2 hours ago
18
European banks have found a neat trick for keeping shareholders happy: synthetic risk transfers. The problem, according to new research from the European Central Bank, is that these instruments are doing far more for dividend checks than for the companies supposedly benefiting from bank lending.
In a blog post published on September 2, ECB economists Johanne Evrard, Wagner Eduardo Schuster, Fabian Wassmann, and Michael Wedow laid out numbers that tell a pretty clear story about where freed-up capital actually goes.
The numbers that matter
The core finding is elegant in its simplicity. A 1% increase in synthetic securitisation issuance corresponds to a 0.02% rise in corporate loan growth. That same 1% bump? It produces a 0.07% increase in dividend payouts.
The ECB authors didn’t mince words, calling the lending impact “too small to have a meaningful or substantial economic impact.” The dividend effect, by contrast, is more than three times larger.
For anyone unfamiliar with synthetic securitisations, think of them as insurance policies on a bank’s loan portfolio. The bank keeps the loans on its books but pays an investor to absorb the risk of default. This frees up regulatory capital, the financial cushion banks are required to hold against potential losses, without the bank actually selling the loans.
A market that’s grown five-fold
Outstanding synthetically transferred corporate loans grew from approximately €60 billion at the end of 2018 to over €300 billion by mid-2024. That’s a five-fold expansion in roughly five and a half years, and it now dwarfs traditional securitisation volumes for corporate exposures.
Banks that engage in securitisations, including synthetic structures, exhibited an average corporate loan growth rate of about 5% from 2018 to 2025. Banks that stayed away from these products managed just 1% growth over the same period.
At first glance, that gap might seem to vindicate synthetic securitisations as a lending engine. But the ECB’s granular analysis suggests the relationship is far weaker than the headline comparison implies. The banks issuing synthetics tend to be larger, more sophisticated institutions that would likely have grown their loan books faster regardless. When the economists controlled for these differences, the lending boost essentially evaporated into statistical noise.
Why banks prefer dividends over loans
The underlying research paper by Osberghaus and Schepens, published as ECB Working Paper 3210 in March 2026, identifies three channels through which synthetic securitisations can affect financial stability. First, banks may strategically select which loans to transfer, potentially keeping riskier exposures. Second, once risk is transferred, banks may reduce their monitoring of borrowers, since they’re no longer on the hook for losses. Third, the transactions create linkages between banks and the non-bank financial entities that take on the risk, adding new interconnections to the financial system.
What this means for investors and regulators
For policymakers and regulators, if the stated purpose of capital relief frameworks is to encourage lending to the real economy, then the data suggests the mechanism isn’t working as intended. Banks are pocketing the efficiency gains rather than passing them along to corporate borrowers in the form of expanded credit.
Banks not participating in synthetic securitisation markets are growing their loan books at roughly one-fifth the rate of those that do. For the corporate borrowers who are ostensibly the end beneficiaries of these structures, a 0.02% lending response to a 1% increase in issuance is, as the authors put it, economically insignificant.
Disclosure: This article was edited by Editorial Team. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.
English (US) ·