Regulatory and "economic" solvency standards for internationally active banks
One of the most important policy issues for financial authorities is to decide at what level average capital charges should be set. The decision may alternatively be expressed as the choice of an appropriate survival probability for representative banks over a horizon such as a year, often termed a solvency standard. In this paper, light is shed on the solvency standards implied by current and possible future G10 bank regulation, and on the economic solvency standard that banks choose themselves by their own capital-setting decisions. In particular, a credit risk model is employed to show that the survival probability implied by the 1988 Basel Accord is between 99.0% and 99.9%. It is then demonstrated that if a new Basel Accord were calibrated to such a standard, it would not represent a binding constraint on banks' current operations, since most banks employ a solvency standard significantly higher than 99.9%. To show this, a statistical analysis of bank ratings is employed, adjusted for the impact of official or other support, as well as credit risk model calculations. Lastly, a possible explanation is advanced for the conservative capital choices made by banks, by showing that swap volumes are highly correlated with credit quality for given bank size. This suggests that banks' access to important credit markets like the swap markets may provide a significant discipline in the choice of solvency standard.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
If 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.
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.:
- Pamela Nickell & William Perraudin & Simone Varotto, 2001. "Ratings versus equity-based credit risk modelling: an empirical analysis," Bank of England working papers 132, Bank of England.
- Milne, Alistair, 2002. "Bank capital regulation as an incentive mechanism: Implications for portfolio choice," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 1-23, January.
- Gordy, Michael B., 2000.
"A comparative anatomy of credit risk models,"
Journal of Banking & Finance,
Elsevier, vol. 24(1-2), pages 119-149, January.
- Michael B. Gordy, 1998. "A comparative anatomy of credit risk models," Finance and Economics Discussion Series 1998-47, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S.).
- Ronn, Ehud I. & Verma, Avinash K., 1989. "Risk-based capital adequacy standards for a sample of 43 major banks," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 21-29, March.
- Simonne Varotto, 2001. "Credit Risk Diversification," ICMA Centre Discussion Papers in Finance icma-dp2001-07, Henley Business School, Reading University.
- Nickell, Pamela & Perraudin, William & Varotto, Simone, 2000. "Stability of rating transitions," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 24(1-2), pages 203-227, January.
- Pamela Nickell & William Perraudin & Simone Varotto, 2001. "Stability of ratings transitions," Bank of England working papers 133, Bank of England.
- Vijay Bhasin, 1995. "On the credit risk of OTC derivative users," Finance and Economics Discussion Series 95-50, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S.). Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)