An extensive review of the evidence related to the 2007–09 crisis reveals that it was an insolvency risk crisis, not a liquidity crisis. The appropriate post-crisis regulatory reform should therefore focus on increasing capital requirements. The Basel III liquidity requirements do not serve a useful economic purpose in dealing with the root causes of the stresses that led to the 2007–09 crisis, and unnecessarily constrain the asset transformation and liquidity creation roles of banks to the detriment of economic growth.

This paper analyzes how risk premiums altered the use of commercial paper relative to bank loans during the recent financial crisis. Consistent with the theoretical and empirical literature on how surges in risk premiums can induce plunges in under-collateralized credit or credit funded with noninsured sources, results indicate that a spike in risk premiums induced a plunge in commercial paper use during the recent crisis. This paper also finds that Federal Reserve interventions in the money market helped prevent the commercial paper market from melting down to the extent seen during the early 1930s.

Systemic risk is modeled as the endogenously chosen correlation of returns on assets held by banks. The limited liability of banks and the presence of a negative externality of one bank’s failure on the health of other banks give rise to a systemic risk-shifting incentive where all banks undertake correlated investments, thereby increasing economy-wide aggregate risk. Regulatory mechanisms such as bank closure policy and capital adequacy requirements that are commonly based only on a bank’s own risk fail to mitigate aggregate risk-shifting incentives, and can, in fact, accentuate systemic risk. Prudential regulation is shown to operate at a collective level, regulating each bank as a function of both its joint (correlated) risk with other banks as well as its individual (bank-specific) risk.

Limited coverage is a standard feature in deposit insurance schemes. It is used to limit moral hazard, and achieves this objective by reinforcing market discipline: depositors have more incentives to monitor banks’ risk-taking if they have skin in the game. In this paper, I study market discipline and coverage levels by analyzing the relationship of funding costs and deposit growth with banks’ risk. I use a database of Colombian banks’ balance sheets and take advantage of a sudden, significant, and exogenous increase in the coverage level that occurred in April 2017. I find evidence of market discipline throughout the period of analysis and most results are consistent with it not being reduced by the change in the coverage level. The results are nuanced, however. Two variables are impacted: one in the quantity and the other in the price dimension. Furthermore, results also vary when I look at specific groups of banks separately. Market discipline is not present in big banks. Too big-to-fail perceptions seem to limit it. This is also the case for banks concentrated in fully insured deposits, where limited coverage has a less prevalent role.

This study models the closely held (PE) share of U.S. nonfinancial corporate equity over time. Corporate income tax rates, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, default risk, and the real medium-run Treasury yield significantly affect the PE share, consistent with other studies which separately analyze these factors. The PE share is negatively related to business loan delinquencies and real medium-term Treasury rates. High interest rates discourage PE funds from using leverage to finance buyouts of public companies and fund distributions of interim cash distributions that enhance the relative liquidity of the closely held firms in PE fund portfolios. Interim cash distributions by PE funds help to avoid the double-taxation of dividends, thus causing the appeal of PE to rise with corporate income tax rates, which increases the PE share. The PE share rose during the Enron scandal and after the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX), which increased the costs of continuing as, or becoming, a publicly traded corporation. The PE share is well explained and tracked by key macroeconomic variables as well as tax and regulatory policies. • We model the private equity (PE) share of US nonfinancial corporate equity over time. • Business loan delinquencies and real medium-term Treasury rates lower the PE share. • Sarbanes-Oxley increased the PE share by raising the costs of being a public firm. • The PE share is well modeled by key macroeconomic, tax, and regulatory variables.

An unsustainable weakening of credit standards induced a US mortgage lending and housing bubble, whose consumption impact was amplified by innovations altering the collateral role of housing. In countries with more stable credit standards, any overshooting of construction and house prices owed more to traditional housing supply and demand factors. Housing collateral effects on consumption also varied, depending on the liquidity of housing wealth. Lessons for the future include recognizing the importance of financial innovation, regulation, housing policies, and global financial imbalances for fueling credit, construction, house price and consumption cycles that vary across countries.

In this paper, we address the question of whether the gender of a firm’s leader affects the cost of bank funding faced by small and medium enterprises in Europe. Using a large sample of observations of non-financial firms, during the years 2009–2013, we empirically test for the presence of discrimination, comparing female-led and male-led firms. After controlling for a rich set of variables and addressing potential endogeneity, our results show that i) female-led enterprises are more likely to face worse price conditions for bank financing compared to their male-led counterparts and, ii) firms whose leadership changes from female to male are more likely to benefit from an improvement in interest rate levels. This evidence is robust to different model specifications and various methodological approaches. The existence of such bias in the credit markets highlights the need of policy measures addressing female-led businesses, thus reducing their bank financing burdens and enhancing their entrepreneurial opportunities.

We study whether central bank independence (CBI) and monetary policy arrangements can jointly influence the likelihood of policymakers assigning banking supervision to central banks. Our empirical analysis shows that, assuming a benevolent government, a higher degree of central bank operational (economic) independence is associated with a lower probability of supervisory powers being entrusted to the monetary authority. We interpret this result as deriving from governments’ fear of the risk of excessively discretionary monetary policy. However, there is evidence that – conditional on operational independence – central banks are more involved in supervision when they pursue tighter monetary policy goals (a specific aspect of political independence). Our interpretation is that the latter may represent a commitment to mitigate central banks’ discretion in the monetization of financial distress. Our study suggests that CBI can be relevant, not only for its alleged effects on macroeconomic variables, but also in influencing policymakers’ decisions on the allocation of banking supervisory powers.

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.