This paper investigates how different degrees of market power affect bank efficiency and stability in the context of developing economies. It sheds light on the competition-stability nexus by documenting and analyzing the complex interactions between a tripod of variables that are central for regulators: the degree of market power, bank cost and profit efficiency, and overall firm stability. The results show that an increase in the degree of market power leads to greater bank stability and enhanced profit efficiency, despite significant cost efficiency losses. The findings lend empirical justification to the traditional view that increased competition may undermine bank stability, and may bear significant implications for stressed banking systems in developing economies.

We formulate the “High Liquidity Creation Hypothesis” (HLCH) that a proliferation in the core activity of bank liquidity creation increases failure probability. We test the HLCH in the context of Russian banking, where many failures occurred albeit not triggered by swings in business cycles or an exogenous shock such as a crisis. Using Berger and Bouwman (2009) liquidity creation measures, we find that high liquidity creation is associated with greater probability of bank failure and this finding survives multiple robustness checks. Our results suggest that regulatory authorities can mitigate systemic distress and reduce the costs to society from bank failures through early identification of high liquidity creators.

Banks argue that holding higher capital will have adverse implications on their lending activities and thereby on economic growth. Yet, the effect of a stronger capital base on economic growth remains largely unsettled. We argue that better capitalized banks improve financial stability conditions and, in dire times, they are able to sustain credit to the economy thereby containing adverse macroeconomic implications. Using various methods, we test for the presence and strength of a financial stability channel and a bank lending channel by drawing evidence from 47 advanced and developing countries over close to two decades. We find that higher capital ratios improve financial stability and help sustain bank lending, ultimately exerting a positive influence on economic activity. These effects on real GDP growth are economically significant, reaching up to 1¼ percentage points for each percentage point acceleration in capital. Our main results are robust to various sensitivity checks, supporting the conclusion that safer banking systems do not bridle economic activity.

We extend the literature on the sovereign-bank nexus by examining the composition effects of sovereign portfolios on banks' risk profile, unlike previous studies which generally analyzed the determinants of banks’ sovereign portfolios or the size effects of these portfolios. We also differ from previous studies with respect to the measures of risk considered and by covering a sample period that goes well beyond the Global Financial Crisis (2009–2018). Drawing on granular data from the European Banking Authority, we find that banks are riskier when their portfolio includes a higher proportion of securities that are issued by higher risk sovereigns or when they are themselves domiciled in a country with high sovereign credit risk. But we do not find concluding evidence that larger holdings of government securities of the country where the bank is incorporated increase bank risk ex-post. However, the risk profile is higher for banks that received government capital injections than for banks that did not receive capital support in the aftermath of the Global Financial Crisis. Banks that received government capital injections are less risky when their portfolio includes a higher proportion of securities that are issued by higher risk sovereigns. These results may indicate that regulatory arbitrage motives at these banks are particularly important.