Bail-in vs. Bailout: a False Dilemma?

This paper analyzes the effects of bail-in policies on banks’ funding cost, incentives for loan monitoring, and financing capacity. In a model with moral hazard and two investment stages, a full bail-in turns out to be, ex post, the first-best policy to deal with failing banks. As a consequence, however, investors expect bail-ins rather than bailouts. Ex ante, this raises banks’ cost of debt and depresses bankers’ incentives to monitor. When moral hazard is severe, this time inconsistency leads to a credit market collapse unless the government pre-commits to an alternative resolution policy. The optimal policy is either a combination of bail-in and bailout or liquidation, depending on the severity of moral hazard and the shadow cost of the partial bailout.