Does Size of Banks Really Matter? Evidence from CDS Market Data
AbstractIn this study we try to find that whether markets take into account the phenomenon of Too Big to Fail. With the help of CDS market data, which reflects the risk, markets attribute on banks, we calculate the default probabilities of banks in one, two, and three years. Then we regress these results with financial values like total assets, total shareholders? equity and net income. Later on we extend our study and repeat our regression analysis using Return on Assets as dependent variable. We find that markets give more importance to profitability of a bank than its size when pricing the riskiness of the bank. We conclude that Too Big to Fail is not a valid term as thought but may be Too Profitable to Fail may be better.
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.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by Izmir University of Economics in its series Working Papers with number 1008.
Length: 28 pages
Date of creation: Nov 2010
Date of revision:
Banking; Too Big to Fail; CDS Market;
Find related papers by JEL classification:
- 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
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-ALL-2011-03-05 (All new papers)
- NEP-BAN-2011-03-05 (Banking)
- NEP-RMG-2011-03-05 (Risk 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.:
- Elijah Brewer, III & Julapa Jagtiani, 2011.
"How much did banks pay to become too-big-to-fail and to become systematically important?,"
11-37, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia.
- Elijah Brewer & Julapa Jagtiani, 2013. "How Much Did Banks Pay to Become Too-Big-To-Fail and to Become Systemically Important?," Journal of Financial Services Research, Springer, vol. 43(1), pages 1-35, February.
- Elijah Brewer, III & Julapa Jagtiani, 2009. "How much did banks pay to become too-big-to-fail and to become systemically important?," Working Papers 09-34, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia.
- Edward J. Kane, 2000.
"Incentives for banking megamergers: what motives might regulators infer from event-study evidence?,"
Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, pages 671-705.
- Kane, Edward J, 2000. "Incentives for Banking Megamergers: What Motives Might Regulators Infer from Event-Study Evidence?," Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 32(3), pages 671-701, August.
- Edward J. Kane, 2000. "Incentives for banking megamergers: what motives might regulations infer from event-study evidence?," Proceedings 675, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago.
- Clyde Goodlet, 2010. "Too Big to Fail: A Misguided Policy in Times of Financial Turmoil," C.D. Howe Institute Commentary, C.D. Howe Institute, issue 311, October.
- Walker F. Todd & James B. Thomson, 1990. "An insider's view of the political economy of the too big to fail doctrine," Working Paper 9017, Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland.
- Penas, Maria Fabiana & Unal, Haluk, 2004. "Gains in bank mergers: Evidence from the bond markets," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(1), pages 149-179, October.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Ayla Ogus Binatli).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.