Macro-effects of higher capital and liquidity requirements for banks (original) (raw)
Related papers
The role of liquidity in financial crises
Available at SSRN 1268367, 2008
The purpose of this paper is to use insights from the academic literature on crises to understand the role of liquidity in the current crisis. We focus on four of the crucial features of the crisis that we argue are related to liquidity provision. The first is the fall of the prices of AAA-rated tranches of securitized products below fundamental values. The second is the effect of the crisis on the interbank markets for term funding and on collateralized money markets. The third is fear of contagion should a major institution fail. Finally, we consider the effects on the real economy.
Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 2012
We analyse the effects of policy measures to stop the fall in loan supply following a banking crisis. We apply a dynamic framework in which a debt overhang induces banks to curtail lending or choose a fragile capital structure. Government assistance conditional on new banking activities, like on new lending or on debt and equity issues, allow banks to influence the scale of assistance and externalise risks, implying overinvestment or excessive risk taking or both. Assistance without reference to new activities, like granting lump sum transfers or establishing bad banks, does not generate adverse incentives, but may have higher fiscal costs.
Bank Risk Taking and Liquidity Creation Following Regulatory Interventions and Capital Support
SSRN Electronic Journal, 2000
During times of bank distress, authorities often engage in regulatory interventions and provide capital support to reduce bank risk taking. An unintended effect of such actions may be a reduction in bank liquidity creation, with possible adverse consequences for the economy as a whole. This paper tests hypotheses regarding the effects of regulatory interventions and capital support on bank risk taking and liquidity creation using a unique dataset over the period 1999-2009. We find that both types of actions are generally associated with statistically significant reductions in risk taking and liquidity creation in the short run and long run. While the effects of regulatory interventions are also economically significant, the effects of capital support are only economically significant in the long run. Thus, both types of actions have important intended and unintended consequences with implications for policymakers.
Journal of Business
The paper provides evidence about Basel II, as international banking regulations failure in recent global financial crisis. It describes old and new banking regulations main aspects on the base of before and during financial crisis periods. Banks’ holding of reasonable capital buffers in excess of minimum requirements could alleviate the procyclicality problem potentially exacerbated by the rating-sensitive capital charges of Basel II. Determining the sufficient buffer size is an important risk management task for banks. Actual bank capital is driven by bank income and default losses, whereas capital requirements within Basel II are driven by rating transitions. New regulatory approach to measuring capital adequacy appears consistent with banks’ own risk evaluations. The purpose of the paper is to show Basel II’s role in financial crisis based on qualitative inductive research. Also paper mentions some political aspects of modern banking regulations and future suggestions and recomm...
Liquidity risk management and credit supply in the financial crisis
Journal of Financial Economics, 2011
Liquidity dried up during the financial crisis of [2007][2008][2009]. Banks that relied more heavily on core deposit and equity capital financing -stable sources of financing -continued to lend relative to other banks. Banks that held more illiquid assets on their balance sheets, in contrast, increased asset liquidity and reduced lending. Off-balance-sheet liquidity risk materialized on the balance sheet and constrained new credit origination as increased take down demand displaced lending capacity. We conclude that efforts to manage the liquidity crisis by banks led to a decline in credit supply.
A question of liquidity: the great banking run of 2008?
The current financial crisis has given rise to a new type of bank run, one that affects both the banks' assets and liabilities. In this paper we combine information from the commercial paper market with loan level data from the Survey of Terms of Business Loans to show that during the 2007-2008 financial crises banks suffered a run on credit lines. First, as in previous crises, we find an increase in the usage of credit lines as commercial spreads widen, especially among the lowest quality firms. Second, as the crises deepened, firms drew down their credit lines out of fear that the weakened health of their financial institution might affect the availability of the funds going forward. In particular, we show that these precautionary draw-downs are strongly correlated with the perceived default risk of their bank. Finally, we conclude that these runs on credit lines have weakened banks further, curtailing their ability to effectively fulfill their role as financial intermediaries.
Liquidity Provision, Bank Capital, and the Macroeconomy
Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, 2017
Bank regulation has increasingly focused on capital requirements as the primary means of ensuring the "safety and soundness" of the banking system. We evaluate this policy approach by providing a theory of bank capital. Bank capital is beneficial because it reduces the chance of privately and socially costly bank failure. But it is both privately and socially costly because a system-wide increase in bank capital reduces the aggregate amount of bank deposits, which are an efficient medium of exchange, forcing consumers to hold more information-sensitive bank equity, which is a poor liquidity hedge. Recessions increase the risk and thus the information-sensitivity of bank equity, increasing the liquidity-related costs of additional bank capital. As a result, welfare-maximizing bank regulators may engage in "forbearance"-that is, they may optimally renege on previously tough policies. Private incentives to increase capital are even smaller than social incentives, which may further limit regulators' ability to raise capital standards. Social and private reluctance to increase capital in a recession may in turn cause a "credit crunch." JEL: G21, G28 Some of the ideas in this paper originated in an earlier draft entitled "Bank Capital Regulation in General Equilibrium." We are grateful to Ross Levine and Thorsten Beck for providing data, and to William
The THE IMPACT OF LIQUIDITY AND CREDIT RISKS ON THE BANK STABILITY
Journal of Smart Economic Growth, 2019
The global financial crisis has induced a series of failures of most conventional banks. This study investigates the main sources of banking fragility. We use a sample of 49 banks operating in the Tunisian over the period 2006-2015 to analyze the relationship between credit risk and liquidity risk and its impact on bank stability. Our results show that credit risk and liquidity risk do not have an economically meaningful reciprocal contemporaneous or time-lagged relationship. However, both risks separately affect bank stability and their interaction contributes to bank instability. These findings provide bank managers with more understanding of bank risk and serve as an underpinning for recent regulatory efforts aimed at strengthening the joint risk management of liquidity and credit risks.
SSRN Electronic Journal, 2000
This paper aims to stress the importance of market liquidity for the stability of the financial system, emphasizing the pivotal role played by liquidity risk in the development of the current financial crisis, pointing out the flaws of regulation and supervision and stressing the need for their reform. We first investigate the evolution of the concept of liquidity and the nexus between the transformations of financial systems and their increased vulnerability to liquidity risks. Then we focus on the causes of the emergence of liquidity risk in the ongoing financial crisis. We point out two intertwined processes: firstly, the huge increase in financial assets stemming from the shift to an "originate-to-distribute" intermediation model; secondly, the growth of a parallel financial circuit. After this, we focus on the main lessons for regulation and supervision: first of all we address the case for adjustments to or reform of Basel 2 in view of the nexus between solvency and liquidity. Further crucial points relate to market liquidity and OTC markets, scale and scope of LLR function, architecture of supervisory authorities and perimeter of controls. Finally we stress the need for harmonization, or at least coordination, of national liquidity regimes, at least for cross-border groups.