Knowledge that Transforms

This paper suggests that accounting and auditing systems can be effective devices to counteract tendencies for firm risk-taking associated with bank safety nets. Results are obtained from an international sample of publicly traded banks after controlling for other regulatory control devices for bank risk such as restrictions on banking activities, minimum regulatory capital requirements and official discipline. The efficacy of accounting and auditing systems in controlling bank risk diminishes with bank charter value and increases with moral hazard stemming from a country's deposit insurance. The results also indicate that accounting and auditing systems are complements for minimum capital requirements, but substitutes for restrictions on bank activities and official discipline.

This paper studies the welfare implications of various government policies that have been used to prevent bank runs. The benchmark model suggests that a bank run is a business-cycle-state-related phenomenon and it leads to the failure of the risk-sharing mechanism provided by the banking sector. Extensions of the model show that a number of policy instruments, including the suspension of convertibility of deposits, the taxation on short-term deposits, reserve requirement and blanket guarantee, turn out to be inefficient. Instead, I propose that a limited-coverage deposit insurance scheme or capital requirements can be welfare-improving.

A number of recent policy initiatives have called for enhanced transparency of banking firms. While the hope is that enhanced transparency may improve incentives ex ante, it is less clear whether transparency is necessarily a good thing ex post, when a bank might have hit hard times and provision of information could have a destabilising effect. This paper provides a synopsis of these different effects and provides some new, bank-level evidence in an attempt to clarify empirically whether, taking ex ante and ex post effects together, transparency is likely to reduce or increase bank stability. The analysis suggests that, on balance, transparency reduces the chance of severe banking problems and thus enhances overall financial stability.

This paper examines the policy issues associated with resolving the possible failure of Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac (housing enterprises). It compares and contrasts these issues with those raised in the context of large bank failures and also identifies important differences in the extant supervisory authorities. Based on these discussions, a number of policy suggestions are offered to minimize the cost of resolution and protect taxpayers from loss should a large bank or housing enterprise fail.

Possible explanations are provided for two basic results in Kräussl's paper. First, rating effect may be stronger in emerging markets because they are less transparent. Transparency is interpreted in the context of Knightian uncertainty and institutional quality. Emerging markets have lower institutional quality ratings and present greater uncertainty than mature markets, therefore, they are more susceptible to rating agencies’ evaluations. Some empirical evidence on the correlations between institutional quality rankings and portfolio investment is presented. Second, sovereign credit downgrades generate a stronger market reaction than upgrades because decision makers value losses more than gains, as posited by cumulative prospect theory.