Banks play a special role in the financial system. According to classical banking theory, they help reduce informational asymmetries and serve as liquidity providers. Banks can, at least partially, lower transaction costs that result from information frictions between investors and firms and thereby alleviate firms’ funding constraints (Diamond, 1984). Moreover, banks create liquidity on their balance sheets by financing comparably illiquid assets with relatively liquid liabilities (Diamond and Dybvig, 1983). Integrating credit and liquidity provision functions, banks have been the object of numerous studies on financial intermediation. A particular focus in recent years has been on banks’ behavior as well as on the con- sequences of their actions for the real economy when hit by adverse shocks. Following the global financial crisis, financial shocks that originate from within the financial sec- tor have received wide attention (Cingano et al., 2016; Chodorow-Reich, 2014; Khwaja and Mian, 2008; Paravisini, 2008; Paravisini et al., 2015; Schnabl, 2012). However, banks are also subject to numerous non-financial shocks, which are the focus of this thesis.

We use extreme value theory methods to infer conventionally unobservable connections between financial institutions from joint extreme movements in credit default swap spreads and equity returns. Estimated pairwise co-crash probabilities identify significant connections among up to 186 financial institutions prior to the crisis of 2007/2008. Financial institutions that were very central prior to the crisis were more likely to be bailed out during the crisis or receive the status of systemically important institutions. This result remains intact also after controlling for indicators of too-big-to-fail concerns, systemic, systematic, and idiosyncratic risks. Both credit default swap (CDS)-based and equity-based connections are significant predictors of bailouts. Supplementary materials for this article are available online.

The economic and financial crisis that emerged in 2008 also initiated an intense discussion on macroeconomic research and the role of economists in society. The debate focuses on three main issues. Firstly, it is argued that economists failed to predict the crisis and to design early warning systems. Secondly, it is claimed that economists use models of the macroeconomy which fail to integrate financial markets and which are inadequate to model large economic crises. Thirdly, the issue has been raised that economists invoke unrealistic assumptions concerning human behaviour by assuming that all agents are self-centred, rationally optimizing individuals. In this paper, we focus on the first two issues. Overall, our thrust is that the above statements are a caricature of modern economic theory and empirics. A rich field of research developed already before the crisis and picked up shortcomings of previous models.