Drivers of Systemic Risk: Do National and European Perspectives Differ?
Journal of International Money and Finance,
With the establishment of the Banking Union, the European Central Bank has been granted the power to impose stricter regulations than the national regulator if systemic risks are not adequately addressed at the national level. We ask whether there is a cross-border externality in the sense that a bank’s systemic risk differs when applying a national versus a European perspective. On average, banks’ contribution to systemic risk is similar at the two regional levels, and so is the ranking of banks. Generally, larger banks and banks with a lower share of loans are more systemically important. The effects of these variables are qualitatively but not quantitatively similar at the national versus the European level.
Jobs at IWH
Vacancies at IWH The Halle Institute for Economic Research (IWH) – Member of the Leibniz Association was founded in 1992. IWH’s tasks are economic research and science-based...
Members & Research Doctoral Students Dmitri Bershadskyy; Doctoral thesis project: "Experimental Analysis of the Relationship between Institution Stability and...
Global Economy Gains Momentum – But Germany still Stuck in a Downturn In 2020, the global economy is likely to benefit...
Full Professor in Finance, Law, and Regulation (W3) (f/m/x)
Job Vacancy Full Professor in Finance, Law, and Regulation (W3) (f/m/x)...
Benign Neglect of Covenant Violations: Blissful Banking or Ignorant Monitoring?
IWH Discussion Papers,
Theoretically, bank‘s loan monitoring activity hinges critically on its capitalisation. To proxy for monitoring intensity, we use changes in borrowers‘ investment following loan covenant violations, when creditors can intervene in the governance of the firm. Exploiting granular bank-firm relationships observed in the syndicated loan market, we document substantial heterogeneity in monitoring across banks and through time. Better capitalised banks are more lenient monitors that intervene less with covenant violators. Importantly, this hands-off approach is associated with improved borrowers‘ performance. Beyond enhancing financial resilience, regulation that requires banks to hold more capital may thus also mitigate the tightening of credit terms when firms experience shocks.
IWH EXplore Competitive Funding for Research Projects with External Involvement at...
Bank Response to Higher Capital Requirements: Evidence from a Quasi-natural Experiment
Review of Financial Studies,
We study the impact of higher capital requirements on banks’ balance sheets and their transmission to the real economy. The 2011 EBA capital exercise is an almost ideal quasi-natural experiment to identify this impact with a difference-in-differences matching estimator. We find that treated banks increase their capital ratios by reducing their risk-weighted assets, not by raising their levels of equity, consistent with debt overhang. Banks reduce lending to corporate and retail customers, resulting in lower asset, investment, and sales growth for firms obtaining a larger share of their bank credit from the treated banks.
Accounting Quality in Banking: The Role of Regulatory Interventions
Journal of Banking & Finance,
Using the full sample of U.S. banks and hand-collected data on enforcement actions over 2000–2014, we analyze the role of these interventions in promoting several aspects of accounting quality. We find that enforcement actions issued for both risk-related and accounting-related reasons lead to significant improvements in accounting quality. This improvement is consistently found for earnings smoothing, big-bath accounting, timely recognition of future loan losses, the association of loan loss provisions with future loan charge offs, loss avoidance, and cash flow predictability and earnings persistence. Most of the effects are somewhat more potent in the crisis period and survive in several sensitivity tests. Our findings highlight the imperative role of regulatory interventions in promoting bank accounting quality.