Banks increasingly use short-term wholesale funds to supplement traditional retail deposits. Existing literature mainly points to the “bright side” of wholesale funding: sophisticated financiers can monitor banks, disciplining bad but refinancing good ones. This paper models a “dark side” of wholesale funding. In an environment with a costless but noisy public signal on bank project quality, short-term wholesale financiers have lower incentives to conduct costly monitoring, and instead may withdraw based on negative public signals, triggering inefficient liquidations. Comparative statics suggest that such distortions of incentives are smaller when public signals are less relevant and project liquidation costs are higher, e.g., when banks hold mostly relationship-based small business loans.

This paper proposes a new methodology to evaluate the economic effect of state-specific policy changes, using bank-branching deregulations in the US as an example. The new method compares economic performance of pairs of contiguous counties separated by state borders, where on one side restrictions on statewide branching were removed relatively earlier, to create a natural “regression discontinuity” setup. The study uses a total of 285 pairs of contiguous counties along 38 segments of such regulation change borders to estimate treatment effects for 23 separate deregulation events taking place between 1975 and 1990. To distinguish real treatment effects from those created by data-snooping and spatial correlations, fictitious placebo deregulations are randomized (permutated) on another 32 segments of non-event borders to establish empirically a statistical table of critical values for the estimator. The method determines that statistically significant growth accelerations can be established at a extgreater 90% confidence level in five (and none prior to 1985) out of the 23 deregulation events examined. “Hinterland counties” within the still-regulated states, but farther away from the state borders, are used as a second control group to consider and reject the possibility that cross-border spillover of deregulation effects may invalidate the empirical design.

We analyze proprietary internal capital allocation data from a large retail banking group consisting of member banks and a headquarters organization. We find that capital allocations from headquarters compensate for deposit shortfalls on the bank level, suggesting that the headquarters offers deposit smoothing to member banks. We then analyze how the distribution of influence within the group relates to capital allocations and lending behavior. More influential banks are allocated more funds from headquarters, and their loan growth is less sensitive to their deposit base. The effects of influence are stronger if banks have a greater demand for deposit smoothing.