This article discusses the optimal leverage ratio and capital requirements when asymmetric information exists between the bank and the regulator. We show that the optimal requirements take different forms in the short and long run. In either case, imposing the risk-weighted capital requirement without considering the incentives of the bank to misreport its risk profile is never optimal by itself. In the long run, the optimal requirements take the form of a leverage ratio requirement on top of the risk-weighted capital requirement. The add-on leverage ratio requirement, which serves as a compensation for the limited supervisory power of the regulators, should be set such that the risk-taking behavior of the bank is unchanged from the situation in which the regulator uses the risk-weighted capital requirement alone, and the misreporting incentive of the bank is eliminated by the add-on leverage ratio requirement.

We study the impacts of the recently proposed risk retention regulation for asset securitization, i.e. the issuer has to retain a certain proportion of securitized assets. We also consider the frequently discussed measure to require the issuer disclose certain information of the securitized assets. In a dynamic model with asymmetric information between a risk-averse originating bank and a continuum of risk-averse investors, we find that it is impossible for a flat-rate retention requirement to be optimal for all asset types. Although both risk retention and information disclosure regulations are effective in reducing investors’ informational loss, neither can unconditionally enhance social welfare upon the unregulated case. For both measures, there are associated regulatory cost: risk retention regulation aggravates adverse selection problem because it undermines the channel of informational revelation by the choice of securitization intensity, and information disclosure requirement incurs a signalling cost by distorting banks’ securitization intensity in sending signals. Under an appropriate set of conditions we find that information disclosure requirement complements risk retention regulation when investors are sufficiently risk averse.

In this paper, we study the impacts of the Net Stable Funding Ratio (NSFR) requirement on banks’ choices of debt maturity and asset structures, with consequences for banks’ profitability and social welfare. We develop a model in which the manager of a bank determines both debt maturity structure (short-term vs. long-term debt) and asset composition (cash vs. risky assets). To address the incongruence of goals between the bank manager and the bank stakeholders, in our model we assume that the manager receives only a proportion of the bank’s profit in her pay schedule. We demonstrate that the optimal choices of the manager regarding debt maturity and asset structure lead to socially inefficient (second-best) outcomes because the manager internalizes only part of the social benefit. We then study the implications of the NSFR requirement on the manager’s choices and demonstrate that the NSFR requirement can enhance social welfare and reach an efficient (first-best) outcome, if a sufficiently low weight of short-term debt as available stable funding is required by regulation. Further, we find that under the same conditions the NSFR requirement reduces banks’ use of short-term financing and thus increases the probability of banks’ survival and profits from the ex ante point of view, while it decreases banks’ profits from the ex post point of view, since it reduces the threshold for banks’ survival. Our main results have some interesting empirical implications: under certain conditions, the NSFR requirement may reduce both bank failures and banks’ observed profits.

This paper examines how, in the presence of individual risk, economic efficiency can be achieved without an unrealistically large number of contingent claims. Market uncertainty is specified in such a way that general types of individual risk and collective risk are properly accounted for and so that, specifically, market clearing is always satisfied ex post as well as ex ante. We show that consistency of beliefs and optimality of allocation can be guaranteed with an appropriate array of pure Arrow securities to spread collective risk and mutual insurance policies to pool individual risk. When there is individual risk common to like groups of individuals, pooling risk by means of mutual insurance permits substantial economizing on market transactions, as compared to those required if dealing instead with the full complement of pure Arrow securities. We show that if there are N households (consisting of H types), each facing the possibility of being in S individual states together with T collective states, then ensuring Pareto optimality requires only H(S-1)T independent mutual insurance policies plus T pure Arrow securities. Our results also help to clarify the question of which missing markets may affect allocational efficiency.