Zombie Bank: Definition, Causes, Consequences, and Examples
What is a zombie bank?
A zombie bank is an insolvent or near‑insolvent financial institution that continues operating because of explicit or implicit government support. Its balance sheet is burdened by large amounts of nonperforming assets (loans that are not being repaid), and it survives only through bailouts, liquidity support, regulatory forbearance, or other interventions.
Explore More Resources
Key takeaways
- Zombie banks remain open despite insolvency due to government or central‑bank backing.
- They distort credit allocation by extending “zombie lending” to impaired borrowers instead of financing viable firms.
- Keeping zombie banks afloat can be politically expedient but economically costly, trapping capital and slowing recovery.
- The term was coined in 1987 during the U.S. savings‑and‑loan crisis.
How zombie banks arise
- Asset price collapses (e.g., real estate or commercial property) create large volumes of bad loans.
- Capital flight and falling asset values reduce capital adequacy, pushing banks toward insolvency.
- To avoid runs and systemic panic, policymakers sometimes choose intervention over liquidation, creating continuing “life support” for impaired banks.
- Interventions can include capital injections, liquidity provision, regulatory forbearance, or transferring bad assets into a so‑called “bad bank.”
Why governments keep them alive
- Prevent systemic risk and contagion from a high‑profile failure.
- Buy time for markets to stabilize in the hope of a later recovery in asset values.
- Political and social concerns about job losses, credit freezes, and economic disruption.
Economic costs and distortions
- High fiscal costs: recapitalizing and resolving zombie banks can require large public expenditures.
- Misallocation of capital: trapped investor funds and continued lending to nonviable firms reduce investment in productive opportunities.
- Slower economic growth and prolonged low inflation or deflation in extreme cases.
- Weakened market discipline: if losses are routinely deferred, creditors and managers face fewer consequences for poor decisions.
Notable examples
- Japan (1990s onward): After the real‑estate bubble burst, many insolvent banks were kept afloat rather than recapitalized or resolved. Persistent nonperforming loans contributed to a prolonged deflationary environment and slow growth.
- Europe (post‑2008): Following the global financial crisis, some eurozone banks retained toxic liabilities and engaged in zombie lending, which contributed to a slow recovery. At various points, European banks have been reported to hold roughly $1 trillion of bad loans. Central‑bank liquidity support helped many survive but may have postponed necessary write‑downs.
- United States (post‑2008): U.S. banks faced stricter stress tests and were forced to raise capital or sell toxic assets, reducing the prevalence of zombie banks compared with some counterparts. Still, broader economy‑wide zombie firms (companies whose interest expenses exceed operating income) persisted, and accommodative policies like quantitative easing may have delayed some necessary restructuring.
Policy responses
- Resolution mechanisms: structured insolvency, deposit insurance, and orderly liquidation to limit contagion.
- Bad banks: separating impaired assets into specialized vehicles that allow healthier parts of institutions to operate.
- Stricter supervision and stress testing to force earlier recapitalization or restructuring.
- Targeted recapitalization with conditional reforms to restore incentives and restructure nonviable borrowers.
Conclusion
Zombie banks are a tradeoff between short‑term financial stability and long‑term economic efficiency. While interventions can prevent immediate systemic crises, prolonged support for insolvent institutions tends to trap capital, misallocate credit, and slow recovery. Effective policy seeks to limit contagion while enforcing timely resolution and recapitalization so resources can be reallocated to productive uses.