The crisis is not yet over; the housing market continues to deteriorate and there are spill-overs into other markets. Growth is declining, with potentially self re-enforcing mechanisms between financial markets and the real economy coming into play. A local problem became a global crisis because of poor risk management, lack of transparency and excessive leverage. Not only does the capital base need re-building, but also incentive schemes need reconsideration.

Weak bank supervision could give banks the ability to shift risk from themselves to supervisors. We use cross-border bank mergers as a natural experiment to test changes in risk and the impact of supervision. We examine cross-border bank mergers and find that the supervisory structures of the partners’ countries influence changes in post-merger total risk. An acquirer from a country with strong supervision lowers total risk after a cross-border merger. However, total risk increases when the target bank is located in a country with relatively strong supervision. This result is consistent with strong host regulators limiting the risky activities of their local banks. Foreign-owned competitors could then engage in the risky projects, especially if the foreign banks’ supervisors are not strong. An acquirer entering a country with strong supervision appears to shift risk back to its home country. The results suggest that bank supervisors can reduce total banking risk in their countries by being strong.

We employ a theoretical model to interpret the liquidity and moral hazard effects of IMF support during a financial crisis. We then estimate the response of forward exchange markets to IMF-related announcements, using data on the 3-, 9-, and 12-month forward exchange rates. Our results indicate that the announcement of IMF negotiations is associated with a premium on the baht and the rupiah, where the premium is much larger on the latter. This result is largely consistent with the responses of stock and bond markets, especially when country-specific data are employed.

Evidence on central banks’ twin objective, monetary and financial stability, is scarce. We suggest an integrated micro–macro approach with two core virtues. First, we measure financial stability directly at the bank level as the probability of distress. Second, we integrate a microeconomic hazard model for bank distress and a standard macroeconomic model. The advantage of this approach is to incorporate micro information, to allow for non-linearities and to permit general feedback effects between financial distress and the real economy. We base the analysis on German bank and macro data between 1995 and 2004. Our results confirm the existence of a trade-off between monetary and financial stability. An unexpected tightening of monetary policy increases the probability of distress. This effect disappears when neglecting microeffects and non-linearities, underlining their importance. Distress responses are largest for small cooperative banks, weak distress events, and at times when capitalization is low. An important policy implication is that the separation of financial supervision and monetary policy requires close collaboration among members in the European System of Central Banks and national bank supervisors.