The spread of COVID-19, containment measures, and general uncertainty led to a sharp reduction in activity in the first half of 2020. Europe was hit particularly hard—the economic contraction in 2020 is estimated to have been among the largest in the world—with potentially severe repercussions on its nonfinancial corporations. A wave of corporate bankruptcies would generate mass unemployment, and a loss of productive capacity and firm-specific human capital. With many SMEs in Europe relying primarily on the banking sector for external finance, stress in the corporate sector could easily translate into pressures in the banking system (Aiyar et al., forthcoming).

To assess the resilience of India’s corporate sector against COVID-19-related shocks, we conducted a series of stress tests using firm-level corporate balance sheet data. The results reveal a differential impact across sectors, with the most severe impact on contact-intensive services, construction, and manufacturing sectors, and micro, small, and medium enterprises. On policy impact, the results highlight that temporary policy measures have been particularly effective in supporting firm liquidity, but the impact on solvency is less pronounced. On financial sector balance sheets, we found that public sector banks are more vulnerable to stress in the corporate sector, partly due to their weaker starting capital positions. When considering forward-looking multiperiod growth scenarios, we find that the overall corporate performance will depend on the speed of recovery. A slower pace of recovery could lead to persistently high levels of debt at risk, especially in some services and industrial sectors.

Corporate sector vulnerabilities have been a central policy topic since the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic. In this paper, we analyze some 17,000 publicly listed firms in a sample of 24 countries, and assess their ability to withstand shocks induced by the pandemic to their liquidity, viability and solvency. For this purpose, we develop novel multi-factor sensitivity analysis and dynamic scenario-based stress test techniques to assess the impact of shocks on firm’s ability to service their debt, and on their liquidity and solvency positions. Applying the October 2020 WEO baseline and adverse scenarios, we find that a large share of publicly-listed firms become vulnerable as a result of the pandemic shock and additional borrowing needs to overcome cash shortfalls are large, while firm behavioral responses and policies substantially help overcome the impact of the shock in the near term. Looking forward, while interest coverage ratios tend to improve over time after the initial shock as earnings recover in line with projected macroeconomic conditions, liquidity needs remain substantial in many firms across countries and across industries, while insolvencies rise over time in specific industries. To inform policy debates, we offer an approach to a triage between viable and unviable firms, and find that the needs for liquidity support of viable firms remain important beyond 2020, and that medium-term debt restructuring needs and liquidations of firms may be substantial in the medium-term.

The COVID-19 pandemic has increased insolvency risks, especially among small and medium enterprises (SMEs), which are vastly overrepresented in hard-hit sectors. Without government intervention, even firms that are viable a priori could end up being liquidated—particularly in sectors characterized by labor-intensive technologies, threatening both macroeconomic and social stability. This staff discussion note assesses the impact of the pandemic on SME insolvency risks and policy options to address them. It quantifies the impact of weaker aggregate demand, changes in sectoral consumption patterns, and lockdowns on firm balance sheets and estimates the impact of a range of policy options, for a large sample of SMEs in (mostly) advanced economies.

This paper reviews empirical and theoretical work on the links between banks and their governments (the bank-sovereign nexus). How significant is this nexus? What do we know about it? To what extent is it a source of concern? What is the role of policy intervention? The paper concludes with a review of recent policy proposals.

Abstract: We quantify the macroeconomic effects of COVID-19 for a small open economy by calibrating a SIR-multi-sector-macro model to Turkey. Sectoral supply shocks are based on the proximity requirements in each sector and the ability to work from home. Physical proximity determines the supply shock through its effect on infection rates. Sectoral demand shocks incorporate domestic and foreign demand, both of which adjust with infection rates. We calibrate demand shocks during COVID-19 using real-time credit card purchase data. Our results show that the optimal policy, which yields the lowest economic cost and saves the maximum number of lives, can be achieved under a full lockdown of 39 days. Economic costs are much larger for an open economy as the shocks are amplified through the international production network. A decline in foreign demand leads to losses in domestic sectors through international input-output linkages, accounting for a third of the total output loss. In addition, the reduction in capital flows deprives the network from its trade financing needs, where sectors with larger external finance needs experience larger losses. The policy options are limited given sparse fiscal resources to fight the pandemic domestically, while serving the external debt. We present historical evidence from 2001 crisis of Turkey, when fiscal, monetary and exchange rate policies were employed altogether to deal with a triple crisis of balance of payments, banking, and sovereign debt

With a demonstrated resilience to the crisis and the recovery gaining strength, macroeconomic policies should aim at preserving stability and complementing structural reforms that address long-standing challenges. A medium-term plan to rebuild buffers, support potential growth, and target pockets of vulnerability would help address pre-existing disparities and poverty. Sustained productivity growth, supported by the implementation of politically difficult but needed structural reforms, is the only way to support high wage growth and convergence with Western Europe. Failure to do so could jeopardize Lithuania’s hard-earned competitiveness gains.