Deposit Insurance, Capital Adequacy Requirements and Interest Rate Dynamics

This paper examines the long run interaction among deposit insurance, bank deposit rates and capital adequacy requirements. Using analysis similar to the price discrimination model of Lott and Roberts (1991) we find that a competitive environment among banks would link the spread between insured and uninsured deposit rates to the size of the insurance premium. We also find that banks that choose to operate at the regulatory minimum capital level, would increase asset risk with increased capital requirements if (1) the implicit interest paid to insured and uninsured depositors is equally sensitive to changes in risk and capital adequacy and (2) the insurance premium is independent of the level of risk and capital adequacy. Under the present risk-based premium structure, asset risk has the potential to decline when the regulatory agency raises capital requirements. Finally, we examine the time series behavior of insured and uninsured interest rates to see if it is consistent with our theoretical model. We find that insured and uninsured rates, along with deposit insurance premiums, are cointegrated series as suggested by our model.     

COMMERCIAL BANK RISK: MARKET,INTEREST RATE,AND FOREIGN EXCHANGE

Because of recent structural changes in the balance sheets of banks, regulatory changes in the risk-based capital requirements, and the recent adoption of mark-to-market accounting changes, interest rate risk remains an important issue for commercial banks and an important regulatory concern. Market, interest rate, and foreign exchange risk are estimated for a sample of commercial banks using ordinary least squares from 1986 to 1991. Consistent with earlier studies, the estimated coefficients continue to be unstable. We find that interest rate risk decreases and foreign exchange risk increases. Moreover, the results differ depending on practices of the bank (money center, superregional, or regional). We find evidence consistent with earlier studies that theorize foreign exchange risk is explained by unhedged foreign loan exposure.     

Effectiveness of Capital Regulation at U.S. Commercial Banks, 1985 to 1994

Unless priced and administered appropriately, a governmental safety net enhances risk-shifting opportunities for banks. This paper quantifies regulatory efforts to use capital requirements to control risk-shifting by U.S. banks during 1985 to 1994 and investigates how much risk-based capital requirements and other deposit-insurance reforms improved this control. We find that capital discipline did not prevent large banks from shifting risk onto the safety net. Banks with low capital and debt-to-deposits ratios overcame outside discipline better than other banks. Mandates introduced by 1991 legislation have improved but did not establish full regulatory control over bank risk-shifting incentives.     

MARKET REACTION TO NATIONAL DISCRETION IN IMPLEMENTING THE BASLE ACCORD

We report the wealth effects among banks in the United States, Japan, Canada, and the United Kingdom in reaction to public announcements concerning their respective national implementation of the 1988 Basle Accord, an international risk-based capital regulatory agreement. Previous survey findings indicate bankers in different countries perceive that national discretion could threaten the competitive equity goals of the new risk-based capital rules. Based on a multivariate regression model using seemingly unrelated equations, we find significantly positive and negative market reactions by bank investors to individual announcements of different countries' post-Accord capital rules. However, no particular country's banks were systematically advantaged or disadvantaged with national discretion announcements viewed in aggregate. Although national discretion does affect bank wealth, the evidence does not suggest that national implementation compromises the competitive goals of the Accord.     

Capital regulation and bank risk‐taking – new global evidence

This study investigates the link between capital regulation and bank risk‐taking. Using a sample of over 1,800 banks in 135 countries, I find that the relationship between capital regulation and bank risk‐taking (measured by z‐score) is an inverse ‘U’ shape. That is, as capital ratios increase, a bank will take less risk initially, then more risk. These results are robust to numerous additional tests, including estimation methods. I also find that more stringent regulations mitigate the effect of higher capital on lowering bank risk‐taking. Increased capital requirements, even when risk‐based, induce risk‐taking at higher levels, irrespective of whether banks are well‐ or under‐capitalised.     

Capital, Portfolio, and Growth: Bank Behavior Under Risk-Based Capital Guidelines

This paper examines banks' capital, portfolio and growth decisions from 1986 to 1995, when risk-based capital guidelines were proposed and implemented. Overall, we observe complementarity between equity financing and risk. We find no systematic differences in pre- and postregulation behavior consistent with banks reacting to risk-based capital standards implementation. We do find significant differences, however, between low-capital banks and other banks. For example, increases in equity generally do not lead to increases in assets unless the bank has low capital. We also find that the impact of regulatory variables, such as the ratio of equity to total assets or the of ratio risk-weighted assets to total assets, have the predicted, significant effects for low-capital banks but not necessarily for other banks.     

Sources of Bank Interest Rate Risk

We investigate bank stocks'sensitivity to changes in interest rates and the factors affecting this sensitivity. We focus on whether the exposure of commercial banks to interest rate risk is conditioned on certain balance sheet and income statement ratios. We find a significantly negative relation between bank stock returns and changes in interest rates over the period 1991–1996. We also find that bank characteristics measured from basic financial statement information explain bank stocks'sensitivity to interest rate changes. These results suggest that bank managers, analysts, and regulators can use this information to assess the relative risk exposure of banks.     

The interaction of bank regulation and taxation

The tax benefit of interest deductibility encourages debt financing, but regulatory constraints create dependency between bank leverage and asset risk. Using a large international sample of banks this paper shows that banks located in high-tax countries have higher leverage and lower average asset risk-weights. This trade-off is stronger when regulation is more stringent and for banks with less capital. Non-financial firms' leverage and asset risk are positively related to tax rates, as further evidence of the regulatorily induced adjustment of portfolio risk. A difference-in-difference analysis provides support for a causal interpretation of these results. Overall, higher tax rates are positively correlated with systemic risk, suggesting that the lower asset risk does not offset the risk-inducing effect of tax rates on bank leverage.     

Structural changes in Australian bank risk

There have been substantial changes in banking industries throughout the world in the last two decades. While many of the effects of these changes in the US have been documented, the increasingly global nature of regulation in recent years makes understanding the effects of these changes in other countries imperative. This paper examines Australian bank returns during the period 1981–1993, employing a switching-regression methodology. We find that several structural changes have occurred, coinciding with (i) the release of deregulatory initiatives by the Australian government in the early 1980s, (ii) the flotation of the Australian dollar and the licensing of foreign banks, and (iii) the implementation of the Basle accord risk-based capital measures. Moreover, we report important differences in the relations between bank returns and both interest rates and exchange rates relative to those reported in US studies.     

The pricing of deposit insurance in the presence of systematic risk

Based on the Merton (1977) put option framework, we develop a deposit insurance pricing model that incorporates asset correlations, a measurement for the systematic risk of a bank, to account for the risk of joint bank failures. Estimates from our model suggest that actuarially fair risk-based deposit insurance that considers only individual bank failure risk is underpriced, leaving insurance providers exposed to net losses. Our estimates also capture the size premium where big banks are priced with higher deposit insurance than small banks. This result is particularly relevant to the current regulatory concerns on big banks that are too-big-to-fail. Above all, our approach provides a unifying framework for integrating risk-based deposit insurance with risk-based Basel capital requirements.     

Risk-weighted capital requirements and portfolio rebalancing

We use a 2013 Norwegian policy reform to study how banks react to higher capital requirements and how these adjustments transmit to the real economy. Using bank balance sheet data, we document that banks raise capital ratios by reducing risk-weighted assets. Most of the reduction in risk-weighted assets is accounted for by a reduction in average risk weights. Consistent with this reduction in risk, we document a substantial decline in credit supply to the corporate sector relative to the household sector. We also show that banks react to higher requirements by increasing interest rates, consistent with the reduction in corporate credit growth being supply driven. Using administrative loan level tax data, we document a reduction in lending on the firm level. This is robust to controlling for firm fixed effects, thereby accounting for potential firm-bank matching. Finally, we find that the reduction in bank lending has a negative impact on firm employment growth and that this effect is driven by small firms.     

Loan growth and riskiness of banks

We investigate whether loan growth affects the riskiness of individual banks in 16 major countries. Using Bankscope data from more than 16,000 individual banks during 1997–2007, we test three hypotheses on the relation between abnormal loan growth and asset risk, bank profitability, and bank solvency. We find that loan growth leads to an increase in loan loss provisions during the subsequent three years, to a decrease in relative interest income, and to lower capital ratios. Further analyses show that loan growth also has a negative impact on the risk-adjusted interest income. These results suggest that loan growth represents an important driver of the riskiness of banks.     

Measuring systemic risk: A risk management approach

This paper proposes a new method to measure and monitor the risk in a banking system. Standard tools that regulators require banks to use for their internal risk management are applied at the level of the banking system to measure the risk of a regulator’s portfolio. Using a sample of international banks from 1988 until 2002, I estimate the dynamics and correlations between bank asset portfolios. To obtain measures for the risk of a regulator’s portfolio, I model the individual liabilities that the regulator has to each bank as contingent claims on the bank’s assets. The portfolio aspect of the regulator’s liability is explicitly considered and the methodology allows a comparison of sub-samples from different countries. Correlations, bank asset volatility, and bank capitalization increase for North American and somewhat for European banks, while Japanese banks face deteriorating capital levels. In the sample period, the North American banking system gains stability while the Japanese banking sector becomes more fragile. The expected future liability of the regulator varies substantially over time and is especially high during the Asian crisis starting in 1997. Further analysis shows that the Japanese banks contribute most to the volatility of the regulator’s liability at that time. Larger and more profitable banks have lower systemic risk and additional equity capital reduces systemic risk only for banks that are constrained by regulatory capital requirements.     

Joint Effects of Interest Rate Deregulation and Capital Requirements on Optimal Bank Portfolio Adjustments

The 1980 Depository Institution Deregulation and Monetary Control Act (DIDMCA) mandates that Regulation Q be phased out by 1986. With deregulation of interest rate ceilings, the cost of raising capital funds for commercial banks would become more volatile and more closely related with interest rates in the money and capital markets. Thus, value-maximizing bank managers would need to be concerned not only with the internal risk, but also with the external risk in bank portfolio management decisions. Based upon the cash flow version of the capital asset pricing model, this paper analyzes the joint impact of interest rate deregulation and capital requirements on the portfolio behavior of a banking firm.     

Interest rates and bank risk-taking

A recent line of research views the low interest-rate environment of the early to mid 2000s as an element that triggered increased risk-taking appetite of banks in search for yield. This paper uses approximately 18000 annual observations on euro area banks over the period 2001-2008 and presents strong empirical evidence that low-interest rates indeed increase bank risk-taking substantially. This result is robust across a number of different specifications that account, inter alia, for the potential endogeneity of interest rates and/or the dynamics of bank risk. Notably, among the banks of the large euro area countries this effect is less pronounced for French institutions, which held on average a relatively low level of risk assets. Finally, the distributional effects of interest rates on bank risk-taking due to individual bank characteristics reveal that the impact of interest rates on risk assets is diminished for banks with higher equity capital and is amplified for banks with higher off-balance sheet items.     

Climate risk and bank liquidity creation: International evidence

This study examines the impact of climate risk on bank liquidity creation in 56 countries over the period 1995–2012. Specifically, it investigates whether the relationship between climate risk and bank liquidity creation varies by bank and country characteristics. The results reveal that climate sensitivity and exposure have negative impacts on overall liquidity creation, whereas climate adaptation has positive effects. These effects are more pronounced for larger banks with lower capital, banks located in lower-GDP and developing countries, and those in Asia. The results suggest that policymakers should exercise caution when formulating and implementing climate-related strategies, as these can influence liquidity creation, which in turn can affect macroeconomic stability.     

Foreign bank penetration and the lending channel in emerging economies: Evidence from bank-level panel data

This paper examines the main implications of recently increasing foreign bank penetration on bank lending as a channel of monetary policy transmission in emerging economies. Using a dynamic panel model of loan growth, we investigate the loan granting behavior of 1273 banks in the emerging economies of Asia, Latin America, and Central and Eastern Europe during the period from 1996 to 2003. Applying the pooled OLS, system GMM, and panel VAR estimators, we find consistent evidence that foreign banks are less responsive to monetary shocks in host countries, as they adjust their outstanding loan portfolios and interest rates to a lesser extent than domestic private banks, independent of their liquidity, capitalization, size, efficiency, and credit risk, and although there exists a bank lending channel in the emerging economies, it is declining in strength due to the increased level of foreign bank penetration. We also explore possible driving factors for the different responses of foreign and domestic banks to monetary policy shocks by investigating foreign banks’ different behavior during banking crises and tranquil periods, the effects of mode of entry to host countries, the home-country effects, and the response of foreign banks from OECD countries vs. all foreign countries including non-OECD countries. We suggest the access of foreign banks to funding from parent banks through internal capital markets as the most convincing explanation.     

Capital shocks, bank asset allocation, and the revised Basel Accord

In contrast to the 1988 Basel Accord (Basel I), the revised risk-based capital standards (Basel II) propose regulatory capital requirements based on credit ratings. This paper develops a theoretical model to analyze how banks will adjust their low and high credit risk commercial loans under the proposed newer standard. Capital-constrained banks respond to an adverse capital shock by reducing high credit risk loans, while under certain circumstances, low credit risk loans may actually increase. When compared to Basel I, it is shown that high-risk loans are reduced more under Basel II, but whether a bank reduces total lending more under Basel I or under the revised standards depends on a complex interaction of factors.     

Risk and Market Segmentation in Financial Intermediaries' Returns

This study examines both the quantity and price of risk exposure for different segments of financial intermediaries. Overall, we find evidence of market segmentation in the U.S. financial services industry. Specifically, we find that securities firms, consistently over the sampling period 1974–1994, had the most market risk exposure with the lowest market risk premium. Banks' market risk fluctuated over the sampling period. Banks increased their market risk-taking after the shift in monetary target in October 1979 and the announcement of the risk-based capital requirements in July 1988. The banks' market risk became the highest and insignificantly different from securities firms'. The results are consistent with the moral hazard argument; that is, banks took on more risk to take advantage of government guarantees as their charter value declined. Banks were subject to relatively high interest rate risk premium. However, in response to increased interest rate volatility and decreased charter value after October 1979, banks (while they increased their market risk exposure) lowered their interest rate risk exposure to an insignificant level. The results suggest that the federal safety net may have been perceived by the market as covering only market risk but not interest rate risk. Overall, we find little evidence of interest rate risk exposure, suggesting the prevalence of hedging programs using interest rate derivatives. The interest rate risk premiums, unlike the risk exposure, differ across financial intermediaries.     

Institutional investors and bank governance: An international analysis of bank earnings management

Despite the growing importance of institutional investors in global capital markets and the link between bank earnings management and financial crash risk, little is known about the role of institutional investors in mitigating bank earnings management. We conduct the first international analysis of this issue using a broad sample of banks and institutional investors. We find a negative relation between institutional ownership and bank earnings management, after controlling for the stringency of a country's bank regulations and other relevant bank and country characteristics. Additionally, institutional ownership is more negatively related to earnings management in countries with more-stringent bank disclosure requirements or when ownership is held by domestic rather than foreign institutional investors. Institutional ownership is also more negatively related to earnings management in countries in which insiders extract more private benefits or when ownership is held by institutional blockholders. Our findings have important policy implications regarding institutional investors' engagement with banks.