This paper develops time-varying repayment mortgage contract designs based on borrower income expectations and risk profiles over loan age. These contract designs differ between loans and are based on growing annuities. We benchmark these contracts to the traditional 30-year fixed-rate mortgage contracts. The proposed contract innovations reduce illiquidity but increase leverage due to payment delays. The combined effects reduce the probability of default, systematic risk, and regulatory capital. Due to the risk reduction, lenders can increase the gross return on regulatory capital by 10 percent, or alternatively, borrowers may benefit from credit spreads that are 17 basis points lower. Overall, our contracts enhance the resilience of mortgage markets. JEL: G01; G20; G21; C51, C55

This paper develops a framework to measure the exposure to systematic risk for pools of asset securitizations and measures empirically whether current ratings-based rules for regulatory capital of securitizations under Basel II and Basel III reflect this exposure. The analysis is based on a comprehensive US dataset on asset securitizations for the time period between 2000 and 2008. We find that the shortfall of regulatory capital during the Global Financial Crisis is strongly related to ratings. In particular, we empirically show that insufficient capital is allocated to tranches with the highest rating. These tranches account for the greatest part of the total issuance volumes. Furthermore, this paper is the first to calibrate risk weights which account for systematic risk and provide sufficient capital buffers to cover the exposure during similar economic downturns. These policy-relevant findings suggest a re-calibration of RBA risk weights and may contribute to the current efforts by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision and others to re-establish sustainable securitization markets and to improve the stability of the financial system.

There is a current controversy concerning the appropriate size of banks’ capital requirements, and the trade-off between the costs and benefits of implementing higher capital requirements. We quantify the size of capital buffers required to reduce system-wide losses using confidential regulatory data for Australian banks from 2002 to 2014 and annual public accounts from 1978 to 2014. We find that a moderate increase in bank capital buffers is sufficient to maintain financial system resilience, even after taking economic downturns into consideration. Furthermore, while banks benefit from paying a lower cost of debt when they have a higher capital buffer, lending volumes are lower indicating that credit supply may be hampered if bank capital levels are too high within a financial system.

This paper shows that the revised loan loss provisioning based on the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) and the US Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) implies a reduction of Tier 1 capital. The paper finds in a counterfactual analysis that these changes are more severe (i) during economic downturns, (ii) for credit portfolios of low quality, (iii) for banks that do not tighten capital standards during downturns, and (iv) under a more comprehensive definition of significant increase in credit risk (SICR) under IFRS. The provisioning rules further increase the procyclicality of bank capital requirements. Adjustments of the SICR threshold or capital buffers are suggested as ways to mitigate a regulatory pressure that may emerges due to the reduction of regulatory capital.