This paper examines the implications of bank activity and short-term funding strategies for bank risk and return using an international sample of 1,334 banks in 101 countries leading up to the 2008 financial crisis. Expansion into noninterest income-generating activities such as trading increases the rate of return on assets, and it could offer some risk diversification benefits at very low levels. Nondeposit, wholesale funding in contrast lowers the rate of return on assets, while it can offer some risk reduction at commonly observed low levels of nondeposit funding. A sizable proportion of banks, however, attract most of their short-term funding in the form of nondeposits at a cost of enhanced bank fragility. Overall, banking strategies that rely prominently on generating noninterest income or attracting nondeposit funding are very risky, consistent with the demise of the US investment banking sector.

Using bank-level data from 84 countries, we find that a higher degree of bank internationalization is associated with higher interest expenses. Internationalization is proxied by a bank's share of foreign liabilities in total liabilities or a Herfindahl index of international liability concentration. Bank interest expenses rise relatively more with internationalization if the bank is underperforming or headquartered in a country with weak public finances, and especially at times of weak world output growth. These results suggest that liability holders of distressed internationalized banks expect less from the financial safety net since lack of an efficient recovery and resolution regime for international banks can make their insolvency very costly to deal with.

In an approach analogous to Rajan and Zingales (1998), we examine how the ability to access long-term debt affects firm-level growth volatility. We find that firms in industries with stronger preference to use long-term finance relative to short-term finance experience lower growth volatility in countries with better-developed financial systems, as these firms may benefit from reduced refinancing risk. Institutions that facilitate the availability of credit information and contract enforcement mitigate refinancing risk and therefore growth volatility associated with short-term financing. Increased availability of long-term finance reduces growth volatility in crisis as well as non-crisis periods.

This paper examines how the capital structure of non-financial firms is affected by international variation in bank regulation. A concise model yields an estimating equation that relates a firm's capital structure to bank regulatory variables and their interactions with the tax rate reflecting the tax deductibility of interest. We identify an effect of bank regulation on leverage by considering establishments of the same multinational firm located in different countries. Our results indicate that capital regulation stringency and official supervisory power are negatively related to firm leverage, while restrictions on non-lending activities and on financial conglomerates vary positively with firm leverage. High tax rates mitigate these effects.

Abstract This paper examines the relationship between banks’ capitalization strategies and their corporate governance and executive compensation schemes for an international sample of banks over the 2003–2011 period. Shareholder-friendly corporate governance, in the form of a separation of the CEO and chairman of the board roles, intermediate board size, and an absence of anti-takeover provisions, is associated with lower bank capitalization, consistent with shareholder incentives to shift risk towards the financial safety net. Higher values of executive option and stock wealth invested in the bank are associated with higher capitalization as a potential reflection of executive risk aversion, but the risk-taking incentives embedded in executive compensation packages are associated with lower capitalization.

In a cross-border takeover, the tax base associated with future capital gains is transferred from target shareholders to acquirer shareholders. Cross-country differences in capital gains tax rates enable us to estimate the discount in target valuation on account of future capital gains. We estimate that a 1 percentage point increase in the capital gains tax rate reduces the value of equity by around 0.3%, which suggests that the capital gains tax significantly raises firms’ cost of capital. Furthermore, we find that the implied capital gains tax burden is higher at times of high economic growth and low stock market valuation.

On average, wages in the finance industry are higher compared to the rest of the economy. Two explanations suggested for this finance wage premium are (1) the positive correlation between risk-taking and wages, and (2) industry differences in information technology intensity. Using a comprehensive worker-firm panel dataset for the Netherlands, we estimate wage models with additive worker and firm fixed effects, and compute the finance wage premium as the average of the firm fixed effects in an industry. We then relate the estimated cross-section of firm fixed effects to a range of firm characteristics, and find that information technology investment, the average level of educational attainment at a firm, and the complementarity of the two are the main drivers of the finance wage premium, while firm risk only makes a small contribution.