This paper studies the effect of reporting regulation on private firms' bank credit and its economic consequences. I exploit the Spanish institutional setting, which provides a unique combination of confidential loan data and regulatory features that generate quasi‐exogenous variation in reporting regulation. Using a regression discontinuity design, I find that firms subject to incremental reporting regulation obtain more bank credit primarily through cash flow–based lending, term loans, and long‐term debt, without higher interest rates. These findings are explained by stronger banking competition and greater reliance on financial statement data. However, firms do not expand their net financial position, as bank credit substitutes for other liabilities, and exhibit weaker performance consistent with the costs of reporting regulation. This evidence from a different setting offers new insights into how reporting regulation influences credit contracting for private firms and strengthens the empirical basis for policy‐making

This paper examines how the capital structure of non-financial firms is affected by international variation in bank regulation. A concise model yields an estimating equation that relates a firm's capital structure to bank regulatory variables and their interactions with the tax rate reflecting the tax deductibility of interest. We identify an effect of bank regulation on leverage by considering establishments of the same multinational firm located in different countries. Our results indicate that capital regulation stringency and official supervisory power are negatively related to firm leverage, while restrictions on non-lending activities and on financial conglomerates vary positively with firm leverage. High tax rates mitigate these effects

We study the liquidity behavior of commercial banks in response to negative capital shocks. Using pre-Basel III data, U.S. banks with assets less than $1 billion treated (unregulated) liquidity and (regulated) capital as substitutes. Following exogenous shocks to their regulatory capital ratios, these banks shifted away from loans, loan commitments, and dividend payouts, actions that both repaired their capital ratios and enhanced their liquidity positions. We find little similar behavior at larger banks. We conclude that a minimum capital constraint naturally mitigates liquidity risk at community banks, justifying the exemption of these banks from the Basel III liquidity standards

Financial regulation is harmonized across countries even though countries vary in their ability to bail-out their banking sector in the event of a crisis. This article addresses the question of whether countries with different fiscal capacity should optimally have different bank regulation, implemented—among other tools—through capital requirements—a question so far ignored by the theoretical banking literature. I show that countries with larger fiscal capacity should have lower ex ante minimum bank capital requirements, in an environment with endogenously incomplete markets and overinvestment due to “Too-Big-To-Fail” moral hazard and pecuniary externalities. I also show that, in addition to a minimum bank capital requirement, regulators in countries with strong “Too-Big-To-Fail” moral hazard should impose a limit on the liabilities pledged by financial institutions in a crisis state. This implies limits on put options/credit default swap contracts. Finally, I argue that the type of regulatory instrument used is crucial as to whether larger fiscal capacity implies more- or less-stringent bank regulation

This paper develops a model of regulated Brownian motion with an endogenous profit term to analyze the role of regulatory credibility on the stability and productivity of the banking system. We show that when regulatory intervention is perfect and costless, the volatility of the system can be substantially reduced with no loss of productivity. In fact, perfect credibility can actually reduce the volatility of intrinsically risky banking systems below the volatility of intrinsically less risky systems as banks anticipate intervention and mitigate their investment behaviour accordingly. However, when the credibility of the regime is weakened because of increased uncertainty stemming from regulation, such as random costs or imperfect timing of regulatory intervention, both the stability and productivity of the financial system are impaired. Importantly, we find that in the presence of regulatory costs and imperfect credibility, there is no universal optimal intervention policy rule. The optimal regulatory system depends on the regulator’s level of absolute risk aversion

The group of issues that falls under the heading of bank capital adequacy has received a great deal of attention from academics, regulators, and bankers in recent years and is likely to continue as a subject for debate for many years to come. Although the traditional questions debated in the literature on capital adequacy are important and remain unresolved, this paper is not directed at them. Instead, the approach here is to examine how bank regulators operating within the existing legal structure of regulation can pursue optimal policies with respect to the regulation of bank capital

This paper provides evidence on how the new international regulation on Global Systemically Important Banks (G-SIBs) impacts the market value of large banks. We analyze the stock price reactions for the 300 largest banks from 52 countries across 12 relevant regulatory announcement and designation events. We observe that the new regulation negatively affects the value of the newly regulated banks, yet that the official designation of banks as “globally systemically important” itself has a partly offsetting positive impact. A cross-sectional analysis of the valuation effects with respect to, for example, government ownership of banks supports the view that the positive reaction to these designations can be attributed to a Too-Big-to-Fail (TBTF) perception by investors. The fact that these valuation effects emerge from a regulation specifically designed to reduce the costs and risks of Too-Big-to-Fail demonstrates the inherently paradoxical nature of the new regulation. These results further suggest that even though the individual components of the regulation have been effective, revealing the identities of G-SIBs eliminated ambiguity about the presence of government guarantees, and thereby may have run counter to the regulators’ intent to contain the effects of TBTF

Banks are subject to capital requirements because their privately optimal leverage is higher than the socially optimal one. This is in turn because banks fail to internalize all costs that their insolvency creates for agents who use their money-like liabilities to settle transactions. If banks can bypass capital regulation in an opaque shadow banking sector, it may be optimal to relax capital requirements so that liquidity dries up in the shadow banking sector. Tightening capital requirements may spur a surge in shadow banking activity that leads to an overall larger risk on the money-like liabilities of the formal and shadow banking institutions

Banks are subject to capital requirements because their privately optimal leverage is higher than the socially optimal one. This is in turn because banks fail to internalize all costs that their insolvency creates for agents who use their money-like liabilities to settle transactions. If banks can bypass capital regulation in an opaque shadow banking sector, it may be optimal to relax capital requirements so that liquidity dries up in the shadow banking sector. Tightening capital requirements may spur a surge in shadow banking activity that leads to an overall larger risk on the money-like liabilities of the formal and shadow banking institutions

How does the shadow banking system respond to changes in capital regulation of commercial banks? We propose a quantitative general equilibrium model with regulated and unregulated banks to study the unintended consequences of regulation. Tighter capital requirements for regulated banks cause higher convenience yield on debt of all banks, leading to higher shadow bank leverage and a larger shadow banking sector. At the same time, tighter regulation eliminates the subsidies to commercial banks from deposit insurance, reducing the competitive pressures on shadow banks to take risks. The net effect is a safer financial system with more shadow banking. Calibrating the model to data on financial institutions in the US, the optimal capital requirement is around 16