Has Regulatory Capital Made Banks Safer? Skin in the Game vs Moral Hazard

77 Pages Posted: 24 Jul 2020

Multiple version iconThere are 2 versions of this paper

Date Written: July, 2020

Abstract

The paper evaluates the impact of a phased-in introduction of capital requirements on equity, risk-taking, and probability of default for a sample of European systemically important banks. Contrary to the case of a one-off introduction of capital requirements, this study does not find evidence of deleveraging through asset sales. A phased-in tightening promotes adjustment to lower leverage via an increase in equity thereby improving resilience and loss absorption capacity. The higher resilience comes at the cost of a portfolio reallocation towards riskier assets. Consistently with models on agency costs and gambling for resurrection, the risk-taking is driven by large and less profitable banks. The net impact on bank probabilities of default is positive albeit statistically insignificant, suggesting that risk-taking may crowd-out solvency.

Keywords: capital requirements, difference-in-difference, impact evaluation, macroprudential policy, risk-taking

JEL Classification: E51, G21, G28, O52

Suggested Citation

Dautović, Ernest, Has Regulatory Capital Made Banks Safer? Skin in the Game vs Moral Hazard (July, 2020). ECB Working Paper No. 20202449, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3659873

Ernest Dautović (Contact Author)

European Central Bank ( email )

Sonnemannstrasse 22
Frankfurt am Main, 60314
Germany

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics

Downloads
49
Abstract Views
219
PlumX Metrics