This paper proposes a theory of redemption runs based on strategic information acquisition by fund managers. We argue that liquidity lines provided by third parties can be a source of financial fragility, as they incentivize fund managers to acquire private information about the value of their assets. This strategic information acquisition can lead to inefficient market liquidity dry-ups caused by self-fulfilling fears of adverse selection. By lowering asset prices, information acquisition also reduces the value of funds’ assets-under-management and may spur inefficient redemption runs by investors. Two different regimes can arise: one in which funds’ information acquisition incentives are unaffected by the volume of redemptions, and another where market and funding liquidity risk mutually reinforce each other.

This paper shows that the liquidity risk associated with short-term debt financing can be used to sort insolvent firms out of financial markets when their solvency risk is private information. Notwithstanding this sorting role of short-term debt, unregulated financial firms tend to choose an inefficiently short debt maturity structure. This inefficiency arises for two reasons. First, by issuing more short-term debt, low-risk firms reduce their expected funding costs. This leads to a misalignment of private and social incentives as firms fail to fully internalize the social costs of becoming illiquid. Second, while the sorting role of short-term debt is reflected in a decline of long-term interest rates when more short-term debt is issued, creditors’ inability to observe firms’ solvency risk leads to an excessive reduction of long-term interest rates. This further distorts firms’ funding choice towards short-term debt.

When will a policy authority (PA) resolve a bank whose solvency is uncertain? Delaying resolution gives the PA time to obtain information about the bank’s solvency. Delaying resolution also gives creditors time to withdraw funds, raising the cost of bailing out depositors. The optimal resolution date trades off these costs with the option value of making a more efficient resolution decision given new information. Providing liquidity support buys the PA time to wait for information, but increases its losses if the bank turns out to be insolvent. The PA may therefore optimally delay the provision of liquidity support.

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.

ABSTRACT We study how disclosures affect banks’ leverage and risk. Banks screen borrowers and originate loans, partially financed using insured deposits. The possibility to sell loans before they mature incentivizes banks to lever up using uninsured short-term debt to dilute insured deposits. If markets are opaque, good loans trade at a discount, which limits banks’ use of short-term debt. If markets are transparent, prices compound information contained in disclosures, which leads banks to issue more short-term debt to further dilute insured deposits. We identify conditions under which the increase in leverage caused by disclosures reduces banks’ screening incentives. Our analysis has important implications for prudential regulation, including minimum regulatory capital requirements and leverage-based deposit insurance premiums. JEL Classifications: D80; G21; G14.