country-specific fixed effects that capture the influence of unobserved country-specific time-invariant heterogeneity; UI is an economic uncertainty index; and λt is a set of time dummies that control for quarter-specific effects that are common to all countries.

The analysis was based on fixed effects estimation, which allows for individual heterogeneity. Thus, different intercepts were used across countries, and estimation was performed using ordinary least squares. As mentioned earlier, we included quarterly time dummies to account for time-specific effects that were common to all countries in the sample. We employed a cluster-robust approach for standard errors to control for within-cluster correlation and heteroskedasticity.

To construct the economic uncertainty index, daily data for national stock market high capitalization indexes were used for the countries in this study. Following Petrakis et al. (2014), daily data for each index were converted to monthly data. Then, as a proxy for global uncertainty, a global stock market index was calculated that was based on the daily prices of the world’s major stock markets (US, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Eurozone, UK, Japan, China–Hong Kong, and India) as a weighted average of each country’s annual GDP at current prices. The source for the GDP data was the IMF World Economic Outlook Database April 2017. Table A2 (see Appendix A) presents the indexes that were used for each country, as well as major world stock indexes that were used to construct a global stock market index. All stock index data were obtained from the Reuters Datastream.

An overall uncertainty indicator was created for each country by computing a rolling-window 30-day standard deviation of the main stock index returns. To isolate country-specific shocks, the monthly average of this uncertainty index (UI) was regressed on its global counterpart and the residuals were labeled as a country-specific UI. These monthly data were then transformed to quarterly data. The quarterly pattern of these indicators shows the quarterly economic UI evolution from 2005 to 2016. Table 1 presents descriptive statistics for the stock market indexes that were used in the analysis.

The dataset for credit supply and NPLs was based on the IMF Financial Soundness Indicators (FSIs).1 The country sample and the study period were determined by the availability of these data. The variables were total gross loans, supply of loans to residents and non-residents, NPLs as a percentage of total gross loans, and NPLs net of provisions to capital.2 The supply of loans to residents was separated into loans to deposit-takers, financial corporations, non-financial corporations, other domestic sectors, the central bank, and the general government. The data for NPLs as a percentage of total gross loans were taken from the World Bank for Germany and from TheGlobalEconomy.com for Finland. Data availability differed by country. Data availability is summarized in Table A3 (see Appendix A). Table 2 provides descriptive statistics for the variables, considered as panel data.

To examine the specific effects of economic uncertainty on loan supply and NPLs by country, the following estimation equation was employed. This equation is the same as Equation (1), but not in panel form. Equation (2) was estimated separately for each country using simple ordinary least squares: Y t = a t + β   U I t + u t , where t denotes the quarter (tmax = 48). The dependent variable, Y, is a vector of variables that represent loan supply and NPLs for each country, and UI is an economic uncertainty index for each country. Equation (2) was analyzed by employing ordinary least squares time series regression.

4. Empirical Results and Discussion

Figure 1 presents the economic uncertainty index for each country in the study. The plot is indicative of the rise of uncertainty following the recent global financial recession. The black line reflects the evolution of the uncertainty index for all Eurozone countries as the weighted average of individual countries based on their GDP. This line shows that in the years before the crisis, uncertainty was low for the whole Eurozone, but this situation was reversed from 2009 onward.

The quarterly pattern of uncertainty shows the evolution of economic uncertainty since 2005. There were sharp, country-specific uncertainty shocks around the dates of major political and economic turbulence. Since the onset of the crisis, most Eurozone economies have been hit by a series of uncertainty shocks.

The next phase of our analysis was to examine the effects of uncertainty on credit supply and the number of NPLs. Table 3 provides evideshance of these effects. The data in Table 3 are based on alternative specifications of Equation (1) for the panel of the 19 Eurozone countries between 2005 and 2016 using fixed effects and cluster-robust standard errors.

Table 3 shows the impact of uncertainty on credit supply and the evolution of NPLs. Regressions show that uncertainty was significantly and negatively linked to total gross loans, loans to residents, and loans to non-residents and positively and significantly linked to evolution in NPLs as a percentage of total loans and evolution in NPLs net of provisions of capital. Regarding loans to residents, there was a negative and significant relationship between uncertainty and loans to deposit-takers and loans to other domestic sectors, and a positive relationship between uncertainty and loans to financial corporations.

Next, to illustrate the effect of uncertainty on credit supply and the evolution of NPLs by country, Table 4 shows the correlations between the economic uncertainty index and the country-dependent variables.

The correlation matrix provides several significant indications of the effect of uncertainty on credit supply and the evolution of NPLs by country. For most countries, there were strong negative or positive correlations with uncertainty. This result holds for all variables, with the exception of loans to the central bank (significant negative correlation for Greece) and loans to general government (negative correlation for Estonia and positive correlation for Ireland and Spain). Separate estimates of Equation (2) illustrate how uncertainty affected each country (Table A4, Table A5, Table A6, Table A7, Table A8, Table A9, Table A10, Table A11, Table A12, Table A13, Table A14, Table A15, Table A16, Table A17, Table A18, Table A19, Table A20, Table A21 and Table A22 in Appendix A).

Estimation of Equation (2) for Austria (Table A4 in Appendix A) revealed no significant impact of uncertainty on credit supply or the evolution of NPLs. Data for Austria spanned the period from Q1 2010 to Q4 2016 (Table A3 in Appendix A). During this period, the uncertainty index followed a marginally downward trend, as did credit supply. However, these small changes did not lead to statistically significant results, despite the upward trend of NPLs from 2010 onward, a substantial increase in 2014, and a decline from 2015 onward. Austria is one country in which economic uncertainty did not increase during the recent global financial crisis; it actually decreased slightly.

For Belgium (Table A5 in Appendix A), there was a significant negative relationship between uncertainty and total gross loans, loans to deposit-takers, and loans to non-residents, and a significant positive relationship between uncertainty and loans to financial corporations, loans to other domestic sectors, and the two NPL variables. The data for Belgium spanned the period from Q4 2006 to Q3 2016 (Table A3 in Appendix A). Uncertainty increased between 2008 and 2010, and decreased between 2013 and 2016. Meanwhile, credit supply decreased between 2008 and 2009 and remained stable between 2012 and 2016. NPLs increased substantially between 2008 and 2014. This observation explains the positive relationship with uncertainty.

For Cyprus (Table A6 in Appendix A), there was a significant negative relationship between uncertainty and loans to non-residents and a significant positive relationship between uncertainty and loans to residents, loans to financial and non-financial corporations, loans to other domestic sectors, and both NPL variables. The data for Cyprus spanned the period from Q4 2008 to Q1 2016 (Table A3 in Appendix A). The relationships resulting from estimation of Equation (2) are explained by the increase in uncertainty between Q4 2008 and 2013 and the decrease in uncertainty between 2013 and 2016. Credit supply rose between 2008 and 2010, decreased between 2011 and 2012, and fell between 2013 and 2016. NPLs increased substantially from 2008 onward.

For Estonia (Table A7 in Appendix A), there was a significant negative relationship between uncertainty and total gross loans, loans to residents, loans to financial and non-financial corporations, loans to other domestic sectors, loans to general government, loans to non-residents, and NPLs net of provisions to capital. The data for Estonia spanned the period from Q4 2008 to Q4 2016 (Table A3 in Appendix A). During this period, uncertainty increased significantly. These findings are explained by a significant decrease in all types of credit supply from 2011 onward, a substantial increase in NPLs between 2008 and 2010, and a substantial decrease in NPLs from 2011 onward.

For Finland (Table A8 in Appendix A), there was a significant negative relationship between uncertainty and loans to deposit-takers and a significant positive relationship between uncertainty and loans to financial corporations and between uncertainty and loans to non-residents. Data for Finland spanned the period from Q1 2005 to Q3 2016. During this period, credit supply increased steadily. Uncertainty declined between 2005 and 2008, increased between 2009 and 2013, and declined from 2014 onward. NPLs fell to low levels (less than 1% of total loans) but increased substantially between 2007 and 2009 and between 2014 and 2016.

As in the case of Austria, for France (Table A9 in Appendix A), there was no significant impact of uncertainty on credit supply or on the evolution of NPLs. The main problem with France was the availability of data on credit supply. Total gross loans data spanned the period from Q2 2010 to Q4 2013, data on total loan breakdowns spanned the period from Q2 2010 to Q2 2012, and data on NPLs spanned the period from Q2 2010 to Q4 2016 (Table A3 in Appendix A). During this period, uncertainty in the French economy fluctuated substantially. Uncertainty increased between 2010 and Q1 2011, decreased in Q2 and Q3 2011, increased in Q4 2011 and Q1 2012, and decreased for the rest of 2012. Similar fluctuations also occurred in credit supply, which decreased between 2010 and Q2 2011, increased between Q4 2011 and Q2 2012, decreased for the rest of 2012, increased in Q1 and Q2 2013, and decreased for the rest of 2013. NPLs as a percentage of total loans increased substantially between 2010 and 2013 but declined from 2014 onward.

Estimation of Equation (2) for Germany (Table A10 in Appendix A) revealed a significant negative effect of uncertainty on loans to non-residents. Data for Germany spanned the period from Q4 2008 to Q4 2016 (Table A3 in Appendix A). During this period, the uncertainty index followed a marginally downward trend between 2009 and 2015 but then rose in 2016. Credit supply continued to rise between Q4 2010 and Q3 2012, and remained stable thereafter. NPLs were consistently low (2%–4% of total loans). Germany is another country where economic uncertainty fell during the recent global financial crisis.

For Greece (Table A11 in Appendix A), there was a significant negative relationship between uncertainty and total gross loans, loans to deposit-takers, loans to central bank, and loans to non-residents. There was a significant positive relationship between uncertainty and loans to financial corporations, loans to other domestic sectors, and the two NPL variables. Data for the Greek economy spanned the period from Q3 2008 to Q4 2016. During this period, uncertainty rose steadily. Credit supply rose until Q2 2010, but after the first economic adjustment program was signed in May 2010, lending declined steadily until Q4 2016. Efforts to support the domestic economy through fiscal adjustment programs were obvious because, despite the increase in uncertainty, loans to non-financial corporations and other domestic sectors increased. NPLs increased substantially from 2008 onward. This observation explains their positive relationship with uncertainty.

Estimation of Equation (2) for Ireland (Table A12 in Appendix A) revealed a significant positive relationship between uncertainty and all dependent variables except loans to central bank and NPLs to total gross loans. These positive relationships are explained by the data availability for Ireland. These data spanned the period from Q1 2010 to Q3 2016 (Table A3 in Appendix A). During this period, Ireland made a major recovery effort, especially after 2013. Although the situation in the banking sector has not been fully restored (there was a decline in loans throughout the study period), uncertainty fell following Ireland’s successful exit from the adjustment program by the end of 2013 and during the subsequent positive climate. NPLs increased substantially while the economic adjustment programs were in force (2010–2013), but fell considerably between 2014 and 2016.

For Italy (Table A13 in Appendix A), there was a significant negative relationship between uncertainty and loans to deposit-takers, and a significant positive relationship between uncertainty and loans to residents and loans to other domestic sectors. The data for Italy spanned the period from Q4 2005 to Q2 2007 and from Q2 2008 to Q2 2016 (Table A3 in Appendix A). During this period, credit supply was relatively steady, with a small increase until 2010 and a small decrease from 2011 to 2015. Uncertainty had increased significantly by 2013, and it decreased slightly from 2014 to 2016. NPLs in Italy increased substantially from 2008 onward. This observation explains their positive relationship with uncertainty.

Estimation of Equation (2) for the economy of Latvia (Table A14 in Appendix A) revealed a significant positive relationship between uncertainty and total gross loans. The data spanned the period from Q1 2011 to Q4 2016. During this period, uncertainty and credit supply declined. The year 2011 marked a return to high growth rates after three years of recession. Accordingly, uncertainty and NPLs fell from 2011 onward.

For Lithuania, there was a significant negative relationship between uncertainty and total gross loans, loans to residents, loans to financial and non-financial corporations, and loans to other domestic sectors. Data for Lithuania spanned the period from Q4 2008 to Q3 2016 (Table A3 in Appendix A). Uncertainty increased substantially until Q1 2013 and then declined, while credit supply declined until Q1 2015 and rose thereafter. NPLs increased substantially in 2009 and 2010 and declined sharply from 2011 onward. NPLs did not share a significant relationship with uncertainty.

For Luxembourg (Table A16 in Appendix A), there was a significant negative relationship between uncertainty and total gross loans, loans to residents, and the two NPL variables. The data for Luxembourg spanned the period from Q1 2009 to Q4 2016 (Table A3 in Appendix A). During this period, uncertainty did not change substantially, although it increased between 2009 and 2012 and declined between 2013 and 2016. Credit supply evolved in the opposite way over the same period. A negative relationship between NPLs and uncertainty was observed. This finding is attributable to the study period. Data on NPLs spanned the period from 2009 to 2013—a period in which Luxembourg managed to reduce NPLs substantially, despite an increase in uncertainty between 2009 and 2012.

Malta is another country whose economy was not significantly affected by the recent global financial crisis. Estimation of Equation (2) for Malta (Table A17 in Appendix A) revealed a significant positive relationship between uncertainty and total gross loans, loans to residents, loans to financial and non-financial corporations, loans to other domestic sectors, loans to central banks, loans to non-residents, and NPLs net of provisions to capital. Data for Malta spanned the whole study period (2005 to 2016) (Table A3 in Appendix A). During this period in Malta, the credit supply to the economy steadily increased, while uncertainty increased until 2011 and then remained stable. Despite fluctuations, the number of NPLs remained low during this period. NPLs accounted for 12.0% of total loans in 2005, 5.0% in 2008, 9.5% in 2014, and 5.7% in 2016.

For the Netherlands (Table A18 in Appendix A), there was a significant negative relationship between uncertainty and loans to deposit-takers and between uncertainty and loans to non-residents. There was also a significant positive relationship between uncertainty and loans to non-financial corporations, loans to central banks, and the two NPL variables. Data for the Netherlands spanned the period from Q1 2008 to Q4 2016 (Table A3 in Appendix A). Uncertainty increased substantially until 2012 and then began to decline. Meanwhile, credit supply declined until 2010 and increased from 2011 onward and between 2014 and 2016. NPLs increased substantially between 2008 and Q1 2010 and continued to grow more slowly until 2014. In 2015, NPLs began to decline.

Estimation of Equation (2) for Portugal (Table A19 in Appendix A) revealed no significant effect of uncertainty on credit supply or the evolution of NPLs. The data for Portugal were annual between 2005 and 2007 and quarterly from Q4 2008 to Q3 2016 (Table A3 in Appendix A). During this period, uncertainty in the Portuguese economy increased steadily, while credit supply declined from 2010 onward. NPLs during this period increased substantially.

As with Portugal, for Slovakia (Table A20 in Appendix A), there was no significant effect of uncertainty on credit supply or the evolution of NPLs. Data for Slovakia spanned the period from Q1 2011 to Q4 2016 (Table A3 in Appendix A). During this period, uncertainty in the Slovak economy was relatively low, while credit supply increased in 2011 and then remained relatively stable. NPLs decreased marginally from 2011 onward.

Slovenia is another country whose economy was not significantly affected by the recent global financial crisis. Estimation of Equation (2) for the Slovenian economy (Table A21 in Appendix A) revealed a significant positive relationship between uncertainty and total gross loans, loans to residents, loans to deposit-takers, loans to financial and non-financial corporations, loans to other domestic sectors, and loans to non-residents. Data for Slovenia spanned the period from Q4 2010 to Q4 2016. During this period, uncertainty fell. Credit supply declined from 2012 onward. NPLs in Slovenia increased substantially from 2010 to 2013, and declined from 2014 onward.

Finally, estimation of Equation (2) for Spain revealed a significant negative relationship between uncertainty and loans to other domestic sectors and a significant positive relationship between uncertainty and loans to general government, loans to other domestic sectors, and the two NPL variables. Data for Spain spanned the period from Q4 2005 to Q4 2016 (Table A3 in Appendix A). Uncertainty decreased between 2006 and 2008, but increased substantially during the crisis (after 2009). Credit supply increased until 2009 and decreased thereafter. NPLs increased substantially between 2008 and 2013 and declined from 2014 onward.

 5. Conclusions

Using quarterly data that spanned the period from Q1 2005 to Q4 2016 for the Eurozone economies, the empirical analysis shows strong links between uncertainty and credit supply and between uncertainty and the evolution of NPLs. In particular, when uncertainty in the economy increases, total gross loans (to residents and non-residents) decrease. Conversely, the number of NPLs increases. The opposite relationships occurs when uncertainty decreases. Regarding loans to residents, loans to deposit-takers decrease with increasing uncertainty, as do loans to other domestic sectors and loans to the general government. In contrast, loans to financial corporations share a positive relationship with an increase in uncertainty, highlighting efforts to support the financial sector during periods of high uncertainty.

Regarding the effect of uncertainty on country-by-country credit supply, the analysis shows that countries that experienced the most pronounced effects of the crisis (i.e., Estonia, Finland, Greece, Italy, Portugal, and Spain), along with Belgium, Lithuania, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands, reduced credit supply when uncertainty rose and increased credit supply when uncertainty fell. Other countries (i.e., Cyprus, Ireland, Latvia, Malta, and Slovenia) increased credit supply when uncertainty rose and reduced credit supply when uncertainty fell. This finding implies that these countries use lending as a tool to tackle uncertainty. When uncertainty declines, they cease to use this tool. Finally, for the economies of Austria, Germany, France, and Slovakia, the level of uncertainty either remained stable or declined during the recent crisis. Thus, for these countries, there was no significant relationship with credit supply.

Country-by-country examination of the effect of uncertainty on the evolution of NPLs showed that in Belgium, Cyprus, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Malta, the Netherlands, and Spain, a rise in uncertainty was accompanied by a rise in the number of NPLs. Likewise, a decline in uncertainty was accompanied by a decline in the number of NPLs. In Estonia and Luxembourg, when uncertainty increased, the number of NPLs decreased, and when uncertainty decreased, the number of NPLs increased. Finally, in Austria, Finland, France, Germany, Latvia, Slovakia, and Slovenia, uncertainty generally declined during the recent crisis and had no effect on the evolution of NPLs.

The empirical results lead to several important conclusions. These conclusions are relevant not only to policymakers and governments of the Eurozone economies, but also to any organization or individual with an interest in the effects of uncertainty on economies and economic outcomes. For governments to reduce uncertainty in their economies, they need to scrutinize the directions they follow in the future. Policymakers should avoid hasty decisions during crises. Instead, they should focus on building the resilience of households, communities, businesses, the financial system, and the economy as a whole. They must build appropriate economic institutions that can reduce uncertainty and increase confidence. In addition, macroeconomic government policy plays a unique, key role in managing risk and uncertainty at the national level. Macroeconomic policies contribute to the management of external sector or systemic domestic factors. A stable external environment and a strong macroeconomic policy framework not only explain low uncertainty in an economy, but also reduce the likelihood of a recession. Finally, if businesses and households do not invest, governments may need to stimulate the economy by investing themselves.

The first limitation of this study refers to the availability of credit supply data. Poor data availability for certain countries in certain years meant that the study period varied for different economies. The IMF’s financial soundness indicators provided insufficient data for all Eurozone countries. Data for some countries were available only for some quarters, while for other countries, data were available for the whole study period.

Future research could use the uncertainty index that is presented in this paper as an indicator of economic uncertainty in relation to other macroeconomic variables. Furthermore, it would be of interest to examine the relationship between uncertainty in different economies and type of credit supply such as mortgage lending, consumer credit, and so forth.

 Appendix A J_Bus_Account_Financ_Perspect-2-7-t0A1_Table A1

List of countries and abbreviations.

Country Abbreviation
Austria AT
Belgium BE
Cyprus CY
Estonia EE
Finland FI
France FR
Germany DE
Greece GR
Ireland IE
Italy IT
Latvia LV
Lithuania LT
Luxembourg LU
Malta MT
Netherlands NL
Portugal PT
Slovak Republic SK
Slovenia SI
Spain ES
J_Bus_Account_Financ_Perspect-2-7-t0A2_Table A2

Stock indexes by country.

Stock Indexes by Eurozone Country
Austria AS51 Index
Belgium BEL20 Index
Cyprus CYSMFTSE Index
Estonia TALSE Index
Finland HEX25 Index
France CAC Index
Germany DAX Index
Greece FTASE Index
Ireland ISEQ Index
Italy FTSEMIB Index
Latvia RIGSE Index
Lithuania VILSE Index
Luxembourg LUXXX Index
Malta MALTEX Index
Netherlands AEX Index
Portugal PSI20 Index
Slovenia SBITOP Index
Slovakia SKSM Index
Spain IBEX Index
Major World Stock Markets Indexes
USA SPX Index
Canada SPTSX60 Index
Mexico MEXBOL Index
Brazil IBOV Index
Eurozone SX5E Index
UK UKX Index
Japan NKY Index
China–Hong Kong HSI Index
India BSE SENSEX Index
J_Bus_Account_Financ_Perspect-2-7-t0A3_Table A3

Availability of data by country.

Uncertainty Index Total Gross Loans Loans to Residents Loans to Deposit-Takers Loans to Financial Corporations Loans to Non-Financial Corporations Loans to Other Domestic Sectors Loans to Central Bank Loans to General Government Loans to Non-Residents NPL to Total Gross Loans NPL Net of Provisions to Capital
Austria 2005q1–2016q4 2010q1–2016q4
Belgium 2006q4–2016q3
Cyprus 2008q4–2016q1
Estonia 2008q4–2016q4
Finland 2005q1–2016q3 2005–2012 yearly data 2005q1–2016q3
France 2010q2–2013q4 2010q2–2012q2 - - 2010q2–2012q2 - 2010q2–2016q4
Germany 2008q4–2016q4 2005–2015 yearly data -
Greece 2008q3–2016q4
Ireland 2010q1–2016q3
Italy 2005q4–2007q2, 2008q2–2016q2 2005q4–2016q2
Latvia 2011q1–2016q4
Lithuania 2008q4–2016q3 2008q4–2014q2, 2015q2–2016q3 2008q4–2016q3 2008q4–2012q3, 2015q2–2016q3 2008q4–2016q3 - 2008q4–2016q3
Luxembourg 2009q1 2016q4 2009q1–2013q4
Malta 2005q1–2016q4
Netherlands 2008q1–2016q4
Portugal 2005q4, 2006q4, 2007q4, 2008q4–2016q3 2007q4, 2008q4, 2009q4–2016q3
Slovenia 2010q4–2016q4
Slovakia 2011q1–2016q4
Spain 2005q4–2016q4 - - 2005q4–2016q4
J_Bus_Account_Financ_Perspect-2-7-t0A4_Table A4

The effects of uncertainty on loan supply and NPLs in Austria.

Dependent var. Uncertainty N R2 F-stat
Total gross loans 33.83(0.88) 28 0.028 0.77
Loans to residents 22.49(1.12) 28 0.045 1.25
Loans to deposit-takers 26.97(1.18) 28 0.051 1.39
Loans to financial corporations 0.69(0.50) 28 0.009 0.25
Loans to non-financial corporations 1.26(0.57) 28 0.573 0.32
Loans to other domestic sectors −5.90(−1.27) 28 0.058 1.62
Loans to central bank 0.03(0.01) 28 0.000 0.00
Loans to general government −0.57(−0.67) 28 0.016 0.44
Loans to non-residents 11.34(0.54) 28 0.011 0.29
NPL to total gross loans −0.01(0.54) 28 0.014 0.37
NPL net of provisions to capital −0.01(−1.13) 28 0.047 1.28

Notes: t-statistics in parentheses.

 J_Bus_Account_Financ_Perspect-2-7-t0A5_Table A5

The effects of uncertainty on loan supply and NPLs in Belgium.

Dependent var. Uncertainty N R2 F-stat
Total gross loans −163.66 ***(−3.24) 40 0.216 10.50 ***
Loans to residents −31.42(−1.52) 40 0.057 2.31
Loans to deposit-takers −71.17 ***(−4.71) 40 0.368 22.14 ***
Loans to financial corporations 9.38 **(4.43) 40 0.105 4.48 **
Loans to non-financial corporations −4.49(−0.79) 40 0.016 0.62
Loans to other domestic sectors 39.33 ***(3.92) 40 0.288 15.38 ***
Loans to central bank −0.62(−0.57) 40 0.008 0.32
Loans to general government −3.85(−0.59) 40 0.009 0.35
Loans to non-residents −132.24 **(−1.97) 40 0.092 3.88 **
NPL to total gross loans 0.01 ***(3.69) 40 0.263 13.59 ***
NPL net of provisions to capital 0.01 ***(2.93) 40 0.184 8.61 ***

Notes: t-statistics in parentheses; ** and *** denote significance at the 5% and 1% significance levels, respectively.

 J_Bus_Account_Financ_Perspect-2-7-t0A6_Table A6

The effects of uncertainty on loan supply and NPLs in Cyprus.

Dependent var. Uncertainty N R2 F-stat
Total gross loans −16.47(−1.38) 30 0.063 1.89
Loans to residents 13.60 ***(4.02) 30 0.365 16.16 ***
Loans to deposit-takers −0.25(−0.56) 30 0.011 0.32
Loans to financial corporations 1.55 ***(4.32) 30 0.401 18.70 ***
Loans to non-financial corporations 1.62 *(1.66) 30 0.089 2.74 *
Loans to other domestic sectors 9.88 ***(5.08) 30 0.479 25.83 ***
Loans to central bank 0.72(1.11) 30 0.042 1.24
Loans to general government 0.07(0.60) 30 0.012 0.36
Loans to non-residents −30.08 ***(−2.76) 30 0.214 7.64 ***
NPL to total gross loans 0.02 ***(2.67) 30 0.199 6.97 ***
NPL net of provisions to capital 0.17 ***(2.79) 30 0.217 7.77 ***

Notes: t-statistics in parentheses; * and *** denote significance at the 10% and 1% significance levels, respectively.

 J_Bus_Account_Financ_Perspect-2-7-t0A7_Table A7

The effects of uncertainty on loan supply and NPLs in Estonia.

Dependent var. Uncertainty N R2 F-stat
Total gross loans −212.52 ***(−3.27) 33 0.256 10.70 ***
Loans to residents −193.99 ***(−3.20) 33 0.248 10.26 ***
Loans to deposit-takers −0.03(−0.66) 33 0.014 0.44
Loans to financial corporations −7.49 ***(−3.86) 33 0.324 14.91 ***
Loans to non-financial corporations −88.23 ***(−3.21) 33 0.249 10.32 ***
Loans to other domestic sectors −93.45 ***(−3.16) 33 0.243 9.99 ***
Loans to central bank 0.00(1.10) 33 0.037 1.21
Loans to general government −4.78 ***(−2.85) 33 0.207 8.13 ***
Loans to non-residents −18.52 ***(−4.02) 33 0.343 16.19 ***
NPL to total gross loans −0.01(−1.53) 33 0.071 2.34
NPL net of provisions to capital −0.017 ***(−2.59) 33 0.178 6.72 ***

Notes: t-statistics in parentheses; *** denotes significance at the 1% significance level.

 J_Bus_Account_Financ_Perspect-2-7-t0A8_Table A8

The effects of uncertainty on loan supply and NPLs in Finland.

Dependent var. Uncertainty N R2 F-stat
Total gross loans 44.29(1.46) 47 0.045 2.12
Loans to residents 22.38(1.16) 47 0.029 1.35
Loans to deposit-takers −1.84 *(−1.69) 47 0.059 2.86 *
Loans to financial corporations 6.03 **(1.98) 47 0.080 3.91 **
Loans to non-financial corporations 1.61(0.66) 47 0.009 0.44
Loans to other domestic sectors 14.44(1.31) 47 0.037 1.73
Loans to central bank 2.14(0.54) 47 0.006 0.30
Loans to general government 0.01(0.02) 47 0.000 0.00
Loans to non-residents 21.90 *(1.74) 47 0.063 3.04 *
NPL to total gross loans 0.01(1.53) 8 0.281 2.36
NPL net of provisions to capital 0.01(0.54) 44 0.007 0.29

Notes: t-statistics in parentheses; * and ** denote significance at the 10% and 5% significance levels, respectively.

 J_Bus_Account_Financ_Perspect-2-7-t0A9_Table A9

The effects of uncertainty on loan supply and NPLs in France.

Dependent var. Uncertainty N R2 F-stat
Total gross loans −8.82(−0.15) 15 0.002 0.02
Loans to residents −226.83(−1.40) 9 0.219 1.97
Loans to deposit-takers −16.46(−0.41) 9 0.023 0.17
Loans to financial corporations −11.52(−0.56) 9 0.043 0.32
Loans to non-financial corporations −50.77(−0.31) 9 0.013 0.10
Loans to other domestic sectors - - - -
Loans to central bank - - - -
Loans to general government −24.25(−0.43) 9 0.026 0.19
Loans to non-residents - - - -
NPL to total gross loans 0.01(0.38) 27 0.005 0.14
NPL net of provisions to capital −0.01(−0.49) 27 0.009 0.24

Notes: t-statistics in parentheses.

 J_Bus_Account_Financ_Perspect-2-7-t0A10_Table A10

The effects of uncertainty on loan supply and NPLs in Germany.

Dependent var. Uncertainty N R2 F-stat
Total gross loans −347.28(−1.17) 33 0.042 1.37
Loans to residents −197.53(−0.76) 33 0.018 0.58
Loans to deposit-takers −63.50(−1.03) 33 0.033 1.07
Loans to financial corporations 29.76(1.28) 33 0.050 1.64
Loans to non-financial corporations −54.12(−1.18) 33 0.043 1.39
Loans to other domestic sectors −126.60(−1.26) 33 0.048 1.58
Loans to central bank 7.44(0.11) 33 0.001 0.01
Loans to general government 9.47(0.39) 33 0.005 0.15
Loans to non-residents −167.41 ***(−3.50) 33 0.283 12.26 ***
NPL to total gross loans 0.01(1.40) 11 0.178 1.95
NPL net of provisions to capital - - - -

Notes: t-statistics in parentheses; *** denotes significance at the 1% significance level.

 J_Bus_Account_Financ_Perspect-2-7-t0A11_Table A11

The effects of uncertainty on loan supply and NPLs in Greece.

Dependent var. Uncertainty N R2 F-stat
Total gross loans −47.05 *(−1.92) 34 0.103 3.69 *
Loans to residents 1.48(0.09) 34 0.000 0.01
Loans to deposit-takers −8.33 ***(−5.26) 34 0.463 27.66 ***
Loans to financial corporations 3.04 ***(7.02) 34 0.606 49.23 ***
Loans to non-financial corporations −1.01(−0.20) 34 0.001 0.04
Loans to other domestic sectors 12.56 **(2.29) 34 0.140 5.23 **
Loans to central bank −4.07 ***(−2.94) 34 0.213 8.65 ***
Loans to general government −0.68(−0.06) 34 0.000 0.00
Loans to non-residents −48.54 ***(−3.84) 34 0.315 14.76 ***
NPL to total gross loans 0.02 ***(4.26) 34 0.361 18.13 ***
NPL net of provisions to capital 0.07 ***(3.34) 34 0.271 11.18 ***

Notes: t-statistics in parentheses; *, **, and *** denote significance at the 10%, 5%, and 1% significance levels, respectively.

 J_Bus_Account_Financ_Perspect-2-7-t0A12_Table A12

The effects of uncertainty on loan supply and NPLs in Ireland.

Dependent var. Uncertainty N R2 F-stat
Total gross loans 304.65 ***(2.77) 27 0.234 7.67 ***
Loans to residents 191.77 ***(2.97) 27 0.261 8.83 ***
Loans to deposit-takers 73.97 **(2.38) 27 0.184 5.66 **
Loans to financial corporations 20.38 ***(3.54) 27 0.334 12.53 ***
Loans to non-financial corporations 47.81 ***(3.22) 27 0.293 10.38 ***
Loans to other domestic sectors 28.90 ***(2.86) 27 0.246 8.19 ***
Loans to central bank −2.62(−0.75) 27 0.022 0.56
Loans to general government 23.37 ***(2.57) 27 0.209 6.61 ***
Loans to non-residents 112.87 **(2.46) 27 0.194 6.05 **
NPL to total gross loans 0.01(0.08) 27 0.001 0.01
NPL net of provisions to capital 0.03 ***(2.80) 27 0.238 7.84 ***

Notes: t-statistics in parentheses; *, **, and *** denote significance at the 10%, 5%, and 1% significance levels, respectively.

 J_Bus_Account_Financ_Perspect-2-7-t0A13_Table A13

The effects of uncertainty on loan supply and NPLs in Italy.

Dependent var. Uncertainty N R2 F-stat
Total gross loans 79.71(1.23) 40 0.038 1.52
Loans to residents 57.65 **(2.27) 40 0.119 5.18 **
Loans to deposit-takers −31.07 ***(−6.06) 40 0.491 36.74 ***
Loans to financial corporations 1.87(0.12) 40 0.001 0.02
Loans to non-financial corporations 19.18(1.06) 40 0.029 1.13
Loans to other domestic sectors 70.70 ***(3.34) 40 0.226 11.13 ***
Loans to central bank −2.13(−0.83) 40 0.017 0.69
Loans to general government −0.89(−0.21) 40 0.001 0.04
Loans to non-residents 22.04(0.39) 40 0.004 0.15
NPL to total gross loans 0.01 ***(3.36) 43 0.215 11.27 ***
NPL net of provisions to capital 0.04 ***(3.63) 43 0.243 13.20 ***

Notes: t-statistics in parentheses; *, **, and *** denote significance at the 10%, 5%, and 1% significance levels, respectively.

 J_Bus_Account_Financ_Perspect-2-7-t0A14_Table A14

The effects of uncertainty on loan supply and NPLs in Latvia.

Dependent var. Uncertainty N R2 F-stat
Total gross loans 1.93 *(1.67) 24 0.112 2.80 *
Loans to residents 2.03(1.44) 24 0.086 2.08
Loans to deposit-takers 0.10(1.23) 24 0.064 1.52
Loans to financial corporations −0.27(−1.56) 24 0.099 2.42
Loans to non-financial corporations 1.00(1.44) 24 0.086 2.09
Loans to other domestic sectors 1.19(1.59) 24 0.103 2.53
Loans to central bank - - - -
Loans to general government 0.01(0.29) 24 0.003 0.08
Loans to non-residents −0.09(−0.09) 24 0.001 0.01
NPL to total gross loans 0.01(1.33) 24 0.074 1.77
NPL net of provisions to capital 0.016(1.08) 24 0.051 1.16

Notes: t-statistics in parentheses; *, **, and *** denote significance at the 10%, 5%, and 1% significance levels, respectively.

 J_Bus_Account_Financ_Perspect-2-7-t0A15_Table A15

The effects of uncertainty on loan supply and NPLs in Lithuania.

Dependent var. Uncertainty N R2 F-stat
Total gross loans −4.27***(−4.66) 32 0.419 21.71***
Loans to residents −4.27***(−4.66) 32 0.419 21.71***
Loans to deposit-takers −0.16(−1.00) 32 0.032 1.00
Loans to financial corporations −0.04***(−2.96) 32 0.225 8.74***
Loans to non-financial corporations −1.75***(−3.83) 32 0.328 14.66***
Loans to other domestic sectors −1.98***(−3.59) 32 0.301 12.91***
Loans to central bank −0.42(−1.08) 32 0.037 1.17
Loans to general government 0.083(0.54) 32 0.009 0.30
Loans to non-residents - - - -
NPL to total gross loans 0.01(1.55) 32 0.074 2.40
NPL net of provisions to capital 0.01(0.20) 32 0.001 0.04

Notes: t-statistics in parentheses; *, **, and *** denote significance at the 10%, 5%, and 1% significance levels, respectively.

 J_Bus_Account_Financ_Perspect-2-7-t0A16_Table A16

The effects of uncertainty on loan supply and NPLs in Luxembourg.

Dependent var. Uncertainty N R2 F-stat
Total gross loans −31.14 **(−2.31) 32 0.150 5.31 **
Loans to residents −24.07 *(−1.72) 32 0.089 2.95 *
Loans to deposit-takers −15.71(−1.42) 32 0.063 2.02
Loans to financial corporations 0.59(0.20) 32 0.001 0.04
Loans to non-financial corporations −2.15(−1.27) 32 0.051 1.61
Loans to other domestic sectors 0.56(0.22) 32 0.001 0.05
Loans to central bank −6.50(−0.46) 32 0.007 0.21
Loans to general government −0.10(−0.78) 32 0.019 0.61
Loans to non-residents −7.09(−0.57) 32 0.010 0.32
NPL to total gross loans −0.01 ***(−3.36) 20 0.385 11.30 ***
NPL net of provisions to capital −0.01 **(−2.65) 20 0.280 7.03 **

Notes: t-statistics in parentheses; *, **, and *** denote significance at the 10%, 5%, and 1% significance levels, respectively.

 J_Bus_Account_Financ_Perspect-2-7-t0A17_Table A17

The effects of uncertainty on loan supply and NPLs in Malta.

Dependent var. Uncertainty N R2 F-stat
Total gross loans 3.38 ***(4.77) 47 0.331 22.76 ***
Loans to residents 3.00 ***(5.65) 48 0.409 31.93 ***
Loans to deposit-takers −0.01(−0.25) 48 0.001 0.06
Loans to financial corporations 0.20 ***(4.68) 48 0.322 21.91 ***
Loans to nonfinancial corporations 0.67 ***(5.38) 48 0.386 29.00 ***
Loans to other domestic sectors 1.59 ***(6.52) 48 0.480 42.56 ***
Loans to central bank 0.43 *(1.70) 48 0.059 2.90 *
Loans to general government 0.11 *(1.79) 48 0.065 3.21 *
Loans to non-residents 0.38 *(1.81) 48 0.066 3.27 *
NPL to total gross loans 0.01(0.21) 48 0.001 0.04
NPL net of provisions to capital 0.01 **(2.19) 48 0.094 4.81 **

Notes: t-statistics in parentheses; *, **, and *** denote significance at the 10%, 5%, and 1% significance levels, respectively.

 J_Bus_Account_Financ_Perspect-2-7-t0A18_Table A18

The effects of uncertainty on loan supply and NPLs in the Netherlands.

Dependent var. Uncertainty N R2 F-stat
Total gross loans −31.11(−0.53) 36 0.008 0.28
Loans to residents 56.15(1.49) 36 0.061 2.22
Loans to deposit-takers −21.93 ***(−4.00) 36 0.320 16.02 ***
Loans to financial corporations 13.66(1.14) 36 0.037 1.31
Loans to non-financial corporations 14.85 **(2.05) 36 0.110 4.22 **
Loans to other domestic sectors 7.67(0.70) 36 0.014 0.49
Loans to central bank 36.66(1.39) 36 0.054 1.94
Loans to general government 5.28 *(1.64) 36 0.073 2.70 *
Loans to non-residents −87.23 **(−2.27) 36 0.132 5.17 **
NPL to total gross loans 0.01 ***(3.34) 36 0.247 11.17 ***
NPL net of provisions to capital 0.01 ***(2.83) 36 0.190 8.00 ***

Notes: t-statistics in parentheses; *, **, and *** denote significance at the 10%, 5%, and 1% significance levels, respectively.

 J_Bus_Account_Financ_Perspect-2-7-t0A19_Table A19

The effects of uncertainty on loan supply and NPLs in Portugal.

Dependent var. Uncertainty N R2 F-stat
Total gross loans −18.36(−0.74) 36 0.016 0.55
Loans to residents −4.84(−0.26) 35 0.002 0.07
Loans to deposit-takers 0.88(0.29) 35 0.002 0.08
Loans to financial corporations −1.14(−0.73) 35 0.016 0.53
Loans to non-financial corporations −5.37(−0.61) 35 0.011 0.37
Loans to other domestic sectors −0.93(−0.15) 35 0.001 0.02
Loans to central bank −0.57(−0.63) 35 0.012 0.40
Loans to general government 2.29(1.53) 35 0.066 2.34
Loans to non-residents −2.28(−0.30) 35 0.003 0.09
NPL to total gross loans 0.01(0.56) 30 0.011 0.32
NPL net of provisions to capital 0.01(0.85) 30 0.025 0.71

Notes: t-statistics in parentheses; *, **, and *** denote significance at the 10%, 5%, and 1% significance levels, respectively.

 J_Bus_Account_Financ_Perspect-2-7-t0A20_Table A20

The effects of uncertainty on loan supply and NPLs in Slovakia.

Dependent var. Uncertainty N R2 F-stat
Total gross loans −1.59(−0.32) 24 0.004 0.10
Loans to residents −1.26(−0.27) 24 0.003 0.07
Loans to deposit-takers 0.01(0.19) 24 0.001 0.04
Loans to financial corporations 0.02(0.24) 24 0.002 0.06
Loans to non-financial corporations 0.11(0.20) 24 0.002 0.04
Loans to other domestic sectors −1.43(−0.32) 24 0.004 0.10
Loans to central bank - - - -
Loans to general government 0.03(0.46) 24 0.009 0.21
Loans to non-residents −0.33(−0.62) 24 0.017 0.38
NPL to total gross loans −0.01(−0.12) 24 0.001 0.01
NPL net of provisions to capital −0.01(−0.90) 24 0.035 0.81

Notes: t-statistics in parentheses; *, **, and *** denote significance at the 10%, 5%, and 1% significance levels, respectively.

 J_Bus_Account_Financ_Perspect-2-7-t0A21_Table A21

The effects of uncertainty on loan supply and NPLs in Slovenia.

Dependent var. Uncertainty N R2 F-stat
Total gross loans 15.16 **(2.56) 25 0.222 6.56 **
Loans to residents 14.26 **(2.52) 25 0.216 6.34 **
Loans to deposit-takers 2.31 **(2.50) 25 0.213 6.25 **
Loans to financial corporations 1.52 **(2.58) 25 0.224 6.64 **
Loans to non-financial corporations 10.56 **(2.39) 25 0.199 5.73 **
Loans to other domestic sectors 0.71 **(2.40) 25 0.199 5.75 **
Loans to central bank −0.70(−1.30) 25 0.068 1.69
Loans to general government −0.15(−0.29) 25 0.003 0.08
Loans to non-residents 0.89 *(1.73) 25 0.115 3.00 *
NPL to total gross loans 0.01(0.16) 25 0.001 0.03
NPL net of provisions to capital 0.04(1.44) 25 0.082 2.06

Notes: t-statistics in parentheses; *, **, and *** denote significance at the 10%, 5%, and 1% significance levels, respectively.

 J_Bus_Account_Financ_Perspect-2-7-t0A22_Table A22

The effects of uncertainty on loan supply and NPLs in Spain.

Dependent var. Uncertainty N R2 F-stat
Total gross loans 198.84(1.26) 45 0.035 1.58
Loans to residents −63.28(−0.57) 45 0.007 0.32
Loans to deposit-takers 14.40(1.04) 45 0.024 1.08
Loans to financial corporations - - - -
Loans to non-financial corporations - - - -
Loans to other domestic sectors −222.97 **(−2.18) 45 0.099 4.74 **
Loans to central bank −1.50(−0.19) 45 0.001 0.04
Loans to general government 146.78 ***(2.98) 45 0.171 8.91 ***
Loans to non-residents - - - -
NPL to total gross loans 0.01 ***(2.77) 45 0.151 7.68 ***
NPL net of provisions to capital 0.02 **(2.35) 45 0.113 5.52 **

Notes: t-statistics in parentheses; *, **, and *** denote significance at the 10%, 5%, and 1% significance levels, respectively.

 References Aggelopoulos E. Giannopoulos V. Mpourou E. Credit provision strategy during financial crisis using bank accounting data Accounting and Finance Research 2016 5 4 137 146 10.5430/afr.v5n4p137 Aiyar S. Ilyina A. Jobst A. How to tackle Europe’s non-performing loan problem VOX, CEPR’s Policy Portal 2015a Retrieved from http://voxeu.org/article/how-tackle-europe-s-non-performing-loan-problem Aiyar S. Bergthaler W. Garrido J. Ilyina A. Jobst A. Kang K. Kovtun D. Liu Y. Monaghan D. Moretti M. A strategy for resolving Europe’s problem loans (IMF Staff Discussion Note No. 15/19) International Monetary Fund Washington, DC 2015b Alexopoulos M. Cohen J. Uncertainty and the credit crisis VOX, CEPR’s Policy Portal 2008 Retrieved from http://voxeu.org/article/uncertainty-and-credit-crisis-worst-may-be-over Alexopoulos M. Cohen J. Uncertain times, uncertain measures (Working Paper, 352) University of Toronto Department of Economics Toronto 2009 Anastasiou D. Louri H. Tsionas M. Determinants of non-performing loans: Evidence from Euroarea countries Finance Research Letters 2016 18 116 119 Asea P. Blomberg B. Lending cycles Journal of Econometrics 1998 83 89 128 10.1016/S0304-4076(97)00066-3 Ashcraft A. B. Campello M. Firm balance sheets and monetary policy transmission Journal of Monetary Economics 2007 54 1515 1528 10.1016/j.jmoneco.2007.03.003 Baker S. Bloom N. Davis S. Measuring economic policy uncertainty 2011 Retrieved from http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/steven.davis/pdf/PolicyUncertainty.pdf Balgova M. Nies M. Plekhanov A. The economic impact of reducing non-performing loans (EBRD Working Paper, 193) European Bank for Reconstruction and Development London, UK 2016 Balgova M. Plekhanov A. Non-performing loans, investment and growth (EBRD Working Paper) European Bank for Reconstruction and Development London, UK 2016 Baron M. Xiong W. Credit expansion and neglected crash risk The Quarterly Journal of Economics 2017 132 2 713 764 10.1093/qje/qjx004 Bayoumi T. Melander O. Credit matters: Empirical evidence on U.S. macro-financial linkages (IMF Working Paper No. 169) IMF Western Hemisphere Department Washington, DC 2008 Beck T. Jakubik P. Piloiu A. Non-performing loans: What matters in addition to the economic cycle? (Working Paper 1515) European Central Bank Frankfurt, Germany 2013 Beck R. Jakubik P. Piloiu A. Key determinants of non-performing loans: New evidence from a global sample Open Economies Review 2015 26 3 525 550 10.1007/s11079-015-9358-8 Belke A. Goecke M. Real options effects on employment: Does exchange rate uncertainty matter for aggregation? German Economic Review 2005 6 2 185 203 10.1111/j.1465-6485.2005.00126.x Bernanke B. Irreversibility, uncertainty, and cyclical investment Quarterly Journal of Economics 1983 98 1 85 106 10.2307/1885568 Bernanke B. S. Gertler M. Inside the black box: The credit channel of monetary policy transmission Journal of Economic Perspectives 1995 9 4 27 48 10.1257/jep.9.4.27 Bernanke B. Lown C. The credit crunch Brookings Papers on Economic Activity 1991 2 205 239 10.2307/2534592 Bhagat S. Obreja I. Employment, corporate investment and cash flow uncertainty (Working Paper) Leeds School of Business University of Colorado at Boulder Colorado, US 2011 Retrieved from http://leeds-faculty.colorado.edu/bhagat/Employment-Investment-Uncertainty.pdf Black S. Strahan P. Entrepreneurship and bank credit availability Journal of Finance 2002 57 6 2807 2833 10.1111/1540-6261.00513 Blackburn K. Pelloni A. Growth, cycles, and stabilization policy Oxford Economic Papers 2005 57 2 262 282 10.1093/oep/gpi012 Blalock G. Gertler P. J. Levine D. I. Investment following a financial crisis: Does foreign ownership matter? Paper presented at SCCIEWorkshop on Firms in Emerging Markets Santa Cruz, University of California 20 May 2005 2005 Bloom N. The impact of uncertainty shocks Econometrica 2009 77 3 623 685 Bloom N. Floetotto M. Jaimovich N. Really uncertain business cycles (Stanford University Working Paper) Stanford University Stanford, CA 2011 Bofondi M. Ropele T. Macroeconomic determinants of bad loans: Evidence from italian banks (Occasional Papers (Questioni di economia e finanza) No. 89) Banca D’Italia Roma, Italy 2011 Bonn B. Pfeifer J. Policy risk and the business cycle (Bonn Econ Discussion Papers) University of Bonn Bonn, Germany 2011 Borio C. Disyatat P. Juselius M. Rethinking potential output: Embedding information about the financial cycle (BIS Working Papers No. 404) Bank for International Settlements (BIS) Basel, Switzerland 2013 Borio C. Disyatat P. Juselius M. A parsimonious approach to incorporating economic information in measures of potential output (BIS Working Papers No. 442) Bank for International Settlements (BIS) Basel, Switzerland 2014 Borio C. Furfine C. Lowe P. Procyclicality of the financial system and financial stability: Issue and policy options Marrying the Macro- and Micro-Prudential Dimensions of Financial Stability (BIS Working Papers 1) Bank for International Settlements (BIS) Basel, Switzerland 2001 1 57 Borio C. Lowe P. Asset prices, financial and monetary stability: Exploring the nexus (BIS Working Papers No. 114) Bank for International Settlements (BIS) Basel, Switzerland 2002 Boudriga A. Taktak B. N. Jellouli S. Banking supervision and nonperforming loans: A cross-country analysis Journal of Financial Economic Policy 2009 1 4 286 318 10.1108/17576380911050043 Calomiris C. Mason J. Consequences of Bank Distress during the Great Depression American Economic Review 2003 93 3 937 947 10.1257/000282803322157188 Cappiello L. Kadareja A. Kok Sørensen C. Protopapa M. Do bank loans and credit standards have an effect on output? A panel approach for the euro area (ECB Working Paper Series No. 1150) European Central Bank (ECB) Frankfurt, Germany 2010 Cetorelli N. Goldberg L. Liquidity management of U.S. global banks: Internal capital markets in the great recession Journal of International Economics 2012 88 2 299 311 10.1016/j.jinteco.2012.05.001 Chatelain J.-B. Ehrmann M. Generale A. Martínez-Pagés J. Vermeulen P. Worms A. Monetary policy transmission in the Euro area: New evidence from micro data on firms and banks Journal of the European Economic Association 2003 1 2–3 731 742 10.1162/154247603322391350 Chen J. Prakash K. Prakash L. Bharat T. New evidence on cyclical and structural sources of unemployment (IMF Working Paper No. 11/106) IMF Research Department Washington, DC 2011 Ciccarelli M. Maddaloni A. Peydro J. L. Trusting the bankers: A new look at the credit channel of monetary policy (ECB Working Paper No. 1228) European Central Bank (ECB) Frankfurt, Germany 2010 Cornett M. M. McNutt J. J. Strahan P. E. Tehranian H. Liquidity risk management and credit supply in the financial crisis Journal of Financial Economics 2011 101 2 297 312 10.1016/j.jfineco.2011.03.001 Cucinelli D. The impact of non-performing loans on bank lending behaviour: Evidence from the Italian banking sector Eurasian Journal of Business and Economics 2015 8 16 59 71 10.17015/ejbe.2015.016.04 De Bondt G. Maddaloni A. Peydro J. L. Scopel S. The euro area bank lending survey matters: Empirical evidence for credit and output growth (ECB Working Paper No. 1160) European Central Bank (ECB) Frankfurt, Germany 2010 De Haas R. Van Horen N. The crisis as a wake-up call. Do banks increase screening and monitoring during a financial crisis? (EBRD Working paper) European Bank for Reconstruction and Development London UK 2009 Del Prete S. Pagnini M. Rossi P. Vacca V. Lending organization and credit supply during the 2008–2009 crisis Economic Notes 2017 46 2 207 236 10.1111/ecno.12078 DeMarzo P. M. Sannikov U. Optimal security design and dynamic capital structure in a continuous-time agency model Journal of Finance 2006 61 6 2681 2724 10.1111/j.1540-6261.2006.01002.x Demirguc-Kunt A. Detragiache E. Does deposit insurance increase banking system fragility? An empirical investigation Journal of Monetary Economics 2002 49 7 1373 1406 10.1016/S0304-3932(02)00171-X Denis S. Kannan P. The impact of uncertainty shocks on the UK economy (IMF Working Paper No. 13/66) IMF European Department Washington, DC 2013 Desai M. A. Foley C. F. Forbes K. J. Financial constraints and growth: Multinational and local firm responses to currency crises (NBER Working Paper No. W10545) National Bureau of Economic Research Cambridge 2004 Dihn T. T. H. Kleimeier S. Straetmans S. Bank lending strategy, credit scoring and financial crises (Working Paper) School of Business and Economics, Maastricht University Maastricht, The Netherlands 2013 Dixit A. Pindyck R. Investment under uncertainty Princeton University Press Princeton 1994 Djiogap C. F. Ngomsi A. Determinants of bank long term lending behavior in the Central African Economic and Monetary Community (CEMAC) Review of Economics and Finance 2012 2 2 107 114 Driver C. Moreton D. The Influence of Uncertainty on UK Manufacturing Investment The Economic Journal 1991 101 409 1452 1459 10.2307/2234895 Durnev A. The real effects of political uncertainty: Elections and investment sensitivity to stock prices (Working Paper) McGill University Montreal, QC 2010 Eichengreen B. Hale G. Mody A. Flight to quality: Investor risk tolerance and the spread of emerging market crises Alphen international financial contagion Classens S. Forbes K. Kluwer Aan den Rijn 2001 English W. B. Reid B. K. Profits and balance sheet developments at U.S. commercial banks in 1993 Federal Reserve Bulletin 1994 80 6 483 507 Espinoza R. A. Prasad A. Nonperforming loans in the GCC banking system and their macroeconomic effects (IMF Working Papers 10/224) IMF Middle East and Central Asia Department Washington, DC 2010 1 24 Fernandez-Villaverde J. Guerron-Quintana P. Kuester K. Rubio-Ramirez J. Fiscal volatility shocks and economic activity University of Pennsylvania Mimeo Mimeo 2011 Fofack H. Nonperforming loans in Sub-Sahara Africa. Causal analysis and macroeconomic implication (World Bank Policy Research Paper 3769) The World Bank Washington, DC 2005 1 5 Furceri D. Mourougane A. The effect of financial crises on potential output: New empirical evidence from OECD countries (Working Paper 699) OECD Economics Department Paris 2009 Gertler M. Gilchrist S. Monetary policy, business cycles, and the behavior of small manufacturing firms Quarterly Journal of Economics 1994 109 2 309 340 10.2307/2118465 Gilchrist S. Sim J. W. Zakrajsek E. Uncertainty, financial friction and investment dynamics Princeton University Princeton 2010 Retrieved from http://www.princeton.edu/economics/seminar-schedule-by-prog/macro-s10/papers/Gilchrist-Paper.pdf Greenwood R. Hanson S. G. Issuer quality and corporate bond returns Review of Financial Studies 2013 26 6 1483 1525 10.1093/rfs/hht016 Herrmann S. Mihaljek D. The determinants of cross-border bank flows to emerging markets: New empirical evidence on the spread of financial crises (BIS Working Papers No. 315) Bank for International Settlements (BIS) Basel, Switzerland 2010 Holmstrom B. Tirole J. Financial intermediation, loanable funds, and the real sector Quarterly Journal of Economics 1997 112 3 663 691 10.1162/003355397555316 Ivashina V. Scharfstein D. Bank Lending During the Financial Crisis of 2008 (Working Paper) Harvard Business School Harvard, MA 2009 Jimenez G. Saurina J. Credit cycles, credit risk, and prudential regulation International Journal of Central Banking 2006 2 65 98 Jorda O. Schularick M. Taylor A. When credit bites back Journal of Money, Credit and Banking 2013 45 s2 3 28 10.1111/jmcb.12069 Kaminsky G. Lizondo S. Reinhart C. Leading indicators of currency crisis IMF Staff Papers 1998 45 1 1 48 10.2307/3867328 Kaminsky G. Reinhart C. The twin crises: The causes of banking and balance of payments problems The American Economic Review 1999 89 3 473 500 10.1257/aer.89.3.473 Keeton W. R. Does faster loan growth lead to higher loan losses? Economic Review Kansas City Federal Reserve Bank 1999 84 2 57 75 Khemraj T. Pasha S. The determinants of non-performing loans: An econometric case study of Guyana The Caribbean Centre for Banking and Finance Bi-annual Conference on Banking and Finance St. Augustine 2009 Kindleberger C. Manias, panics, and crashes: A history of financial crises Basic Books New York 1978 Klein N. Non-performing loans in CESEE: Determinants and impact on macroeconomic performance (IMF Working Paper 01: 26) IMF European Department Washington DC 2013 Kwan S. Eisenbeis R. An analysis of inefficiencies in banking Journal of Banking and Finance 1995 19 3–4 733 734 10.1016/0378-4266(94)00155-V Ladime J. Kumankoma S. Osei K. A. Determinants of bank lending behavior in Ghana Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development 2013 4 17 42 48 Lopez-Salido D. Stein J. Zakrajsek E. Credit-market sentiment and the business cycle (NBER Working Paper 21879) National Bureau of Economic Research Cambridge 2016 Louzis D. P. Vouldis A. T. Metaxas V. L. Macroeconomic and bank-specific determinants of non-performing loans in Greece: A comparative study of mortgage, business and consumer loan portfolios Journal of Banking & Finance 2012 36 4 1012 1027 Lown C. S. Morgan &amp P D. Credit effects in the monetary mechanism Federal Reserve Bank of New York Economic Policy Review 2002 8 217 235 Lown C. S. Morgan D. P. The credit cycle and the business cycle: New findings from the loan officer opinion survey Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking 2006 38 1575 1597 10.1353/mcb.2006.0086 Lown C. S. Morgan D. P. Rohatgi S. Listening to loan officers: The impact of commercial credit standards on lending and output Federal Reserve Bank of New York Economic Policy Review 2000 6 1 16 Mian A. Sufi A. The consequences of mortgage credit expansion: Evidence from the U.S. mortgage default crisis Quarterly Journal of Economics 2009 124 1449 1496 10.1162/qjec.2009.124.4.1449 Micco A. Panizza U. Bank ownership and lending behavior Economics Letters 2006 93 248 254 10.1016/j.econlet.2006.05.009 Minsky H. The financial instability hypothesis: An interpretation of keynes and an alternative to “standard” theory Nebraska Journal of Economics and Business 1977 16 1 5 16 10.1080/05775132.1977.11470296 Narita F. Hidden actions, risk-taking, and uncertainty shocks University of Minnesota Minneapolis 2011 Nehls H. Schmidt T. Credit crunch in Germany? Kredit und Kapital 2004 37 4 479 499 Nkusu M. Nonperforming loans and macrofinancial vulnerabilities in advanced economies (IMF Working Paper No 11/161) International Monetary Fund Washington, DC 2011 Olokoyo F. O. Determinants of commercial banks’ lending behavior in Nigeria International Journal of Financial Research 2011 2 2 61 72 10.5430/ijfr.v2n2p61 Ozili P. K. How bank managers anticipate non-performing loans. Evidence from Europe, US, Asia and Africa Applied Finance and Accounting 2015 1 2 73 80 10.11114/afa.v1i2.880 Panopoulou M. Technological change and corporate strategy in the Greek banking industry (Working Paper No. 02-13) Center of Planning and Economic Research Athens, Greece 2005 Panousi V. Papanikolaou D. Investment, idiosyncratic risk and ownership Journal of Finance 2012 67 3 1113 1148 10.1111/j.1540-6261.2012.01743.x Pastor L. Veronesi P. Uncertainty about government policy and stock prices Journal of Finance 2011a 67 4 1219 1264 10.1111/j.1540-6261.2012.01746.x Pastor L. Veronesi P. Political uncertainty and risk premia Journal of Financial Economics 2011b 110 3 520 545 10.1016/j.jfineco.2013.08.007 Peek J. Rosengren E. Collateral damage: Effects of the Japanese bank crisis on real activity in the United States American Economic Review 2000 90 30 45 10.1257/aer.90.1.30 Peek J. Rosengren E. Unnatural selection: Perverse incentives and the misallocation of credit in Japan American Economic Review 2005 95 1144 1166 10.1257/0002828054825691 Petrakis P. E. Valsamis D. G. Kostis P. C. Uncertainty shocks in Eurozone periphery countries and Germany Cyprus Economic Policy Review 2014 9 2 87 106 Popov A. Udell G. Cross-border banking and the international transmission of financial distress during the crisis of 2007–2008 (ECB Working Paper No. 1203) European Central Bank (ECB) Frankfurt, Germany 2012 Rajan R. Dhal &amp C S. Non-performing loans and terms of credit of public sector banks in India: An empirical assessment Reserve Bank of India Occasional Papers 2003 24 3 81 121 Rinaldi L. Sanchis-Arellano A. Household debt sustainability: What explains household non-performing loans? An empirical analysis (ECB Working Paper No. 570) European Central Bank (ECB) Frankfurt, Germany 2006 Rogoff K. Debt supercycle, not secular stagnation VOX, CEPR’s Policy Portal 2015 Retrieved from http://voxeu.org/article/debt-supercycle-not-secular-stagnation Romer C. The great crash and the onset of the great depression Quarterly Journal of Economics 1990 105 597 624 10.2307/2937892 Salas V. Saurina J. Credit risk in two institutional settings: Spanish commercial and saving banks Journal of Financial Services Research 2002 22 3 203 224 10.1023/A:1019781109676 Schularick M. Taylor A. Credit booms gone bust: Monetary policy, leverage cycles and financial crises, 1870–2008 American Economic Review 2012 102 1029 1061 10.1257/aer.102.2.1029 Skarica B. Determinants of non-performing loans in central and eastern European countries Financial Theory and Practice 2014 38 1 37 59 10.3326/fintp.38.1.2 Swamy V. Sreejesh S. Financial instability, uncertainty and banks’ lending behavior (MPRA Paper 47518) 2012 Retrieved from http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/47518/ Swiston A. A U.S. financial conditions index: Putting credit where credit is due (IMF Working Paper No. 16) IMF Western Hemisphere Department Washington, DC 2008 Takats E. Upper C. Credit and growth after financial crises (BIS Working Papers No. 416) Bank for International Settlements (BIS) Basel, Switzerland 2013 Takats E. Was it credit supply? Cross-border bank lending to emerging market economies during the financial crisis BIS Quarterly Review 2010 X 2 49 56 Tanasković S. Jandrić M. Macroeconomic and institutional determinants of non-performing loans Journal of Central Banking Theory and Practice 2015 4 1 47 62 Tomz M. Wright M. L. Sovereign debt, defaults and bailouts Paper presented at the NBER IFM SI National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge 11 July 2005 2005 Weinberg J. A. Cycles in lending standards? Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond Economic Quarterly 1995 81 3 1 18

The data for NPLs net of provisions to capital were taken from the World Bank for Germany and from TheGlobalEconomy.com for Finland.

This variable was calculated by taking the value of NPLs less the value of specific loan provisions as the numerator and capital as the denominator. Capital was measured as total capital and reserves on the sector balance sheet.

Figure and Tables

The increase of uncertainty index (UI) by country after the onset of the 2008 global financial crisis. Notes: Values less than 0 indicate low economic uncertainty; values greater than 0 indicate high uncertainty. The thick black line represents the weighted average of the Eurozone countries based on their GDP level.

 J_Bus_Account_Financ_Perspect-2-7-t001_Table 1

Descriptive statistics on the stock market indexes.

Obs. Median Average SD Min. Max.
AS51 Index 2972 4936.34 4936.39 674.33 3145.50 6828.70
BEL20 Index 3020 3073.52 3056.05 705.87 1527.27 4756.82
CYSMFTSE Index 2927 341.99 440.48 481.44 32.59 1891.48
TALSE Index 2961 677.53 692.92 182.06 244.99 1049.39
HEX25 Index 2966 2467.26 2520.68 548.87 1189.09 3647.13
CAC Index 3020 4206.77 4231.64 748.88 2519.29 6168.15
DAX Index 3001 6947.72 7304.25 2008.58 3666.41 12,374.73
FTASE Index 2916 7164.10 10,110.08 8361.08 1141.30 28,412.30
ISEQ Index 2989 4817.42 5024.97 2016.11 1916.38 9968.48
FTSEMIB Index 2997 21,184.60 24,204.03 8426.89 12,362.51 44,364.00
RIGSE Index 2940 438.25 472.78 128.39 203.16 764.50
VILSE Index 2940 438.25 472.78 128.39 203.16 764.50
LUXXX Index 2979 1454.61 1525.48 378.98 804.39 2578.24
MALTEX Index 2914 3507.05 3856.13 775.31 2643.38 6641.87
AEX Index 3020 391.34 389.73 76.16 199.25 561.90
PSI20 Index 3020 7107.76 7387.82 2241.11 4260.13 13,702.00
SBITOP Index 2941 823.96 988.66 488.14 501.27 2674.69
SKSM Index 2904 278.26 300.74 95.58 178.65 507.98
IBEX Index 3011 10,204.90 10,357.68 2011.83 5956.30 15,945.70
SPX Index 2945 1362.21 1469.61 371.15 676.53 2241.35
SPTSX60 Index 2942 728.02 728.49 97.61 458.13 900.98
MEXBOL Index 2947 35,020.74 33,320.06 9948.44 11,739.99 48,694.90
IBOV Index 2902 53,813.51 52,083.34 11,744.81 23,609.97 73,516.81
SX5E Index 3021 3020.69 3098.87 577.24 1809.98 4557.57
UKX Index 2975 5912.15 5867.51 723.99 3512.09 7103.98
NKY Index 2845 13,500.46 13,311.56 3515.54 7054.98 20,868.03
HSI Index 2911 21,354.66 20,693.64 3590.87 11,015.84 31,638.22
BSE SENSEX Index 2883 17,622.45 17,845.68 6047.09 6102.74 29,681.77
J_Bus_Account_Financ_Perspect-2-7-t002_Table 2

Descriptive statistics of the basic variables of the analysis.

Obs. Median Average SD Min. Max.
Uncertainty index 912 235.41 238.40 339.55 −1196.45 1103.51
Total gross loans 629 368,248.73 1,035,974.42 1,565,715.59 5421.16 7,009,210.00
Loans to residents 622 229,970.27 692,868.58 1,137,959.72 4925.66 5,384,266.72
Loans to deposit-takers 577 9820.04 40,242.25 63,762.97 12.82 261,183.53
Loans to financial corporations 622 5377.14 52,668.79 110,462.34 28.56 497,283.40
Loans to non-financial corporations 613 113,481.00 305,379.58 507,238.90 1946.49 1,919,547.66
Loans to other domestic sectors 613 3949.19 24,865.75 62,945.46 0.00 567,333.51
Loans to central bank 622 12,731.50 104,000.39 286,058.85 0.00 1,418,531.60
Loans to general government 577 45,673.27 172,098.20 272,923.40 2586.84 1,131,705.69
Loans to non-residents 613 88,017.31 302,294.07 422,959.48 0.00 1,779,849.15
NPL to total gross loans 565 5.53 8.55 8.66 0.15 47.75
NPL net of provisions to capital 588 26.99 39.78 47.74 −12.00 413.56

Note: NPL: non-performing loan.

 J_Bus_Account_Financ_Perspect-2-7-t003_Table 3

Fixed effects method using simple standard errors.

Dependent Var. Uncertainty N R2 F-stat
Total gross loans 49.45 **(−2.10) 629 0.031 9.79 ***
Loans to residents −30.64 *(−1.62) 622 0.015 4.59 *
Loans to deposit-takers −8.44 *(−1.85) 622 0.018 5.47 ***
Loans to financial corporations 5.97 ***(2.80) 577 0.015 4.33 **
Loans to non-financial corporations −5.55(−1.22) 577 0.002 0.76
Loans to other domestic sectors −21.28 **(−2.02) 613 0.009 2.82 *
Loans to central bank −2.33(−0.49) 613 0.019 5.78 ***
Loans to general government 2.99(0.71) 622 0.086 28.52 ***
Loans to non-residents −22.95 **(−1.95) 613 0.028 8.57 ***
NPL to total gross loans 0.003 ***(3.99) 565 0.135 42.69 ***
NPL net of provisions to capital 0.019 ***(4.10) 588 0.081 25.25 ***

Notes: t-statistics in parentheses. *, **, and *** denote significance at the 10%, 5%, and 1% significance levels, respectively. All estimates were carried out using the fixed effects method allowing for country and quarter-specific effects and using cluster-robust standard errors.

 J_Bus_Account_Financ_Perspect-2-7-t004_Table 4

Correlation of each dependent variable with UI by country.

Total Gross Loans Residents Deposit-Takers Financial Corporations Non-Financial Corporations Other Domestic Sectors Central Bank General Government Non-Residents NPL to Total Gross Loans NPL Net of Provisions to Capital
Austria 0.170 0.214 0.226 0.098 0.111 −0.242 0.002 −0.130 0.106 −0.119 −0.217
Belgium −0.465 −0.239 −0.607 0.325 −0.127 0.537 −0.092 −0.095 −0.305 0.513 0.430
Cyprus −0.252 0.605 −0.106 0.633 0.299 0.693 0.206 0.113 −0.463 0.447 0.466
Estonia −0.507 −0.499 −0.118 −0.570 −0.500 −0.494 0.194 −0.456 −0.586 −0.265 −0.422
Finland 0.212 0.171 −0.244 0.283 0.099 0.192 0.081 0.003 0.252 0.531 0.503
France 0.058 −0.469 −0.152 −0.208 −0.117 − − −0.161 − −0.122 −0.424
Germany −0.206 −0.136 −0.182 0.224 −0.208 −0.220 0.019 0.070 −0.532 0.571 −
Greece −0.321 0.015 −0.681 0.779 −0.036 0.375 −0.461 −0.011 −0.562 0.641 0.521
Ireland 0.485 0.511 0.430 0.578 0.542 0.497 −0.148 0.457 0.441 0.017 0.489
Italy 0.196 0.346 −0.701 0.020 0.170 0.476 −0.133 −0.033 0.063 0.461 0.502
Latvia 0.336 0.294 0.254 −0.315 0.294 0.321 0.000 0.061 −0.019 0.273 0.224
Lithuania −0.648 −0.648 −0.180 −0.475 −0.573 −0.549 −0.194 0.099 0.000 0.439 0.191
Luxembourg −0.388 −0.299 −0.251 0.037 −0.225 0.040 −0.084 −0.141 −0.103 −0.621 −0.530
Malta 0.575 0.640 −0.037 0.568 0.622 0.693 0.244 0.255 0.258 0.031 0.308
Netherlands −0.090 0.247 −0.566 0.192 0.332 0.119 0.232 0.271 −0.363 0.497 0.436
Portugal −0.049 −0.045 0.050 −0.126 −0.105 −0.026 −0.110 0.258 −0.053 0.106 0.158
Slovakia −0.068 −0.057 0.041 0.051 0.042 −0.068 0.000 0.098 −0.131 −0.025 −0.188
Slovenia 0.471 0.465 0.462 0.473 0.447 0.447 −0.261 −0.060 0.340 0.033 0.287
Spain 0.188 −0.086 0.156 − − −0.315 −0.029 0.414 0.348 0.389 0.337

Note: Bold is used to indicate in correlations above 0.3 or below −0.3.