We treat the banking system as a traded credit portfolio and calculate systemic risk capital as the amount of capital that insures the portfolio's value against unexpected losses. Using data from the largest global financial institutions, we find evidence of extreme event dependence between banks during the recent financial crisis. Subsequently, we extend the existing Gaussian approach by proposing a model that accounts for the extreme event dependence, and we quantify the level of capital shortfall when this characteristic is ignored. Furthermore, the mark to market valuation approach incorporates the economic loss of credit downgrades into the estimates.

Does the recent proliferation of technology in lending process have an impact on business loan market competition? Using a theoretical model that assumes heterogeneity in lenders’ screening abilities and borrowers’ investment horizons, we show that FinTech (Traditional) lenders primarily supply unsecured (asset-backed) loans to borrowers with short-term (long-term) projects. The model builds on the interplay between screening ability and collateral requirements to characterize the competition between two ex-ante symmetric lenders. Lenders use screening technology and collateral requirements to mitigate competition and restrict the supply of credit through an endogenous segmentation of the loan market. As information technology improves, the effect on credit supply and equilibrium interest rates becomes more nuanced and depends on the market segment. The results offer a supply-side explanation for the growth of unsecured lending.

Using data of bank loans to Greek firms during the Greek crisis we provide evidence that affiliated firms, having access to the internal capital markets of their associated group, are less likely to default on their loans. Furthermore, banks require lower loan collateral coverage from affiliated firms and are less likely to downgrade the affiliates’ credit profile. Finally, banks are more likely to show forbearance to affiliated firms with non-performing loans. The results are consistent with the view that banks manage their relationships with firms in a business group jointly, as opposed to viewing each firm as an independent entity. Our findings also suggest that the value of risk sharing through internal capital markets increases when external financing is scarce.

Recent studies have presented evidence of scale economies for large banks, providing a rationale for some very large banks seen worldwide. In this study, we focus on the negative side of bank size which relates to monitoring costs. In particular, we show that the relationship between size and bank's market to book value of assets is contained by the cost of the manager to directly monitor the borrowers and by the (delegation) cost of the owner to monitor the bank manager. Using a sample of US bank holding companies from 2001 to 2015, we provide evidence that the relationship between size and bank's market to book value of assets is inverse U-shaped and that monitoring costs offset the benefits from economies of scale.