The Role of Principal-Agent Conflicts in the 1980s Thrift Crisis
38 Pages Posted: 12 Sep 1995 Last revised: 19 Nov 2008
Date Written: April 4, 1995
Abstract
Agency theory suggests that many of the costs incurred by the taxpayer during the 1980s thrift crisis were the result of conflicts between principals and their agents. This study models thrift failure costs as a function of three distinct types of agency conflicts: conflicts between creditors and owners, between owners and managers, and between taxpayers and government officials. Using a model that controls for sample-selection bias, the study presents strong evidence that thrift owners effected wealth transfers from creditors by undertaking high-risk investments, and that government officials pursued policies that increased losses to the thrift deposit insurance fund that were ultimately funded by the taxpayer. The results do not show that managers effected wealth transfers from owners through expense-preference behavior, but rather that inefficient management increased losses to the deposit insurance fund.
Keywords: agency, agency cost, failure, moral hazard, principal-agent, saving & loan, S&L, thrift
JEL Classification: G21, G28, G32, G33
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation
Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?
Recommended Papers
-
Bank Capital Adequacy, Deposit Insurance and Security Values, Part I
-
Thrift Asset-Class Returns and the Efficient Diversification of Thrift Institution Portfolios
By Rebel A. Cole and Joseph Mckenzie
-
Problems of Bank Lending in Bulgaria: Information Asymmetry and Institutional Learning
By Kenneth Koford and Adrian E. Tschoegl
-
The Role of Commercial Real Estate Investments in the Banking Crisis of 1985-92
By George W. Fenn and Rebel A. Cole
-
Premiums in Private Versus Public Bank Branch Sales
By John J. Mingo, James A. Berkovec, ...
-
By Ivo Pezzuto
-
By Rebel A. Cole, Robert Eisenbeis, ...
-
Collateral, Access to Credit and Investment in Bulgaria
By Zeljko Bogetic and Haywood Fleisig
-
Capital Regulation and Bank Risk-Taking: The Role of Uninsured Debt