We develop a theory of optimal bank leverage in which the benefit of debt in inducing loan monitoring is balanced against the benefit of equity in attenuating risk shifting. However, faced with socially costly correlated bank failures, regulators bail out creditors. Anticipation of this generates multiple equilibria, including one with systemic risk in which banks use excessive leverage to fund correlated, inefficiently risky loans. Limiting leverage and resolving both moral hazards—insufficient loan monitoring and asset substitution—requires a novel two-tiered capital requirement, including a “special capital account” that is unavailable to creditors upon failure

Regulators condition bank capital on risk but struggle to measure risk accurately. Capital requirements thus rely on inputs from banks’ internal risk models, and banks have discretion over modeling choices. Using novel hand-collected data we show that reported bank risk varies systematically with simulation method, holding period, and historical data size. Hence, modeling choices can be a significant channel of underreporting of risk. Consistent with this presumption we find that less-capitalized banks tend to choose less conservative methods. Moreover, banks using a softer simulation method display higher actual market risk, while reporting lower market risk to regulators

Bank bailouts are not “one-shot” events, as often portrayed, but rather dynamic processes with phases over time. Regulators “catch” financially distressed banks and provide aid, “restrict” these banks’ activities for ex ante unknown lengths of time, and then “release” the banks from the restrictions when capital ratios reach sufficiently healthy levels. This catch-restrict-release bailout approach is employed globally and applies to both major bailout methods capital injections (CIs) and debt guarantees (DGs). We model how a regulator that maximizes a social welfare function that includes the value of the bank and expected costs to the rest of the financial system and the real economy of its default might design and implement catch-restrict-release and test model predictions. Our data laboratory includes multiple EU nations over the financially stressful 2008-2014 period when many bailouts occurred. Findings suggest regulators bail out banks in a qualitatively consistent fashion with maximizing the social welfare function, yielding policy implications and directions for future research

Nonbank financial intermediaries (NBFIs) have grown significantly relative to banks. We argue that this growth reflects a transformation of the activities and risks of banks and NBFIs, driven at least in part by changes in bank regulation. We document through new regulatory data, case studies, and empirical analyses that banks remain special as providers of both routine and emergency liquidity to NBFIs and that the sectors have become increasingly interdependent. We discuss some potential regulatory responses, including considering the two sectors holistically and exploring new ways to internalize the costs of systemic risk arising from bank-NBFI interconnectedness

We model credibility challenges financial regulators often face when disclosing bank stress test results. Since disclosures influence banks’ risk-taking and depositors’ withdrawal decisions, regulators may have incentives to misreport. We show that regulators can reveal results credibly through imprecise disclosures to both banks and depositors. The regulator reveals only the range or the interval in which the result lies. Crucially, our findings indicate that stress test results can be disclosed credibly without assuming that the regulator is committed to truthful disclosure

We document novel evidence on the spillover effect of a corporate control regulation on local mortgage markets. We find that banks directly targeted by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) to rectify their internal control weaknesses reduce mortgage originations following the regulation’s enactment. This causes mortgage credit to be reallocated toward other banks in the same local markets: while competing public banks expand lending to safer borrowers, private banks increase lending toward risky applicants. Consequently, loans originated by private banks in spillover counties report higher default rates

Banks predominantly issue nondilutive CoCos, contrary to the suggestion that CoCos should be dilutive to reduce risk-taking. In an agency model of two moral hazards, we show that, although dilutive CoCos deter ex ante risk-taking and prevent banks from being undercapitalized, penalizing shareholders of a distressed bank with dilution leads to ex post risk-shifting. CoCos’ design and risk implications depend on bank capitalization: equity-constrained banks prefer nondilutive CoCos because they maximize the financing capacity by tackling ex post risk shifting only. Nondilutive CoCos can be used to implement the constrained social optimum for highly leveraged banks, and regulators can induce appropriate CoCo designs with capital regulations

In both the subprime crisis and the eurozone crisis, regulators imposed bans on short sales mainly aimed at preventing stock price turbulence from destabilizing financial institutions. Contrary to the regulators’ intentions, financial institutions whose stocks were banned experienced greater increases in the probability of default and volatility than unbanned ones. Increases were larger for more vulnerable financial institutions. To take into account the endogeneity of short sales bans, we match banned financial institutions with unbanned ones with similar sizes and levels of riskiness and instrument the 2011 ban decisions with regulators’ propensity to impose a ban in the 2008 crisis. (JEL G01, G12, G14, G18) Received July 8, 2020; editorial decision September 8, 2020 by Editor Isil Erel

We study a large-scale Brazilian loan subsidy program to expand long-term credit. The government subsidizes banks’ funding costs for lenders, who then allocate credit to firms at regulated interest rates below a maximum ceiling. We propose and test a mechanism allowing banks to circumvent the rate caps and capture part of the subsidy. We show that when issuing a subsidized loan, lenders with market power use a cross-product pricing strategy, whereby they increase the price of other products to the same client. Our results have important policy implications for the design and effectiveness of government interventions in credit markets