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.     

Bank credit default swaps and deposit insurance around the world

We investigate the impact of deposit insurance schemes on banks' credit risk – a predictor of failure and a key element in the current financial crisis. Unlike most studies, which use balance sheet measurements of risk, we adopt a forward-looking and market-based measure of bank credit risk: the credit default swap (CDS) spread. We find that banks in countries with explicit deposit insurance systems have higher CDS spreads, supporting the “moral hazard” view. The results suggest that deposit insurance design features that lessen the adverse impact are risk-adjusted premium, coinsurance systems, government-established systems, “risk-minimizing” systems, and systems with dual-funding sources. Full coverage appears to stabilize bank risk only during the financial crisis period. More stringent bank regulation, such as capital adequacy regulation and independent supervision, could reduce the undesirable impact of deposit insurance. Deposit insurance seems to help stabilize volatile markets, as evidenced during the financial crisis and in countries with greater market volatility. In addition, we find that the adverse impact of deposit insurance on bank credit risk is more pronounced for banks with low asset quality and low liquidity.     

BANK REGULATIONS,CAPITAL STRUCTURE,AND RISK

The joint influence of the Federal Reserve's (Fed) discount window credit and reserve requirements and FDIC's deposit insurance on a bank's optimal capital structure and asset risk choices is analyzed. The specific seniority of such regulatory claims, and potentially strong negative correlation between bank asset classes, significantly alters our traditional view of such regulatory influences on bank behavior. I find that the discount window's presence does not always prompt bank risk taking and leverage, but it does partially offset such incentives under certain conditions. In addition to its cost, a reserve requirement provides the bank with an indirect subsidy that may encourage deposit funding. Thus, regulatory reforms, such as the FDIC Improvement Act of 1991, which curtail banks' access to the discount window, may not always be appropriate to resolve a bank's incentive for moral hazard behavior. The Fed's presence needs to be more comprehensively examined to design effective regulatory policy.     

Capital regulation and bank risk-taking: A note

This paper examines theoretically the effects of more stringent capital regulation on bank asset portfolio risk. The analysis shows that, for a value-maximizing bank, incentives to increase asset risk decline as its capital increases. Thus, as long as regulatory efforts to contain asset risk and size are not reduced, more stringent capital regulation unambiguously reduces the expected liability of the deposit insurance system.     

Structural effects of asset-backed securitization

This paper analyses the potential changes in the operational structure of deposit-taking financial institutions that securitize assets. Findings indicate that banks can create an asset securitization pipeline structure that enables them to increase their return on capital. In other words, through securitization banks can expand their loan provision business without increasing their liabilities or their capital levels. Using a contingent claims model, four factors that impact on the bank's decision to securitize are highlighted and analysed: (i) the level of deposit insurance; (ii) capital adequacy requirements; (iii) insolvency risk; and, (iv) the risk of credit enhancements. Furthermore, we identify key accounting and regulatory challenges that emerge for banks from the process of asset backed securitization.     

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.     

On the Role of Regulatory Banking Capital

In this paper the authors study the role of regulatory banking capital and analyze the incentive effects of the Basel II Accord. They argue that Basel II may become a source of systemic risk due to endogenous risk and the risk sensitivity of the capital requirements. In this context they note that financial instability may enter via the asset side of the banks' balance sheets when banks are forced to sell assets in order to maintain the capital buffer prescribed by Basel II.     

Preferential Regulatory Treatment and Banks' Demand for Government Bonds

The purpose of this paper is to analyze the impact of preferential regulatory treatment on banks' demand for government bonds. Using unique transaction‐level data, our analysis suggests that preferential treatment in microprudential liquidity and capital regulation significantly increases banks' demand for government bonds. Liquidity and capital regulation also seem to incentivize banks to substitute other bonds with government bonds. We also find evidence that this “regulatory effect” leads banks to reduce lending to the real economy.     

Systemic risk contribution of banks and non-bank financial institutions across frequencies: The Australian experience

The Australian financial sector (AFS) is highly concentrated and interconnected. Besides, Australian banks' lending portfolios are dominated by residential mortgage loans, and 70% of insurance companies' revenues arise from non-policyholder sources. The AFS also performed relatively well during the global financial crisis (GFC). Given these distinctive features, in this paper, we examine the systemic risk contribution of Australian banks, insurance companies, and other financial services providers. We use a flexible copula-based delta conditional value-at-risk (ΔCoVaR) method across different frequencies. Further, we study the systemic risk determinants in a panel setting. We find that the major Australian banks are systemically more important than all other financial institutions. Systemic risk is typically higher after the GFC than in the pre-crisis period, despite the introduction of more stringent capital requirements. In addition, the short-term ΔCoVaR is significantly higher than the medium- and long-term ΔCoVaRs. Finally, institution-specific characteristics and market-wide variables explain the cross-sectional and time-series variation in systemic risk, and their explanatory power varies across frequencies.     

Bank capital and equity investment regulations

This paper uses an intermediation model to study the efficiency and welfare implications of both banks' minimum required capital–asset ratio and the regulation that limits, and in some countries forbids, banks' investments in the equity of nonfinancial firms. There are two sources of moral hazard in the model: one between the bank and the provider of deposit insurance, and the other between the bank and an entrepreneur who demands funds to finance an investment project. Among other things, the paper shows that capital regulation improves the bank's stability and can also be Pareto-improving. Equity regulation is never Pareto-improving and does not increase the bank's stability.     

Incentives for risk-taking in banking – A unified approach

It is often claimed that well-capitalized banks are less inclined to increase asset risk, because the option value of deposit insurance decreases with capitalization. However, bankers, regulators and some academics challenge this view. Since the traditional view relies on studies that neglect the managerial agency problem and do not consider “higher-risk, higher-return” assets, we revisit the issue assuming that three agents – deposit insurers, shareholders, and managers – all influence banks' risk levels. We examine four distinct assumptions on the characteristics of risk–return profiles and derive conditions under which banks' risk decreases or increases with capitalization.     

An Incentive Approach to Banking Regulation

We examine the optimal design of a risk-adjusted deposit insurance scheme when the regulator has less information than the bank about the inherent risk of the bank's assets (adverse selection), and when the regulator is unable to monitor the extent to which bank resources are being directed away from normal operations toward activities that lower asset quality (moral hazard). Under a socially optimal insurance scheme: (1) asset quality is below the first-best level, (2) higher-quality banks have larger asset bases and face lower capital adequacy requirements than lower-quality banks, and (3) the probability of failure is equated across banks.     

银行监管和股东属性对银行风险的影响——基于新兴经济体的监管数据分析

银行监管按世界银行的标准划分为总体监管和12类分项监管;银行大股东属性包括政府类、金融企业类、外资类等.总体监管可以有效地降低银行风险;大股东为工业类、金融类企业的银行能够更好地控制风险,而家族类银行的风险程度较高;通过对分项监管进行研究可以发现,加强对所有权、资本要求、经营活动限制、外部审计要求、流动性、存款保险制度、退出及监管效率八个方面的监管可降低银行总体风险,而加强准入、内部管理、资产分类配置、信息披露这四类监管反而会增加银行总体风险.     

中国商业银行脆弱性的诱发因素及监管——基于资产减值和杠杆率视角

选取2008年前上市的16家银行2008-2018年的财务数据,对商业银行脆弱性进行分析。研究发现：商业银行脆弱性虽然是多方面因素共同作用的结果,但其对杠杆率变动尤其敏感;国有商业银行对商业银行总体脆弱性贡献占比较大;股份制商业银行更易受到资产减值风险的冲击。政策模拟结果显示,增加四家系统重要性银行的权益资本并对其进行严格的杠杆率监管是降低商业银行总体脆弱性较为有效的途径。     

Bank capital and credit market competition: Will competitive pressure lead to higher capital levels?

This paper establishes a theoretical model to study the relationship between credit market competition and bank capital. In the model, bank capital can alleviate the debt overhang problem, and the extent to which banks can enjoy the gain of holding capital is decreasing in the competitive pressure in the credit market. It is shown that credit market competition reduces banks' incentive to hold capital. Deposit insurance also induces banks to hold less capital. In addition, bank capital regulation is welfare improving, and banks may voluntarily hold capital in excess of regulatory minimums.     

CECL: Timely Loan Loss Provisioning and Bank Regulation

We investigate how provisioning models interact with bank regulation to affect banks' risk-taking behavior. We study an accuracy versus timeliness trade-off between an incurred loss model (IL) and an expected loss model (EL) such as current expected credit loss model or International Financial Reporting Standards 9. Relative to IL, even though EL improves efficiency by prompting earlier corrective action in bad times, it induces banks to originate either safer or riskier loans. Trading off ex post benefits versus ex ante real effects, we show that more timely information under EL enhances efficiency either when banks are insufficiently capitalized or when regulatory intervention is likely to be effective. Conversely, when banks are moderately capitalized and regulatory intervention is sufficiently costly, switching to EL impairs efficiency. From a policy perspective, our analysis highlights the roles that regulatory capital and the effectiveness of regulatory intervention play in determining the economic consequences of provisioning models. EL spurs credit supply and improves financial stability in economies where intervening in banks' operations is relatively frictionless and/or regulators can tailor regulatory capital to incorporate information about credit losses.     

Banking Competition and Capital Ratios

Empirical studies provide evidence that bank capital ratios exceed regulatory requirements. But why do banks maintain capital levels above regulatory requirements? We use data for more than 2,600 banks from 10 European countries to test recent theories suggesting that competition incentivises banks to maintain higher capital ratios. These theories also predict that banks that engage in arm's length lending have lower capital ratios, and that shareholder rights and deposit insurance characteristics affect capital ratios. Consistent with these theories, our evidence robustly indicates that competition increases capital holdings. Banks that lend at arm's length exhibit lower capital ratios, whereas banks in countries with strong shareholder rights operate with higher capital ratios. We also show some evidence that generous deposit protection schemes that exclude non‐deposit creditors are associated with higher capital ratios. Our results have important policy implications. First, while the traditional view suggests imposing restrictions on bank activities in order to restrain competition, our analysis indicates the opposite, even after adjusting the regressions for risk‐taking. Second, weak shareholder rights undermine market forces that would otherwise encourage banks to hold higher capital ratios.     

Risk in Banking and Capital Regulation

This paper investigates the role of bank capital regulation in risk control. It is known that banks choose portfolios of higher risk because of inefficiently priced deposit insurance. Bank capital regulation is a way to redress this bias toward risk. Utilizing the mean-variance model, the following results are shown: (a) the use of simple capital ratios in regulation is an ineffective means to bound the insolvency risk of banks; (b) as a solution to problems of the capital ratio regulation, the “theoretically correct” risk weights under the risk-based capital plan are explicitly derived; and (c) the “theoretically correct” risk weights are restrictions on asset composition, which alters the optimal portfolio choice of banking firms.     

Bank regulation and risk-taking incentives: An international comparison of bank risk

This paper uses a panel database of 251 banks in 36 countries to analyze the impact of bank regulation on bank charter value and risk-taking. After controlling for deposit insurance and for the quality of a country's contracting environment, the results indicate that regulatory restrictions increase banks' risk-taking incentives by reducing their charter value. Banks in countries with stricter regulation have a lower charter value, which increases their incentives to follow risky policies. These results corroborate a negative relation between regulatory restrictions and the stability of a banking system. Deposit insurance has a positive influence on bank charter value, mitigating the risk-shifting incentives it creates. This positive influence disappears when we control for the possible endogeneity of deposit insurance.     

The Dependency of the Banks' Assets and Liabilities: Evidence from Germany

Two decades of developments in risk‐transfer instruments may have fundamentally changed the extent to which banks practice on‐balance sheet term and liquidity transformation. These changes should be deliberated in on‐balance sheet asset‐liability dependencies. By using correlation analyses, we investigate asset‐liability dependency for all three sectors of German universal banks from 1994 to 2007 and find that it declined over our sample period. We also investigate whether asset‐liability dependency varies systematically with a bank's affinity for using risk‐transfer instruments, regulatory capital, and profitability and document several differences between the three sectors of German universal banks.