Last week, Johanne Evrard, Wagner Eduardo Schuster, Fabian Wassmann, and Michael Wedow published a post in the ECB Blog titled “Can synthetic securitisation support economic growth?” The authors examine whether synthetic securitisation can promote additional lending and how banks utilise the regulatory capital released as a result. Importantly, the article explicitly reflects the authors’ views and not the position of the European Central Bank or the Eurosystem.
0.02 % Credit Growth vs. 0.07 % Higher Dividends
A key finding of the blog is that a 1 % increase in the volume of synthetic securitisations leads to a 0.02 % rise in the credit volume of the banks involved, according to the authors’ calculations. In contrast, the dividend volume increases by 0.07 %. The authors interpret this as evidence that banks use a significant portion of the leeway created by securitisation for payouts rather than additional lending.
This interpretation warrants closer scrutiny.
First, the blog repeatedly refers to “our model.” However, the underlying model specifications and central assumptions of the calculations are not disclosed in the post, making it difficult to fully verify the results based on the published content.
Second, and more importantly, the percentage figures relate to entirely different baseline volumes. A bank’s credit volume is typically many times larger than its annual dividend volume. Therefore, a 0.02 % increase in credit volume cannot be directly compared to a 0.07 % increase in dividend volume in absolute terms.
A simplified example illustrates the scale: In 2026, Deutsche Bank paid out approximately €1.3 billion in dividends, while its credit volume stood at just under half a trillion euros. Applying the relationships cited in the blog to these figures, a 0.02 % increase in credit volume would correspond to a significantly higher absolute amount than a 0.07 % increase in dividends. In this case, the effect on credit volume would be more than ten times greater than the effect on dividends.
Thus, the higher percentage impact on payouts does not necessarily imply that synthetic securitisations primarily lead to higher dividends. To support such a claim, absolute volumes must also be considered.
Credit Growth Alone Is Too Narrow a Focus
There is also a fundamental point to consider: Securitisations primarily affect the supply side of the credit market. They transfer risks and create regulatory capital headroom. However, whether this actually leads to new loans also depends on demand from the real economy. Investments, economic conditions, interest rates, and economic uncertainty all influence whether businesses take on additional credit.
A low statistical correlation between securitisation volume and credit growth therefore says little, on its own, about the contribution of securitisation to lending.
Dividends Are Only Part of the Picture
The authors also note that banks using synthetic securitisations pay higher dividends. However, this raises the question of causality. Large, profitable, and capital-market-active banks are likely both more inclined to pay dividends and better equipped to implement complex SRT (significant risk transfer) transactions. Correlation does not imply causation.
Moreover, key questions remain unanswered:
- How do the CET1 ratios of the banks involved develop?
- Are banks that use securitisation perhaps more profitable, allowing them to pay higher dividends while maintaining solid capitalisation?
- How does an attractive dividend policy affect market valuation and access to equity capital markets?
If higher dividends are linked to higher leverage, the actual development of CET1 capitalisation would be a critical factor in any assessment.
The Counterfactual Matters
Another question remains largely unaddressed: What would have happened without securitisation?
Without the capital relief effect of synthetic securitisation, a bank might have reduced its credit volume. Therefore, the relevant comparison is not just: How much does the loan book grow after securitisation? Equally important is: How would it have developed without the transaction?
Additionally, capital distributed to investors does not disappear from the economy. It flows to shareholders and can be reinvested in banks or other companies. These effects must also be considered in a comprehensive macroeconomic analysis.
The Need for Broader Discussion
While the ECB Blog raises important questions, its analysis appears too narrow to draw far-reaching conclusions about the macroeconomic benefits of synthetic securitisation. The interplay between risk transfer, CET1 capital, credit supply, credit demand, profitability, dividends, and actual lending offers ample scope for further research.