布鲁盖尔-Macroeconomic-outlook_-are-we-back-on-track__102页_1mb

报告摘要

Summary of "COVID-19 Credit-Support Programmes in Europe's Five Largest Economies"

Core Content

This document provides an in-depth analysis of the credit-support programmes introduced by the five largest European economies (France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the UK) in response to the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. The focus is on how these programmes were designed, implemented, and utilized, with an emphasis on the trade-offs involved and the reasons behind the differences in usage across countries and over time.

The key instruments used by governments included loan guarantees, tax deferrals, wage subsidies, and loan moratoria. These measures aimed to support private-sector liquidity and prevent business failures during the lockdowns. The analysis excludes ECB and Bank of England initiatives that fall outside the defined scope of fiscal policy-based credit support.

Main Views and Key Information

1. National Credit Support Programmes

Scope of Analysis: Only country-specific credit-support programmes implemented through fiscal policy are included. This excludes ECB measures and some specific UK initiatives.
Programme Types: The majority of credit-support measures were loan guarantees, with smaller shares allocated to trade credit guarantees and debt security purchases.
Announced Envelopes: The total credit support envelopes in these countries represented more than half of the rescue funds announced for businesses, and were worth between 14% and 20% of GDP.
Programme Coverage: Loan guarantees were the most common and covered a wide range of financial instruments, including bank loans, promissory notes, overdrafts, and invoice finance.
Key Programmes:
- France: Bpifrance administered the main guarantee programme with 70%-90% coverage.
- Germany: KfW and the Economic Stabilisation Fund (WSF) played central roles, with coverage ranging from 80%-100%.
- Italy: SACE and the Fund for SMEs were the main institutions, with coverage up to 90%.
- Spain: ICO provided guarantees with coverage of 60%-80% for loans and 70% for promissory notes.
- UK: The British Business Bank (BBB) administered multiple guarantee schemes, with coverage of 80% and 100% for different types of businesses.

2. Design Choices and Trade-offs

Public Financial Institutions (PFIs): PFIs were central to administering these programmes, with most being state-owned or partially state-owned.
Fiscal Liability: The central government typically bears a contingent liability, either directly or indirectly, through mechanisms like state counter-guarantees.
State Aid Control: The EU state aid framework generally prohibits selective support to local businesses, but exceptions were made under Article 107(3)(b) TFEU due to the "serious disturbance" caused by the pandemic.
Temporary Framework (TF): The TF was established to facilitate the processing of state aid notifications under Article 107(3)(b), and it was extended multiple times, most recently to 30 June 2021.
Conditions on Guarantees:
- Minimum premiums vary based on the type of recipient (SMEs vs. large enterprises).
- Maximum coverage is capped at 90%, but can be adjusted with appropriate justification.
- Loan guarantees are limited to working capital or investment loans.
- The maximum duration of guarantees is up to six years.
- Prudential rules were relaxed for public-guaranteed loans to reduce capital requirements and encourage lending.

3. Differences in Usage Across Countries and Over Time

Usage Patterns: Usage of credit-support programmes varied significantly across the five countries and decreased in the second half of 2020.
Factors Influencing Usage:
- National Fiscal Capacity: Countries with greater fiscal flexibility were able to implement larger and more extensive programmes.
- Liquidity Needs: Firms with higher liquidity needs were more likely to utilise these programmes.
- Programme Costs: Lower costs and more flexible terms increased the attractiveness of the programmes.
- Operational Constraints: Administrative complexity, eligibility criteria, and the need for coordination between institutions affected usage.
- Incentives for Lenders: The TF required financial institutions to pass on benefits to final beneficiaries, such as lower interest rates or premiums, to ensure the effectiveness of public guarantees.

4. Conclusions

The credit-support programmes were crucial in mitigating the economic fallout of the pandemic.
Loan guarantees were the most widely used instrument, with significant variations in coverage, eligibility, and fiscal implications.
The EU state aid framework allowed for flexibility in the design and implementation of these programmes, particularly through the Temporary Framework.
The effectiveness of the programmes was influenced by national fiscal capacity, firm liquidity needs, and the operational and incentive structures in place.
Despite the large announced envelopes, actual usage was often less than expected, and there was a noticeable slowdown in the second half of 2020.

Key Figures

The total credit support envelopes in the five countries represented more than half of the rescue funds announced for businesses.
These envelopes were worth between 14% and 20% of GDP.
Nine out of ten largest programmes were loan-guarantee schemes, with the tenth being the UK's debt security purchase programme.
In June 2020, Bpifrance had already guaranteed €115 billion in loans, over three times its 2019 total.