How do banks react to firms’ climate risks? Using almost 80,000 global syndicated loans originated from 2001 to 2021, we study bank lending to fossil fuel firms vis-à-vis other firms. We find that loans to fossil fuel firms are at least 7 % more costly compared to other firms, and even more so toward the end of our sample. However, loan amounts to fossil fuel firms are approximately 22 % larger, implying heavy financing of brown activities. We show that the pricing effects are even stronger for banks with higher reliance on ESG considerations, consistent with the shifts driven by the supply side (bank behaviour). Overall, our findings corroborate the view that banks price in climate risks but continue to heavily lend to polluting firms in the medium term (with an average maturity of four and one quarter years).

This paper provides evidence of a flight home effect in the syndicated loan market during the COVID-19 pandemic, where lenders rebalance their loan portfolios towards domestic borrowers. Specifically, a one standard deviation increase in COVID exposure in the lenders’ home country is associated with a 4.1 percentage point decrease in lenders’ share of foreign loans. This home bias eases with the intensity of government restrictions during the pandemic and strengthens with expansionary monetary policy. We further pinpoint an operative supply-side mechanism, where smaller, less capitalized banks with a higher proportion of non-performing loans are more likely to rebalance towards domestic borrowers. Although different forms of asymmetric information exert a material – yet not uniform – effect on the lenders’ rebalancing decisions, the flight home effect emerges independently of the existence of these information asymmetries.

This paper examines the pricing of global syndicated loans during the COVID-19 pandemic. We find that loan spreads rise by over 11 basis points in response to a one standard deviation increase in the lender's exposure to COVID-19 and over 5 basis points for an equivalent increase in the borrower's exposure. This implies excess interestof about USD 5.16 million and USD 2.37 million respectively for a loan of average size and duration. The aggravating effect of the pandemic is exacerbated with the level of government restrictions to tackle the virus's spread, with firms’ financial constraints and reliance on debt financing, whereas it is mitigated for relationship borrowers, borrowers listed in multiple exchanges or headquartered in countries that can attract institutional investors.

Lending to corporates in foreign currencies can expose banks to substantial currency risk. Using global syndicated loan data, we find that a one-standard-deviation increase in exchange rate volatility increases loan spreads somewhere in the range between 5.5 and 16.1 basis points for loans made in a currency different from the lenders’. This implies excess interest of approximately 1 to 3 USD million for loans of average size and duration. We also show that this finding is mostly attributed to credit constraints and deviations from perfect competition in international lending markets, and that borrowers can lower the extra cost by forming strong lending relationships with their banks.

We examine the effect of sovereign credit impairments on the pricing of syndicated loans following rating downgrades in the borrowing firms' countries of domicile. We find that the sovereign ceiling policies used by credit rating agencies create a disproportionately adverse impact on the bounded firms' borrowing costs relative to other domestic firms following their sovereign's rating downgrade. Rating-based regulatory frictions partially explain our results. On the supply-side, loans carry a higher spread when granted from low-capital banks, non-bank lenders, and banks with high market power. We further document an operating demand-side channel, contingent on borrowers' size, financial constraints, and global diversification. Our results can be attributed to the relative bargaining power between lenders and borrowers: relationship borrowers and non-bank dependent borrowers with alternative financing sources are much less affected.

In this paper we quantify the differences between market and regulatory assessments of bank portfolio risk, and thereby demonstrate that larger differences significantly reduce corporate lending rates. Specifically, to entice borrowers, banks reduce spreads by approximately 4.3% following a one standard deviation increase in our measure for bank asset-risk differences. This is equivalent to an interest income loss of USD 2.03 million on a loan of average size and duration. The separate effects of market and regulatory risk are much less potent. Our study reveals a disciplinary-competition effect in favor of corporate borrowers when there is information asymmetry between investors and bank regulators.