We examine how community banks respond to liquidity shocks created by natural disasters. We address community banks’ responses to liquidity shocks due to their focused geographic and economic presence, which coincide with their communities’ exposure to the disasters and the ability of the local banks to meet their needs. We find that community banks respond to liquidity shocks by managing their balance sheet, rather than any single balance sheet account. In particular, we find that they respond to the liquidity needs of their communities by increasing loans as deposits are withdrawn.

A key policy to limit the possibility of bank runs is an explicit deposit insurance scheme, which can be either privately or government funded. Using syndicated loans from 63 countries during the period 1985–2016, we study the effect of government involvement in deposit insurance funding on price and non-price characteristics of loans. We show that changes from purely private-funded to either government-funded or jointly funded deposit insurance increase all-in-spread-drawn by approximately 4.6 %, further increase loan fees, decrease loan maturity, and increase the use of performance pricing provisions. Our findings are consistent with the moral hazard problem behind government-funded deposit insurance schemes.

Do climate-oriented regulatory policies affect the flow of credit towards polluting firms? We match loan-level data to firm-level greenhouse gas emissions to assess the impact of the Paris Agreement. We find that, following this agreement, European banks reallocated credit away from polluting firms in relative terms. Specifically, euro area banks’ loan share to more polluting firms decreased by about 3percentage points compared to less polluting (or “green”) firms after the 2015 Paris Agreement (COP21). This result is stronger for banks that are well capitalized, have lower credit quality, and are less profitable.

We examine (1) spillover effects between euro-area sovereigns and banking systems within national jurisdictions and (2) cross-country spillovers among ten countries during the euro-area crisis. We find that cross-country spillovers substantially amplify the doom loops between the sovereign and banking sectors. We also provide a test that supports the hypothesis that cross-country spillovers among southern-euro-area countries were of a different order from the spillovers among northern-euro-area countries. Our results also imply that, if shocks are idiosyncratic, spillover effects may help in reducing the impact for northern countries.