Bank Bonuses and Bail-outs
AbstractThis paper shows that bonus contracts may arise endogenously as a response to agency problems within banks, and analyzes how compensation schemes change in reaction to anticipated bail-outs. If there is a risk-shifting problem, bail-out expectations lead to steeper bonus schemes and even more risk-taking. If there is an effort problem, the compensation scheme becomes flatter and effort decreases. If both types of agency problems are present, a sufficiently large increase in bail-out perceptions makes it optimal for a welfare-maximizing regulator to impose caps on bank bonuses. In contrast, raising managers’ liability is counterproductive.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers in its series CEPR Discussion Papers with number 8852.
Date of creation: Feb 2012
Date of revision:
Contact details of provider:
Postal: Centre for Economic Policy Research, 77 Bastwick Street, London EC1V 3PZ
Phone: 44 - 20 - 7183 8801
Fax: 44 - 20 - 7183 8820
Other versions of this item:
- Hendrik Hakenes & Isabel Schnabel, 2013. "Bank Bonuses and Bail-Outs," Working Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2013_03, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
- G21 - Financial Economics - - Financial Institutions and Services - - - Banks; Other Depository Institutions; Micro Finance Institutions; Mortgages
- G28 - Financial Economics - - Financial Institutions and Services - - - Government Policy and Regulation
- J33 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Wages, Compensation, and Labor Costs - - - Compensation Packages; Payment Methods
- M52 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting - - Personnel Economics - - - Compensation and Compensation Methods and Their Effects
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-ALL-2012-03-28 (All new papers)
- NEP-BAN-2012-03-28 (Banking)
- NEP-CTA-2012-03-28 (Contract Theory & Applications)
- NEP-HRM-2012-03-28 (Human Capital & Human Resource Management)
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Reint Gropp & Hendrik Hakenes & Isabel Schnabel, 2011.
"Competition, Risk-shifting, and Public Bail-out Policies,"
Review of Financial Studies,
Society for Financial Studies, vol. 24(6), pages 2084-2120.
- Reint Gropp & Hendrik Hakenes & Isabel Schnabel, 2010. "Competition, Risk-Shifting, and Public Bail-out Policies," Working Papers 1003, Gutenberg School of Management and Economics, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, revised 14 Jan 2010.
- Reint Gropp & Hendrik Hakenes & Isabel Schnabel, 2010. "Competition, Risk-Shifting,and Public Bail-out Policies," Working Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2010_05, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
- Bruno Biais & Catherine Casamatta, 1999. "Optimal Leverage and Aggregate Investment," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 54(4), pages 1291-1323, 08.
- John, Kose & Mehran, Hamid & Qian, Yiming, 2010. "Outside monitoring and CEO compensation in the banking industry," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 16(4), pages 383-399, September.
- Besley, Timothy J. & Ghatak, Maitreesh, 2011.
"Taxation and Regulation of Bonus Pay,"
CEPR Discussion Papers
8532, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Timothy Besley & Maitreesh Ghatak, 2011. "Taxation and Regulation of Bonus Pay," STICERD - Economic Organisation and Public Policy Discussion Papers Series 030, Suntory and Toyota International Centres for Economics and Related Disciplines, LSE.
- Engert, Andreas & Goldlücke, Susanne, 2013. "Why agents need discretion: The business judgment rule as optimal standard of care," Working Papers 13-04, University of Mannheim, Department of Economics.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ().
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.