This paper contributes to the empirical literature on risk shifting. It proposes a method to find out whether risk shifting is present in the banking industry and, if so, what type. The type of risk shifting depends on the group of debt holders to whom risk is shifted. We apply this method to the US banking sector in 1998–2011. To study the relationship between risk shifting and the 2008 crisis, the sample is also split into pre-crisis, crisis, and post-crisis periods. Our results suggest that the same type of risk shifting is present in the entire sample and in the pre-crisis and crisis subsamples. We find no evidence of risk shifting after the crisis. Furthermore, holding capital buffers seems to disincentivize risk shifting. This finding appears to provide support for the conservative buffer included in Basel III.

Previous work suggests that the charter value hypothesis is theoretically grounded and empirically supported, but not universally. Accordingly, this paper aims to perform an analysis of the relations between charter value, risk taking, and supervision, taking into account the relations’ complexity. Specifically, using the CAMELS rating system as a general framework for supervision, we study how charter value relates to risk and supervision by means of classification and regression tree analysis. The sample covers the period 2005–2016 and consists of listed banks in countries that were members of the Eurozone when it came into existence, along with Greece. To evaluate the crisis consequences, we also separately analyze four subperiods and countries that required financial aid from third parties and those that did not so, along with large and small banks. Our results reflect the complexity of the relations between charter value, supervision, and risk. Indeed, supervision and charter value seem aligned regarding only some types of risk.