Knowledge that Transforms

In an approach analogous to Rajan and Zingales (1998), we examine how the ability to access long-term debt affects firm-level growth volatility. We find that firms in industries with stronger preference to use long-term finance relative to short-term finance experience lower growth volatility in countries with better-developed financial systems, as these firms may benefit from reduced refinancing risk. Institutions that facilitate the availability of credit information and contract enforcement mitigate refinancing risk and therefore growth volatility associated with short-term financing. Increased availability of long-term finance reduces growth volatility in crisis as well as non-crisis periods.

This paper contributes to prior literature and to the current debate concerning recent revisions of the regulatory approach to measuring bank exposure to interest rate risk in the banking book by focusing on assessment of the appropriate amount of capital banks should set aside against this specific risk. We first discuss how banks might develop internal measurement systems to model changes in interest rates and measure their exposure to interest rate risk that are more refined and effective than are regulatory methodologies. We then develop a backtesting framework to test the consistency of methodology results with actual bank risk exposure. Using a representative sample of Italian banks between 2006 and 2013, our empirical analysis supports the need to improve the standardized shock currently enforced by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision. It also provides useful insights for properly measuring the amount of capital to cover interest rate risk that is sufficient to ensure both financial system functioning and banking stability.

There is a current controversy concerning the appropriate size of banks’ capital requirements, and the trade-off between the costs and benefits of implementing higher capital requirements. We quantify the size of capital buffers required to reduce system-wide losses using confidential regulatory data for Australian banks from 2002 to 2014 and annual public accounts from 1978 to 2014. We find that a moderate increase in bank capital buffers is sufficient to maintain financial system resilience, even after taking economic downturns into consideration. Furthermore, while banks benefit from paying a lower cost of debt when they have a higher capital buffer, lending volumes are lower indicating that credit supply may be hampered if bank capital levels are too high within a financial system.

Regulatory forbearance in times of corporate distress has been a common practice in many countries to achieve bank stability, particularly so in the absence of a unified bankruptcy code, yet very little is known in the context of emerging market economies. Exploiting variation of membership across banks in a corporate debt restructuring programme (CDR) sponsored by the central bank in India, this paper finds that the banks that made use of regulatory forbearance (RF) on the restructured corporate loans could increase their stability significantly due to the extension of low provisioning on restructured loans. However, the positive effect of RF diminishes at higher levels of market power, highlighting that member banks with higher market power tend to originate riskier assets (as reflected in their risk-weighted assets) under the auspices of this programme. Our results remain robust to different estimators (including propensity score matching), ownership structure, and alternative measures of bank stability.

This paper sheds some light on situations in which monetary and macroprudential policies may interact (and potentially get into conflict) and contributes to the discussion about the coordination of those policies. Using data for the Czech Republic and five euro area countries we show that monetary tightening has a negative impact on the credit-to-GDP ratio and the non-risk-weighted bank capital ratio (i.e. a positive impact on bank leverage), while these effects have strengthened considerably since mid-2011. This supports the view that accommodative monetary policy contributes to a build-up of financial vulnerabilities, i.e. it boosts the credit cycle. On the other hand, the effect of the higher bank capital ratio is associated with some degree of uncertainty. For these and other reasons, coordination of the two policies is necessary to avoid an undesirable policy mix preventing effective achievement of the main objectives in the two policy areas.

This paper investigates how banking system stability is affected when we combine Islamic and conventional finance under the same roof. We compare systemic resilience of three types of banks in six GCC member countries with dual banking systems: fully-fledged Islamic banks (IB), purely conventional banks (CB) and conventional banks with Islamic windows (CBw). We employ market-based systemic risk measures such as MES, SRISK and CoVaR to identify which sector is more vulnerable to a systemic event. We also compute weighted average GES to determine which sector is most synchronised with the market. Moreover, we use graphical network models to determine the most interconnected banking sector that can more easily spread a systemic shock to the whole system. Using a sample of observations on 79 publicly traded banks operating over the 2005–2014 period, we find that CBw is the least resilient sector to a systemic event, it has the highest synchronicity with the market, and it is the most interconnected banking sector during crisis times.

We employ a unique framework to quantify the net effect of financial liberalization on banks’ total factor productivity (TFP) growth through a decomposition analysis of two effects: a positive direct effect of financial liberalization on bank TFP growth; and a negative indirect effect operating through a higher propensity to systemic banking crisis. The empirical decomposition is based on a sample of 1530 banks operating in 88 countries over the period 1999–2011. We find that the net effect of financial liberalization on bank TFP growth is positive: the direct positive effect outweighs the negative one. An important policy implication flows from these findings.

We develop an empirically based simulation study to test two types of policies designed to control systemic risk: preventive policies targeting capital requirements and mitigation policies targeting default resolution. We find that capital buffers reduce both the number of defaults and the resulting losses. The loss reduction benefit increases as the magnitude of adverse shocks becomes higher. We find that a simple branch-breakup resolution strategy reduces the loss borne by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). The mitigation effect becomes higher as the fraction of assets resolved through auctions and auction competitiveness increase.

This study explores whether the concentration–stability relation is affected by the level of analysis; i.e., bank-level versus country-level stability. The diverging results in the literature suggest that we may indeed expect differences between the two levels. With the z-score as the measure of financial stability, our theoretical analysis confirms that we may find such differences. Yet our empirical analysis for the EU-25 during the 1998–2014 period finds no economically significant effect of concentration on either the bank-level or the country-level z-score. The finding that concentration hardly affects stability at both levels of analysis is an indication of robustness in the empirical concentration–stability relation not previously established in the literature. This finding further suggests that neither supervisory restructuring, nor normal market-driven mergers, are likely to be substantially harmful to financial stability.