Banking and Transparency: Is More Information Always Better?
This paper shows that transparency in banking can be harmful from a social planner's point of view. According to our model, enhancing transparency above a certain level may lead to the inefficient liquidation of a bank. The reason lies in the nature of a standard deposit contract: its payoff scheme has limited upside gains (cap) but leaves the depositor with the downside risk. Accordingly, depositors will not take into account possible future upside gains of the bank when deciding whether or not to withdraw their deposits. Our result points towards a trade-off the regulator faces: while enhancing transparency may be useful to reduce incentives for excessive risk-taking (moral hazard), it may also increase the risk of inefficient bank runs.
|Date of creation:||2009|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: Börsenstrasse 15, P. O. Box, CH - 8022 Zürich|
Phone: +41 58 631 31 11
Fax: +41 58 631 39 11
Web page: http://www.snb.ch/en/ifor/research/
More information through EDIRC
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.:
- Hyytinen, A. & Takalo, T., 2000.
"Enhancing Bank Transparency: a Re-assessment,"
University of Helsinki, Department of Economics
492, Department of Economics.
- Tito Cordella & Eduardo Levy Yeyati, 1998.
"Public Disclosure and Bank Failures,"
IMF Staff Papers,
Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 45(1), pages 110-131, March.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:snb:snbwpa:2009-11. 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: (Enzo Rossi)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.