The Capital Conundrum
After a review of the theory of regulation of bank capital, this paper notes that the pervasive influence of the safety net provides both a rationale for regulating bank equity capital and an obstacle to inferring what the optimal capital-to-asset ratio would be for a bank in the absence of the safety net (or expectations of an ex post bailout). This paper supports the view that the cost of bank equity capital is less than is frequently assumed, but notes that many of the frictions that lead to optimal equity-to-asset ratios for other firms are likely to apply to banks. Moreover, the analysis of bank capital structures is further complicated by the fact that a significant proportion of bank liabilities—deposits—are an important product offered by banks as well as a means of increasing leverage. After a brief overview of the potential advantages of a requirement for contingent convertible capital (CoCo) instruments in addition to higher equity-to-asset ratios, the paper argues that, given the uncertainty about the optimum equity capital requirement, a substantial CoCo requirement provides additional advantages, which include stronger incentives for banks to recapitalize before they encounter serious difficulties, enhanced incentives for banks to adopt the best possible risk-management measures, and (so long as the regrettable asymmetry between interest and dividends remains) reduced incentives for banks to move activities to the shadow banking system. A substantial CoCo requirement protects society from loss as effectively as an equivalent amount of additional equity capital, but CoCos enable a bank to recapitalize automatically if it falls short of the equity capital requirement. This recapitalization will occur instantaneously and at lower cost than a new issue of equity under conditions of stress. Instantaneous recapitalization will give the bank an opportunity to restructure or find a private solution and will provide the regulatory authorities with sufficient warning to prepare a rapid resolution if necessary.
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.:
- David Miles & Jing Yang & Gilberto Marcheggiano, 2013.
"Optimal Bank Capital,"
Royal Economic Society, vol. 123(567), pages 1-37, 03.
- Marcheggiano, Gilberto & Miles, David K & Yang, Jing, 2011. "Optimal Bank Capital," CEPR Discussion Papers 8333, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Miles, David & Yang, Jing & Marcheggiano, Gilberto, 2011. "Optimal Bank Capital," Discussion Papers 31, Monetary Policy Committee Unit, Bank of England.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ijc:ijcjou:y:2011:q:4:a:7. 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: (Bank for International Settlements)
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.