We investigate how a change in regulatory oversight affects bank risk, using the passage of the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act of 2018 as a setting. Using a sample of bank holding companies (BHCs) covering the period 2015Q1 through 2020Q1, we find that risk increases for large BHCs affected by a change in regulatory oversight. In addition to increasing bank level risk, affected BHCs increase their respective contribution to the systemic risk. These BHCs also experience higher profitability, increased market valuation and reduced compliance costs.

Bank liquidity shortages during the global financial crisis of 2007–2009 led to the introduction of liquidity regulations, the impact of which has attracted the attention of academics and policymakers. In this paper, we investigate the impact of liquidity regulation on bank lending. As a setting, we use the Netherlands, where a Liquidity Balance Rule (LBR) was introduced in 2003. The LBR was imposed on Dutch banks only and did not apply to other banks operating elsewhere within the Eurozone. Using this differential regulatory treatment to overcome identification concerns and a difference-in-differences approach, we find that the LBR increased the volume of lending by Dutch banks relative to other banks located in the Eurozone. Increased equity, an inflow of retail deposits and subsequent increase in balance sheet size allowed Dutch banks to increase lending despite having to meet the LBR requirements. The LBR also affected the loan composition of Dutch banks (with corporate and retail lending increasing more than mortgage lending) and the maturity profile of loan portfolios. Our results have relevance for policymakers tasked with monitoring the impact of liquidity regulations on banks and the real economy.

Banks play a central role in the financial system and benefit the real economy by managing risk, and providing finance to households, small and medium-sized enterprises, large corporates and governments. However, their complexity, opacity and interconnectedness can elevate bank-level and systemic risks, posing dangers to the financial system and real economy. This was evident during the global financial crisis where taxpayer funded bailouts were used to rescue ailing banks, which in turn led to an overhaul of regulation and supervision. Consequently, safeguarding bank stability and addressing systemic risks via well designed regulations is essential for ensuring economic resilience and societal well-being. This study uses a quasi-natural experimental research design in the form of the Dutch Liquidity Balance Rule (LBR) to evaluate the impacts of liquidity regulation on bank-level stability and systemic risk. Our findings show that following the introduction of liquidity regulation, the stability of Dutch banks increases significantly relative to counterparts in neighbouring countries unaffected by the regulation. The observed reduction in risk stems from improved capitalization and reduced leverage, which contribute to greater financial stability. Systemic risk also decreases. Our findings have relevance beyond our research setting for policymakers tasked with implementing and monitoring the impacts of similar forms of liquidity regulation (such as bank liquidity coverage ratios) post global financial crisis.

This paper examines how bank taxation affects the financing decisions and investment activities of corporates. Exploiting exogenous tax variation at the bank level, we show that taxing banks' gross profits leads to higher bank leverage, and results in lower risk and credit supply. The contraction in credit supply has implications for corporate debt financing and investment activity. Corporates more exposed to banks subject to gross profit tax exhibit lower leverage and rely less on bank debt. Corporates partly offset lower bank financing by switching to bond financing. The cost of bond financing increases with corporate exposure to the tax. A greater exposure also impacts negatively on corporate investment activity. Overall, our results highlight the importance of bank taxation for corporate financing and investment decisions.

This study investigates whether deposit insurance affects bank payout policy. To overcome identification concerns, we use the US Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, which increased the maximum limit of deposit insurance coverage, leading to significant changes in the proportion of insured deposits to assets of some banks, while leaving others relatively unaffected. In line with the view that dividends convey information regarding financial health, we find that banks, which experience a substantial increase in insured deposits reduce dividends relative to others with a smaller increase in insured deposits. An extensive battery of further tests confirm that our results are not driven by events (such as capital injections due to participation in the Trouble Asset Relief Program, peer effects, state tax changes, deposit insurance pricing changes) that took place around the time of the increase in the maximum limit of deposit insurance coverage. Overall, the results of our empirical analysis suggest that banks holding fewer uninsured deposits pay less dividends.