Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login

The Information Content of Bank Examinations

Contents:

Author Info

  • Allen Berger
  • Sally Davies

Abstract

The role of information acquisition for bank regulators is important for the recognition and possible control of bank risk. This role is also consistent with the modern theory of banking under which banks hold a substantial amount of private information about their loan customers, and by implication, private information about their own conditions. The authors suggest that the main purpose of bank examinations is information acquisition. In order to maintain the safety and soundness of the banking system, regulators conduct regular on-site reviews of operations and determine a composite rating for the institution, known as its CAMEL rating. The authors test whether bank exams do in fact result in significant information acquisition. Their tests involve observation of how capital markets react around the times of examinations and whether these reactions are related to changes in examination ratings. They use event study methodology and track the cumulative abnormal returns on an institution's stock price before and after the examination relative to the predictions of a two-factor market model. Data are for institutions whose stocks were actively traded on major exchanges from 1985-1989 - a relatively stable regulatory regime. The question of whether bank examinations succeed in discovering substantial private information about loan quality and bank risk is crucial to answering policy questions regarding financial system reform. The modern theory of banking often rests on the assumption that are delegated monitors because of scale economies in information acquisition about borrowers. An extension of this theory might suggest that there are economies of scale in "monitoring the monitors". These economies of scale do not necessarily imply that government agencies should be the monitors. However, under the current federal safety net and deposit insurance regime, the federal government bears greater losses than do their creditors in the event of bank failure. One important consideration in choosing how much of the risk-bearing and associated monitoring responsibility should rest with government versus private sector agents depends upon the quality of the information available to the two groups. The authors' data suggest that regulatory examinations do generate valuable private information, although conceivable private sector firms could gain essentially the same or better information under a reformed regime. While CAMEL ratings and exam data are confidential, the authors suggest there are several ways information gathered in the process can be incorporated into capital market prices. One is that market prices react because insiders trade on information, although this would be illegal. Alternatively, the market may respond to information revealed in public documents released after an examination. The authors test for this possibility. The authors posit that there are at least three types of information effects that may be transmitted to the market from an examination - auditing, regulatory discipline, private information. They attempt to separate the effects of the three types by differentiating between examinations in which the CAMEL rating remained unchanged, improved, and worsened. The empirical results suggest that the net auditing effect is close to zero, and perhaps negative. They also find a relatively small regulatory disciple effect. The authors state that the data suggest that the private information effects of CAMEL downgrades in revealing unfavorable information about bank condition are substantial. Thus is consistent with some of the earlier studies of the combined effect and inconsistent with others. It also provides support for the concept of bank uniqueness - that banks hold private information about loan customers. The authors also find evidence that suggests that quarterly financial statements or the Call Report may be the conduits through which some of the examination information is revealed to the market.

Download Info

To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
1. Check below under "Related research" whether another version of this item is available online.
2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

Bibliographic Info

Paper provided by Wharton School Center for Financial Institutions, University of Pennsylvania in its series Center for Financial Institutions Working Papers with number 94-24.

as in new window
Length:
Date of creation: Jul 1994
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:wop:pennin:94-24

Note: This paper is only available in hard copy
Contact details of provider:
Postal: 3301 Steinberg Hall-Dietrich Hall, 3620 Locust Walk, Philadelphia, PA 19104.6367
Phone: 215.898.1279
Fax: 215.573.8757
Email:
Web page: http://fic.wharton.upenn.edu/fic/
More information through EDIRC

Related research

Keywords:

Other versions of this item:

References

References listed on IDEAS
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.:
as in new window
  1. Allen N. Berger & Sally M. Davies & Mark J. Flannery, 2000. "Comparing market and supervisory assessments of bank performance: who knows what when?," Proceedings, Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, pages 641-670.
  2. Graham, David R & Humphrey, David Burras, 1978. "Bank Examination Data as Predictors of Bank Net Loan Losses," Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 10(4), pages 491-504, November.
  3. John H. Boyd & Edward C. Prescott, 1985. "Financial intermediary-coalitions," Staff Report 87, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis.
  4. Benston, George J & Marlin, John Tepper, 1974. "Bank Examiners' Evaluation of Credit: An Analysis of the Usefulness of Substandard Loan Data," Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 6(1), pages 23-44, February.
  5. Lummer, Scott L. & McConnell, John J., 1989. "Further evidence on the bank lending process and the capital-market response to bank loan agreements," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 99-122, November.
  6. Rebel Cole & Jeffery Gunther, 1998. "Predicting Bank Failures: A Comparison of On- and Off-Site Monitoring Systems," Journal of Financial Services Research, Springer, vol. 13(2), pages 103-117, April.
  7. Katerina Simons & Stephen Cross, 1991. "Do capital markets predict problems in large commercial banks?," New England Economic Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, issue May, pages 51-56.
  8. Joe Peek & Eric Rosengren, 1993. "Bank regulation and the credit crunch," Working Papers 93-2, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston.
  9. Cole, Rebel A., 1998. "The importance of relationships to the availability of credit," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 22(6-8), pages 959-977, August.
  10. Joe Peek & Eric S. Rosengren & Geoffrey M. B. Tootell, 1998. "Does the Federal Reserve have an informational advantage? you can bank on it," Working Papers 98-2, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston.
  11. Holthausen, Robert W. & Leftwich, Richard W., 1986. "The effect of bond rating changes on common stock prices," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 57-89, September.
  12. Jones, David S. & King, Kathleen Kuester, 1995. "The implementation of prompt corrective action: An assessment," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 19(3-4), pages 491-510, June.
  13. Joe Peek & Eric S. Rosengren & Geoffrey M. B. Tootell, 1999. "Is Bank Supervision Central To Central Banking?," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 114(2), pages 629-653, May.
  14. Gary Whalen & James B. Thomson, 1988. "Using financial data to identify changes in bank condition," Economic Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, issue Q II, pages 17-26.
  15. Robert DeYoung & Mark J. Flannery & William W. Lang & Sorin M. Sorescu, 1998. "Could publication of bank CAMEL ratings improve market discipline?," Proceedings 600, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago.
  16. James, Christopher, 1987. "Some evidence on the uniqueness of bank loans," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(2), pages 217-235, December.
  17. Hand, John R M & Holthausen, Robert W & Leftwich, Richard W, 1992. " The Effect of Bond Rating Agency Announcements on Bond and Stock Prices," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 47(2), pages 733-52, June.
  18. Brown, Stephen J. & Warner, Jerold B., 1985. "Using daily stock returns : The case of event studies," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 14(1), pages 3-31, March.
  19. Sally M. Davies, 1991. "Accounting for prediction variance in event studies," Finance and Economics Discussion Series 173, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S.).
  20. Mathias Dewatripont & Jean Tirole, 1994. "The prudential regulation of banks," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/9539, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
  21. Morishima,Michio, 1994. "Capital and Credit," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521466387, October.
  22. Berger, Allen N & Udell, Gregory F, 1995. "Relationship Lending and Lines of Credit in Small Firm Finance," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 68(3), pages 351-81, July.
  23. Billett, Matthew T & Flannery, Mark J & Garfinkel, Jon A, 1995. " The Effect of Lender Identity on a Borrowing Firm's Equity Return," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 50(2), pages 699-718, June.
  24. Berger, Allen N. & King, Kathleen Kuester & O'Brien, James M., 1991. "The limitations of market value accounting and a more realistic alternative," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 15(4-5), pages 753-783, September.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

Citations

Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
as in new window

Cited by:
This item has more than 25 citations. To prevent cluttering this page, these citations are listed on a separate page.

Lists

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wop:pennin:94-24. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Thomas Krichel).

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.