Knowledge that Transforms

We examine how banks manage carbon transition risk by selling loans given to polluting borrowers to less regulated shadow banks in securitization markets. Exploiting the election of Donald Trump as an exogenous shock that reduces carbon transition risk, we find that banks engage in regulatory arbitrage and use brown loan securitization to manage their exposure to carbon transition risk. Banks are more likely to securitize brown loans when carbon transition risk is high but keep these loans on their balance sheets when the risk is reduced. In addition, securitization enables banks to offer lower interest rates to polluting borrowers but does not affect the supply of green loans. Our findings are more pronounced among banks with low levels of capitalization, domestic banks, and banks that do not display green lending preferences. We discuss how securitization can weaken the effectiveness of bank climate policies.

Utilizing a unique and novel setting of disclosure mandate threshold under Regulation AB (Reg AB), we investigate the relationship between disclosure and trust in asset securitization. Post-Reg AB enactment, we observe a significant bunching of originators just below the disclosure threshold. Less trustworthy originators are more likely to adjust their portfolio sizes to remain below this threshold, particularly when loan originators and deal sponsors are unaffiliated, which are cases in which disclosure plays a greater role in reducing information asymmetry. Additionally, these originators are more likely to misrepresent loan quality. Our findings reveal a strong relationship between disclosure and trust—trustworthy originators disclose more and originate higher-quality loans, while less trustworthy originators disclose less and produce lower-quality loans.

This paper is based on a panel discussion at the international bank conference on Frontier Risks, Financial Innovation and Prudential Regulation of Banks in Gothenburg, Sweden, June 2–4, 2024. The panelists were Deborah Lucas, Jan Pieter Krahnen, and Magnus Olsson, with Ted Lindblom moderating. This paper contains the panel presentations, along with a unifying discussion by Paolo Fulghieri and Anjan Thakor. The main themes in the paper focus on how society should balance costs and benefits in designing the prudential regulation of banks. Optimal regulation should take into account how banks and markets interact, the dangers of both under-regulation that spawns excessive risk-taking and over-regulation that depresses value-enhancing innovation in financial services, the somewhat fragmented nature of national-sovereignty-constrained European banking and financial markets regulation relative to bank regulation in the US, and how prudential regulation can be improved by more explicitly dealing with interest rate risk.

Following the global financial crisis, banks lengthened the average maturity of their assets relative to that of their liabilities, principally by increasing their investments in mortgage-related assets. Whether such maturity transformation exposes banks to interest rate risk depends, in part, on the effectiveness of bank deposits as a hedge against interest rate shocks. In this paper we provide evidence that interest pass-through rates on deposits vary significantly with interest rates, which reduces the effectiveness of deposits as a hedge when interest rates increase. The dynamic nature of the deposit betas explains, in part, why the duration of bank equity varies with interest rates and why interest rate risk models need to account for how pass-through rates vary with interest rates.

Loan modifications can ease borrowers’ financial burdens and mitigate loan losses. However, the threat of future strategic renegotiation may cause lenders to tighten ex-ante credit provision. We evaluate this trade-off in a dynamic model of loan underwriting with frictional renegotiation and calibrate it using loan-level CRE data from banks and CMBS. We find that modification frictions can rationalize a number of empirical facts regarding how CRE loan underwriting and performance differ across lenders. Key to this result, high frictions to modifying CMBS loans reduce renegotiation, increase debt capacity, and cause high-leverage-demand borrowers to select into the CMBS market. Consequently, easing CMBS modification frictions reduces welfare by restricting the menu of LTVs available in the market.

We challenge the existing relationship lending literature on how banks manage their relationships with corporate borrowers during crises. We test theories of intertemporal smoothing during the closure period of the COVID-19 crisis when borrowers are in great need of relationship benefits. We find that relationship borrowers receive worse rather than more favorable loan contract terms than others during this period. These and other results provide novel evidence on the functioning of relationship lending during a pandemic and contrast existing evidence gleaned from banking and financial crises.

Search; Bargaining; Markets; Adverse selection;

Small business entrepreneurs facing credit constraints may experience significantly different future income trajectories compared to their unconstrained counterparts. We quantify this difference using uniquely detailed loan application data and a regression discontinuity design based on a bank’s credit score cutoff rule employed in the loan approval process. Our findings indicate that loan acceptance increases recipients’ real income by 11% five years later compared to rejected applicants. This effect persists across a wide range of robustness tests and is primarily driven by the utilization of borrowed funds for profitable investments, as captured by the bank’s ex-ante soft information and the ex-post firm performance. Additionally, within the cohort of accepted applicants, future income is higher for those who were easily accepted compared to marginally accepted borrowers with similar creditworthiness, highlighting the important efficiency effects of loan usage.

A historical look at financial boom-bust cycles shows that pro-cyclicality in financial regulation is a common and recurring pattern. This paper shows that inefficient regulatory cycles can naturally arise when electoral concerns are introduced into a simple model of financial intermediation. We explore how financial innovations, public opinion and policymakers’ incentives shape financial regulation within this framework. We show that in the presence of incompetent politicians, competent politicians take regulatory risks to signal their competence. This amplifies the influence of public opinion on policy, leading to an ex ante inefficient pro-cyclicality in financial regulation.