IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/fip/fedhpr/1132.html

Safety-net benefits conferred on difficulty-to-fail-and-unwind banks in the U.S. and EU before and during the Great Recession

Author

Listed:
  • Santiago Carbó-Valverde

  • Edward J. Kane
  • Francisco Rodríguez-Fernández

Abstract

This paper investigates the links between regulatory arbitrage, financial instability, and taxpayer loss exposures. We model and estimate ex ante safety-net benefits from increased leverage and asset volatility at a sample of large banks in US and Europe during 2003–2008. Hypothesis tests indicate that, in both crisis and precrisis years, difficult-to-fail-and-unwind (DFU) banks enjoyed substantially higher ex ante benefits than other institutions. Compared to the US sample, safety-net benefits prove significantly larger for DFU firms in Europe and bailout decisions are less driven by asset size. Introducing a proxy for differences in government susceptibility to regulatory capture helps to explain bailout decisions in Europe. Our findings suggest that authorities in both venues could better contain safety-net benefits if they refocused their information systems on monitoring volatility as well as capital.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Santiago Carbó-Valverde & Edward J. Kane & Francisco Rodríguez-Fernández, 2011. "Safety-net benefits conferred on difficulty-to-fail-and-unwind banks in the U.S. and EU before and during the Great Recession," Proceedings 1132, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago.
  • Handle: RePEc:fip:fedhpr:1132
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below 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
    for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Lim, Ivan & Hagendorff, Jens & Armitage, Seth, 2019. "Is the fox guarding the henhouse? Bankers in the Federal Reserve, bank leverage and risk-shifting," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 478-504.
    3. Efing, Matthias, 2015. "Arbitraging the Basel securitization framework: Evidence from German ABS investment," Discussion Papers 40/2015, Deutsche Bundesbank.
    4. Erel, Isil & Nadauld, Taylor & Stulz, Rene M., 2011. "Why Did U.S. Banks Invest in Highly-Rated Securitization Tranches?," Working Paper Series 2011-16, Ohio State University, Charles A. Dice Center for Research in Financial Economics.
    5. Kane, Edward J., 2012. "Missing elements in US financial reform: A Kübler-Ross interpretation of the inadequacy of the Dodd-Frank Act," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 654-661.
    6. Anat R. Admati & Peter M. DeMarzo & Martin F. Hellwig & Paul Pfleiderer, 2013. "Fallacies, Irrelevant Facts, and Myths in the Discussion of Capital Regulation: Why Bank Equity is Not Socially Expensive," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Behavioral Economics 2013_23, Max Planck Institute for Behavioral Economics.
    7. Vallascas, Francesco & Mollah, Sabur & Keasey, Kevin, 2017. "Does the impact of board independence on large bank risks change after the global financial crisis?," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 149-166.
    8. Carlos Arteta & Mark Carey & Ricardo Correa & Jason Kotter, 2020. "Revenge of the Steamroller: ABCP as a Window on Risk Choices," Review of Finance, European Finance Association, vol. 24(3), pages 497-528.
    9. Armen Hovakimian & Edward J. Kane & Luc Laeven, 2012. "Tracking Variation in Systemic Risk at US Banks During 1974-2013," NBER Working Papers 18043, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. Nijskens, Rob, 2014. "A sheep in wolf’s clothing: Can a central bank appear tougher than it is?," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 94-103.
    11. Doumpos, Michael & Gaganis, Chrysovalantis & Pasiouras, Fotios, 2015. "Central bank independence, financial supervision structure and bank soundness: An empirical analysis around the crisis," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 61(S1), pages 69-83.
    12. Molyneux, Philip & Schaeck, Klaus & Zhou, Tim Mi, 2014. "‘Too systemically important to fail’ in banking – Evidence from bank mergers and acquisitions," Journal of International Money and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 49(PB), pages 258-282.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • G21 - Financial Economics - - Financial Institutions and Services - - - Banks; Other Depository Institutions; Micro Finance Institutions; Mortgages
    • G01 - Financial Economics - - General - - - Financial Crises

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:fip:fedhpr:1132. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Lauren Wiese (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/frbchus.html .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.