We model optimal ethical standards, capital requirements and talent allocation in banking. Banks with varying safety-net protections, including depositories and shadow banks, innovate products and compete for talent. Managers dislike unethical behavior, but banks heed it only because detection imposes costs. We find: (i) higher capital induces higher ethical standards, but socially optimal capital requirements may tolerate some unethical behavior; (ii) managerial ethics fails to raise banks’ ethical standards; (iii) banks with lower ethical standards attract better talent and innovate more; and (iv) it is socially optimal to allocate better talent to shadow banks instead of depositories, and this allocation results in higher capital requirements and ethical standards for depositories. Consequently, with capital capacity constraints, the shadow banking sector is larger than the depository sector; talent competition induces a race to the bottom in ethical standards, and the regulator responds by setting capital requirements to magnify this size difference.

This paper provides survey evidence on higher purpose for individuals and organizations and develops a theoretical model consistent with the evidence. The survey of 1,019 individuals in the U.S. sought to learn about their commitment to and perceived value from personal and organizational higher purpose. One striking finding from the survey is that when an organization has a written statement of higher purpose, its employees tend to trust their leaders to not only be socially responsible, but also to make better business decisions, i.e. corporate governance is perceived to be better by the employees. We then develop a simple theoretical model that provides an economic rationale for this finding. In the model, an investment in higher purpose credibly signals the firm owner's ability/marginal productivity and elicits higher employee effort. When put in a banking context, the model shows that optimal contracting within a bank that pursues a higher purpose leads to higher wages for employees, higher monitoring effort and a lower probability of bank failure when the bank has more equity capital, even though the bank's capital does not affect the bank's higher purpose investment. Even absent a signaling motivation for investing in higher purpose, these results are qualitatively sustained if the bank's employees care about its purpose. Additionally, in this case, banks that invest more in higher purpose pay lower wages, elicit higher employee effort and have lower failure probabilities for any given capital ratio. Banks with higher capital ratios still pay higher wages, but the effect of capital on wages becomes weaker as the bank's higher purpose investment increases. The decrease in the exposure of the deposit insurer due to higher capital goes beyond the direct impact of capital on the bank's probability of failure.

We derive three testable predictions from a bank-P2P lender model of competition: (a) P2P lending grows when some banks are faced with exogenously higher regulatory costs; (b) P2P loans are riskier than bank loans; and (c) the risk-adjusted interest rates on P2P loans are lower than those on bank loans. We test these predictions against data on P2P loans and the consumer bank credit market in Germany and find empirical support. Overall, our analysis indicates that P2P lenders are bottom fishing, especially when regulatory shocks create a competitive disadvantage for some banks.