Risk management, although of major importance in the banking industry in practice, plays only a minor role in the theory of banking. We reduce this gap by putting forward a model in which risk managers – specialists that can find out correlations between risky assets – endogenously take over typical functions of banks. They grant loans, they consult on financial questions with firms that are threatened by bankruptcy, and they sign tailor-made hedge transactions with these firms. Delegation costs are innately low if banks assume the function of risk managers in an economy. Risk management can be seen as a core competence of banks.

We present a banking model with imperfect competition in which borrowers’ access to credit is improved when banks are able to transfer credit risks. However, the market for credit risk transfer (CRT) works smoothly only if the quality of loans is public information. If the quality of loans is private information, banks have an incentive to grant unprofitable loans that are then transferred to other parties, leading to an increase in aggregate risk. Higher competition increases welfare in the presence of CRT with public information. In contrast, welfare eventually decreases for high levels of competition in the presence CRT with private information due to the expansion of unprofitable loans. This finding coincides with the decrease in credit quality observed during the late years of the credit boom preceding the subprime crisis.

We analyze the competitive effects of government bail-out policies in two models with different degrees of transparency in the banking sector. Our main result is that bail-outs lead to higher risk-taking among the protected bank’s competitors, independently of transparency. The reason is that the prospect of a bail-out induces the protected bank to expand, which intensifies competition in the deposit market, depresses other banks’ margins, and thereby increases risk-taking incentives. Contrary to conventional wisdom, protected banks may take lower risks when transparency in the banking sector is low and the deposit supply is sufficiently elastic.

We analyze the relationship between bank size and risk-taking under the Basel II Capital Accord. Using a model with imperfect competition and moral hazard, we show that the introduction of an internal ratings based (IRB) approach improves upon flat capital requirements if the approach is applied uniformly across banks and if the costs of implementation are not too high. However, the banks’ right to choose between the standardized and the IRB approaches under Basel II gives larger banks a competitive advantage and, due to fiercer competition, pushes smaller banks to take higher risks. This may even lead to higher aggregate risk-taking.

Banks use different risk management practices with varying levels of sophistication. This paper examines the factors that determine the choice of risk-management practices. In a theoretical model, we identify two main determinants for the choice of risk management tools: bank competition and sector concentration in the loan market. We empirically test the predictions of our model using hand-collected data on the credit risk management of 249 German savings banks. The results are in line with our theory: Competition pushes banks to implement advanced risk management practices. Sector concentration in the loan market promotes credit portfolio modeling, but it inhibits credit risk transfer.

[This article empirically investigates the competitive effects of government bail-out policies. We construct a measure of bail-out perceptions by using rating information. From there, we construct the market shares of insured competitor banks for any given bank, and analyze the impact of this variable on banks' risk-taking behavior, using a large sample of banks from OECD countries. Our results suggest that government guarantees strongly increase the risk-taking of competitor banks. In contrast, there is no evidence that public guarantees increase the protected banks' risk-taking, except for banks that have outright public ownership. These results have important implications for the effects of the recent wave of bank bail-outs on banks' risk-taking behavior.]

This article discusses the effects of small banks on economic growth. We first theoretically show that small banks operating at a regional level can spur local economic growth. As compared with big interregional banks, small regional banks are more effective in promoting local economic growth, especially in regions with lower initial endowments and severe credit rationing. We then test the model predictions using a sample of German banks and corresponding regional statistics. We find that small regional banks are more important funding providers in regions with low access to finance. The empirical results support the theoretical hypotheses.