A NEW APPROACH TO CAPITAL BUDGETING FOR FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS

The classic approach to capital budgeting based on the standard Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM) says that the hurdle rate (or cost of capital) for any new project or investment should depend only on the riskiness of that investment. Thus, the hurdle rate, and hence the expected value of the investment, should not be affected by the financial policy of the company evaluating the project. Nor should the hurdle rate be influenced by the company's risk management policy, or by the kind of assets it already has on the balance sheet. This article argues that such a “singlefactor” model may be inappropriate for banks and other financial institutions for two main reasons:

• ? it is especially costly for banks to raise new external funds on short notice;
• ? it is costly for banks to hold a buffer stock of equity capital on the balance sheet, even if this equity is accumulated over time through retained earnings.

The single-factor CAPM ignores such costs and, in so doing, understates the true economic costs of “illiquid” bank investments. Illiquid investments require special treatment because they impose risks that, although “diversifiable” by shareholders, cannot be readily hedged by the bank and therefore require it to hold more equity capital. The authors accordingly propose a “two-factor” model for capital budgeting— one in which banks' investment decisions are linked to their capital structure and risk management decisions. One of the key implications of the two-factor model is that a bank should evaluate new investments according to both their correlation with the market portfolio and their correlation with the bank's existing portfolio of unhedgeable risks. The authors describe several potential applications of their model, including the evaluation of proprietary trading operations and the pricing of unhedgeable derivatives positions. They also compare their approach to the RAROC methodology that has been adopted by a number of banks.     

Evidence on the role of holding company acquisitions in the management of bank capital

This article addresses the issue of the impact of bank acquisitions on the capital positions of acquired banks. The hypothesis tested is that acquisition-related capital changes reflect divergent capital-related acquisition motives which induce significant infusion of capital into some acquired banks and significant withdrawals from others.This study confirms that,on average, bank holding company acquisitions reduce the relative capital position of acquired banks, but it also indicates that this average effect masks evidence that acquisitions contribute to relative increases in capital in a significant subset of acquired banks. The results herein demonstrate that results of prior studies regarding the impact of acquisition and/or holding company affiliation on bank capital positions suffer from misspecification.The finding that there are divergent implications of acquisition for capital growth is consistent with the notion that acquisitions by bank holding companies may be providing important financial synergies to the banking industry by serving as a mechanism for relatively efficient reallocation of equity capital among affiliated banks.The authors wish to acknowledge helpful comments and suggestions of Harold Black, Tom Boehm, Ronnie Clayton, Stephen Rhoades, and anonymous referees.     

Ability of accounting and audit quality variables to predict bank failure during the financial crisis

We examine the ability of selected accounting and audit quality variables measured in a period prior to the financial crisis (i.e., the four quarters of 2006), to predict banks that subsequently failed during the financial crisis. We employ two sets of samples from the US: a troubled banks sample that includes banks that failed in or after 2007 as well as banks classified as being troubled based on profitability, loan quality, and balance sheet position in 2007, and a full sample that includes all banks with available required data. Using the troubled banks sample, we identify six reliable predictors of bank failure: auditor type, auditor industry specialization, Tier 1 capital ratio, proportion of securitized loans, growth in loans, and loan mix. For the larger full sample of banks, we identify the following ten predictors of bank failure: auditor type, Tier 1 capital ratio, proportion of securitized loans, nonperforming loans, loan loss provisions, growth in commercial loans, growth in real estate loans, growth in overall loans, loan mix, and whether the bank is a public bank.     

Endogenous product differentiation in credit markets: What do borrowers pay for?

This paper studies strategies pursued by banks in order to differentiate their services and soften competition. More specifically we analyze whether bank's ability to avoid losses, its capital ratio, or bank size can be used as strategic variables to make banks different and increase the interest rates banks can charge their borrowers in equilibrium. Using a panel of data covering Norwegian banks between 1993 and 1998 we find empirical support that the ability to avoid losses, measured by the ratio of loss provisions, may act as such a strategic variable. A likely interpretation is that borrowers use high-quality low-loss banks to signal their creditworthiness to other stakeholders. This supports the hypothesis that high-quality banks serve as certifiers for their borrowers. Furthermore, this suggests that not only lenders and supervisors but also borrowers may discipline banks to avoid losses.     

Why European Banks Are Undercapitalized and What Should Be Done About It

Major European banks are significantly undercapitalized as compared to large American banks, and, more importantly, as compared to the capital levels they would need to survive another severe financial crisis. Bank capital shortfalls in Italy, Spain, Germany, France and the United Kingdom, in particular, are largely the consequence of European bank regulations that: (1) apply static risk weights to assets like mortgages and sovereign debt; (2) fail to require an overall market‐based capital ratio that is high enough to enable banks to survive a severe financial crisis; (3) fail to get banks to promptly write down their impaired assets to market value; (4) subject banks to weak stress tests that can create a false impression of capital adequacy; and (5) fail to compel banks to retain sufficient earnings and to raise sufficient capital externally to eliminate capital shortfalls promptly, all apparently out of fear that being tougher might cause investors and customers to lose confidence in the banks. This article summarizes important recent independent bank stress testing that has quantified the capital shortfalls in European banks. The recent highly publicized regulatory interventions to resolve failing European banks were inevitable due to these shortfalls. The authors recommend steps European bank regulators should take to address the problem and to eliminate the risk of serious capital shortfalls. In the absence of such steps, bank depositors, customers, and security holders should be prepared to expect further unwelcome surprises as the risks inherent in allowing undercapitalized banks to operate will continue to materialize in more bank failures.     

The impact of FDICIA and prompt corrective action on bank capital and risk: Estimates using a simultaneous equations model

One of the requirements of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act (FDICIA) was that bank regulators establish capital ratio zones that mandate prompt corrective action (PCA) and early intervention in troubled banks. However, prior research suggests that increases in regulatory capital standards can lead to offsetting increases in risk. This paper develops and estimates a 3SLS model to examine the simultaneous impact of PCA on both bank capital and credit risk. The results document that the FDICIA was effective in that, subsequent to its passage, US banks increased their capital ratios without offsetting increases in credit risk.     

The Impact of Derivatives Activity on Commercial Banks: Evidence from U.S. Bank Holding Companies

We have examined the impact of derivatives activity on commercial banks based on panel data from 18 large U.S. bank holding companies (BHC). This paper found that in general the larger the notional values of non-traded derivatives, the more derivative positions held by banks, meaning potentially better performance. The derivatives activity increased the BHCs’ overall risk level, the reason is that most US BHCs are able to take more speculative positions in derivatives contracts in the name of risk management, excluding the impact of held-for-trading positions. Additionally, we found that while participative banks took more speculative positions in derivatives contracts in the name of risk management, while dominant banks preferred to hold derivatives positions for the sake of hedging the underlying risks. Furthermore, we found that the BHCs take more speculative positions in derivatives contracts in the name of risk management before the sub-prime mortgage loan crisis than after the sub-prime mortgage loan crisis, so they assumed more risks before the sub-prime mortgage loan crisis. Overall, our findings suggest that the usage of derivatives for commercial banks is a double-edged sword. Using derivatives maybe a matter of managerial risk appetite to hedge underlying risks for commercial banks, however, it maybe also increase the commercial banks’ overall risks if the derivatives positions are used to speculate, though derivatives activity could increase the profitability of BHCs.     

Politics,credit allocation and bank capital requirements

I develop a normative theory of political influence on bank lending and capital structure. Legislators want banks to make politically-favored loans that reduce bank profits but generate social or political benefits. The regulator uses asset-choice regulation and capital requirements to induce the lending desired by legislators. There are four main results. First, if regulators dislike bank fragility, then credit-allocation regulation should be accompanied by higher capital requirements. Second, banks will resist higher capital requirements, which will be lower when banks have more bargaining power. Third, when politics matters more in bank regulation, the banking sector is larger and more competitive, with higher capital requirements. Fourth, the optimal reporting mechanism, in which banks report their privately-known profitability and the regulator endogenously determines capital requirements and stringency of credit-allocation regulation in response, shows that political influence is stronger when banks are more profitable.     

Capital requirements and bank behavior in the UK: Are there lessons for international capital standards?

The financial crisis prompted widespread interest in developing a better understanding of how capital regulation drives bank behavior. This paper uses a unique, comprehensive database of regulatory capital requirements on all UK banks to examine their effects on capital, lending and balance sheet management behavior. We find that capital requirements that include firm-specific, time-varying add-ons set by supervisors affect banks’ desired capital ratios and that resulting adjustments to capital and lending depend on the gap between actual and target ratios. We use these results to measure the effects of a capital regime that includes features similar to those embedded in the UK framework. Our results suggest that countercyclical capital requirements may be less effective in slowing credit activity when banks can readily satisfy them with lower-quality (lower-costing) capital elements versus higher-quality common equity. Given the size of the UK banking sector and the global nature of many of the largest institutions in the UK banking sector, the results have implications for the ongoing debate surrounding the design and calibration of international capital standards.     

A practical approach to validating a PD model

The capital adequacy framework Basel II aims to promote the adoption of stronger risk management practices by the banking industry. The implementation makes validation of credit risk models more important. Lenders therefore need a validation methodology to convince their supervisors that their credit scoring models are performing well. In this paper we take up the challenge to propose and implement a simple validation methodology that can be used by banks to validate their credit risk modelling exercise. We will contextualise the proposed methodology by applying it to a default model of mortgage loans of a commercial bank in the Netherlands.     

Using Loan Rates to Measure and Regulate Bank Risk: Findings and an Immodest Proposal

There is strong evidence that the interest rates charged by banks on the flow of newly extended Commercial & Industrial (C&I) loans predict future loan performance and CAMEL rating downgrades by bank supervisors. While internal risk ratings have little explanatory power for future loan performance, they do help predict future CAMEL downgrades. These findings suggest that supervisors might consider using interest rates in the off-site surveillance of banks. At the same time, we propose that reformers consider basing capital requirements and deposit insurance premia on loan interest rates instead of (or in addition to) internal risk ratings and models.     

The Information Value of the Stress Test

We investigate whether the “stress test,” the extraordinary examination of the 19 largest U.S. bank holding companies conducted by federal bank supervisors in 2009, produced useful information for the market. Using standard event study techniques, we find that the market had largely deciphered on its own which banks would have capital gaps before the stress test results were revealed, but that the market was informed by the size of the gap; given our proxy for the expected gap, banks with larger capital gaps experienced more negative abnormal returns. Our findings are consistent with the view that the stress tests produced valuable information about banks.     

SOME EVIDENCE THAT BANKS USE INTERNAL CAPITAL MARKETS TO LOWER CAPITAL COSTS

To the extent raising external capital is especially costly for banks (as the preceding article suggests), bank managers have incentives to manage their internal cash flow in ways that minimize their need to raise external equity. One way to accomplish this is to establish bank holding companies that set up internal capital markets for the purpose of allocating scarce capital across their various subsidiaries. By “internal capital market” the authors mean a capital budgeting process in which all the lending and investment opportunities of the different subsidiaries are ranked according to their risk-adjusted returns; and all internal capital available for investment is then allocated to the highestranked opportunities until either the capital is exhausted or returns fall below the cost of capital, whichever comes first. As evidence of the operation of internal capital markets in bank holding companies, the authors report the following set of findings from their own recent studies:

• ? For large publicly traded bank holding companies, growth rates in lending are closely tied to the banks' internal cash flow and regulatory capital position.
• ? For the subsidiaries of bank holding companies, what matters most is the capital position and earnings of the holding companies and not of the subsidiaries themselves.
• ? The lending activity of banks affiliated with multiple bank holding companies appears to be less dependent on their own earnings and capital than the lending of unaffiliated banks.

The authors also report that, after being acquired, previously unaffiliated banks increase their lending in local markets. This finding suggests that, contrary to the concerns of critics of bank consolidation, geographic consolidation may make banks more responsive to local lending opportunities.     

智力资本对上市商业银行绩效的影响--基于VAIC测算方法的实证研究

本文使用VAIC测算方法测算2013-2017年31家上市商业银行智力资本,使用静态面板模型和动态面板模型探究智力资本对商业银行绩效的长短期影响。研究发现,智力资本及其组成对商业银行绩效具有显著促进作用,其中结构资本效率的作用大于人力资本效率;智力资本对商业银行绩效的作用受银行的所有制结构影响;智力资本对商业银行绩效的作用具有持续性。结果带来的启示在于,商业银行应积极响应国家金融供给侧结构性改革政策,充分重视对智力资本资源的利用,不同所有制结构的商业银行对组织结构变革要有针对地实施不同措施。     

Capital Adequacy Pre- and Postcrisis and the Role of Stress Testing

The financial crisis forced the development of new approaches for determining capital adequacy in banks since extant methods clearly did not prepare banks or their supervisors sufficiently. The success of stress testing as a crisis response tool, particularly in the U.S. in 2009, has led to its adoption postcrisis as the tool of choice for assessing capital adequacy in banks and testing resiliency to economic and financial shocks. But the increased reliance on stress testing in financial peacetime has given rise to a new risk concentration, namely, in the rather narrow set of scenarios and their translation to outcomes and impact on bank financials.     

Bank regulatory capital and liquidity: Evidence from US and European publicly traded banks

The theory of financial intermediation highlights various channels through which capital and liquidity are interrelated. Using a simultaneous equations framework, we investigate the relationship between bank regulatory capital and bank liquidity measured from on-balance sheet positions for European and US publicly traded commercial banks. Previous research studying the determinants of bank capital buffer has neglected the role of liquidity. On the whole, we find that banks decrease their regulatory capital ratios when they face higher illiquidity as defined in the Basel III accords or when they create more liquidity as measured by Berger and Bouwman (2009). However, considering other measures of illiquidity that focus more closely on core deposits in the United States, our results show that small banks strengthen their solvency standards when they are exposed to higher illiquidity. Our empirical investigation supports the need to implement minimum liquidity ratios concomitant to capital ratios, as stressed by the Basel Committee; however, our findings also shed light on the need to further clarify how to define and measure illiquidity and also on how to regulate large banking institutions, which behave differently than smaller ones.     

Why ‘Basel II’ may need a leverage ratio restriction

We analyze regulatory capital requirements where the amount of required capital depends on the level of risk reported by the banks. It is shown that if the supervisors have a limited ability to identify or to sanction dishonest banks, an additional, risk-independent leverage ratio restriction may be necessary to induce truthful risk reporting. The leverage ratio helps to offset the banks’ potential capital savings of understating their risks by (i) reducing banks’ put option value of limited liability ex ante, and by (ii) increasing the banks’ net worth, which in turn enhances the supervisors’ ability to sanction banks ex post.     

Common (stock) sense about risk-shifting and bank bailouts

If a bank is facing insolvency, it will be tempted to reject good loans and accept bad loans so as to shift risk onto its creditors. We analyze the effectiveness of buying up toxic mortgages in troubled banks, buying preferred stock, and buying common stock. If bailing out banks deemed “too big to fail” involves buying assets at above fair market values, then these banks are encouraged ex ante to gamble on bad assets. Buying up common (preferred) stock is always the most (least) ex ante- and ex post-efficient type of capital infusion, regardless of whether the bank volunteers for the recapitalization.     

Subordinated Debt,Market Discipline,and Bank Risk

This paper demonstrates that subordinated debt (subdebt thereafter) regulation can be an effective mechanism for disciplining banks. By reducing the chance that managers of distressed banks can take value‐destroying actions to benefit themselves, subdebt regulation may encourage banks to lower asset risk. Moreover, subdebt regulation and bank capital requirements can be complements for alleviating the banks’ moral hazard problems. To make subdebt regulation effective, regulators may need impose ceilings on the interest rates of subdebt, prohibit collusion between banks and subdebt investors, and require subdebt to convert into the issuing bank's equity when the government provides assistance to the bank.     

Bank earnings and regulatory capital management using available for sale securities

Based on a large sample of publicly listed and non-listed US commercial banks from 1996 to 2011, we find robust evidence consistent with banks using realized available for sale (AFS) securities gains and losses to smooth earnings and increase low regulatory capital. We also find that (i) banks with positive earnings smooth earnings, and banks with negative earnings generally take big baths; (ii) regulatory capital constrains big baths; (iii) banks with more negative earnings and more unrealized beginning-of-quarter losses (gains) take big baths (smooth earnings); and (iv) banks with low regulatory capital and more unrealized gains realize more gains. Also, banks with negative earnings take big baths (avoid or reduce the earnings loss) if their unrealized gains are insufficient (sufficient) to offset the negative earnings. Our inferences apply to listed and non-listed banks, which indicates that the earnings management incentives do not derive solely from public capital markets. Our findings reveal that the accounting for AFS securities gains and losses enables banks to manage regulatory capital and earnings in a variety of ways.