We test whether income from nontraditional banking activities contributed to the failures of hundreds of U.S. commercial banks during the financial crisis. Estimates from a multi-period logit model indicate that the probability of distressed bank failure declined with pure fee-based nontraditional activities such as securities brokerage and insurance sales, but increased with asset-based nontraditional activities such as venture capital, investment banking and asset securitization. Banks that engaged in risky nontraditional activities also tended to take risk in their traditional lines of business, suggesting that deregulation was neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for bank failure during the crisis.

Traditional asset–liability management techniques limit banks’ abilities to structure their balance sheets—but more recently, financial innovations have allowed banks the chance to manage interest rate risk without constraining their asset–liability choices. Using canonical correlation analysis, we examine how the relationships between asset and liability accounts at U.S. commercial banks changed between 1990 and 2005. Importantly, we show that asset–liability linkages are weaker for banks that are intensive users of risk-mitigation strategies such as interest rate swaps and adjustable loans. Perhaps surprisingly, we find that asset–liability linkages are stronger at large banks than at small banks, although these size-based differences have diminished over time, both because of increased asset–liability linkages at small banks and decreased linkages at large banks.

This short comment reinterprets some of the results found by Linda Allen and Anoop Rai in their paper, ‘Operational efficiency in banking: An international perspective’ (Journal of Banking and Finance 20, 1996, 655–672).

We construct a degree-of-total-leverage framework to test whether and how shifts in product mix affect earnings volatility at 472 U.S. commercial banks between 1988 and 1995. Our framework, which accounts for cost and revenue synergies not captured in most previous studies, conceptually links earnings volatility to revenue volatility, expense fixity, and product mix. We find that replacing traditional lending activities with fee-based activities—an ongoing trend that may be strengthened by recent financial modernization—is associated with both higher revenue volatility and higher total leverage, which in this framework implies higher earnings volatility. Journal of Economic Literature Classification Numbers: G21, G32, D24.

We model the failed bank resolution process as a repeated game between a utility-maximizing government resolution authority (RA) and a profit-maximizing banking industry. Limits to resolution technology and political/economic pressure create incentives for the RA to bail out failed complex banks; the inability of the RA to credibly commit to closing these banks creates an incentive for bank complexity. We solve the game in mixed strategies and find equilibrium conditions remarkably descriptive of government responses to actual and potential large bank insolvencies during the recent financial crisis. The central role of the technology constraint in this model highlights a crucial determinant of failed bank resolution policy that has been overlooked in the theory literature to date; without improved resolution technologies, future bank bailouts are inevitable. The effects of political pressure in this model remind us that regulatory reform (e.g., Dodd-Frank) is only as good as the regulators that implement the reform.

We develop a conceptual framework that links the compensation incentives of bank executives to the risk and return externalities generated by banks but borne by society. Using 1994 to 2016 data from large U.S. commercial banks, we find that CEO pay-performance incentives reduce both negative systemic risk externalities and positive liquidity creation externalities, while pay-risk incentives increase both externalities. Our findings offer support for Federal Reserve guidelines that encourage greater reliance on long-term equity-based compensation, and they infer a regulatory tradeoff: Bank executive pay rules aimed at reducing systemic risk will result in reduced system-wide liquidity creation as well.

The Jobs Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 cut the top dividend tax rate in the U.S. by more than half, yet numerous studies of nonfinancial firms have failed to detect the expected supply-side stimulus to capital investment. We test the impact of this tax cut on U.S. commercial banks and find that bank lending responded differently, conditional on banks’ access to external capital as well as their reliance on internal liquidity. Our heterogeneous results include support for all three branches of dividend tax theory. Loan growth increased the most at publicly traded banks with relatively illiquid balance sheets and increased by the least (or not at all) at untraded banks with relatively liquid balance sheets. Consistent with previous studies, we find increased dividend payouts at all subsets of banks. We conjecture that the effectively short maturities of bank loan contracts made banks better able to respond positively to this tax cut and provide some suggestive evidence in support of this conjecture.

We test whether and how U.S. commercial banks actively managed their liquidity positions between 1992 and 2012, prior to the implementation of the Basel III liquidity rules. On average, the data are consistent with a liquidity management regime in which banks targeted the traditional loans-to-core deposits (LTCD) ratio. Perhaps surprisingly, the data are also consistent on average with the net stable funding ratio (NSFR), a regulatory liquidity ratio that was not formally introduced by the Bank for International Settlements until 2010. We find evidence of LTCD and (implicit) NSFR targeting at banks of all sizes, but concordance is strongest for small banks and weakest for so-called SIFI banks. As banks increase in size, they set lower liquidity targets—often in violation of the coming Basel III standards—but manage those targets more efficiently.

This paper addresses a little examined intersection between the problem loan literature and the bank efficiency literature. We employ Granger-causality techniques to test four hypotheses regarding the relationships among loan quality, cost efficiency, and bank capital. The data suggest that problem loans precede reductions in measured cost efficiency; that measured cost efficiency precedes reductions in problem loans; and the reductions in capital at thinly capitalized banks precede increases in problem loans. Hence, cost efficiency may be an important indicator of future problem loans and problem banks. Our results are ambiguous concerning whether or not researchers should control for problem loans in efficiency estimation.