Bank Stability and Market Discipline: Debt-for-Equity Swap versus Subordinated Notes
Several studies have recommended reliance on subordinated debt as a tool for monitoring banks by investors and for enhancing depositors’ protection. However, subordinated debenture increases the level of leverage and thus the probability of costly failure. We propose a novel financial instrument, ‘Debt-for-Equity Swap’ contract (DES), that pays to its holder a fixed income unless the value of the bank’s assets falls below a predetermined threshold. In such an event, the debt obligation is automatically converted to the bank’s common equities. By using a contingent claims valuation approach we present closed-form solutions for the valuation of liabilities, the cost of deposit insurance and the value of bankruptcy costs of a bank that includes DES or alternatively subordinated debt in its capital structure. We compare and evaluate quantitatively the effects of DES contract versus subordinated debt on bank stability, depositor protection, incentives for risk taking, the ability to provide market discipline and the value of bankruptcy costs. The implications of the paper highlight the fact that the DES contract has salient advantages over subordinated debt as an efficient tool for enhancing market stability and bank efficiency, since it reduces the value of bankruptcy costs. The advantage of the DES over subordinated debt as a provider of depositors’ protection depends on the level of mandatory intervention, assets value and volatility as well as on the ratio of bankruptcy costs. The model illustrates the pros and cons of each of the two capital instruments as a tool for enhancing market discipline. While the value of subordinated debt increases with the value of assets, its disadvantage as a monitoring tool derives from its low sensitivity to changes in assets volatility when the level of regulatory intervention is relatively high in terms of capital adequacy and the rate of bankruptcy costs is relatively low. The DES contract is beneficial as a tool for monitoring due to its negative sensitivity to increase in assets risk. However, when the conversion ratio is relatively high its price might increase as the leverage ratio increases.
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.:
- Viral Acharya & Jing-zhi Huang & Marti Subrahmanyam & Rangarajan Sundaram, 2006.
"When does Strategic Debt-service Matter?,"
Springer, vol. 29(2), pages 363-378, October.
- Douglas W. Diamond & Philip H. Dybvig, 2000.
"Bank runs, deposit insurance, and liquidity,"
Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, issue Win, pages 14-23.
- Jan Ericsson & Joel Reneby, 1998.
"A framework for valuing corporate securities,"
Applied Mathematical Finance,
Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(3-4), pages 143-163.
- Ericsson, Jan & Reneby, Joel, 1995. "A Framework for Valuing Corporate Securities," SSE/EFI Working Paper Series in Economics and Finance 89, Stockholm School of Economics, revised Oct 1998.
- Avery, Robert B & Belton, Terrence M & Goldberg, Michael A, 1988. "Market Discipline in Regulating Bank Risk: New Evidence from the Capital Markets," Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 20(4), pages 597-610, November.
- DeYoung, Robert, et al, 2001. "The Information Content of Bank Exam Ratings and Subordinated Debt Prices," Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 33(4), pages 900-925, November.
- Franklin Allen & Richard Herring, 2001. "Banking Regulation versus Securities Market Regulation," Center for Financial Institutions Working Papers 01-29, Wharton School Center for Financial Institutions, University of Pennsylvania.
- Black, Fischer & Cox, John C, 1976. "Valuing Corporate Securities: Some Effects of Bond Indenture Provisions," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 31(2), pages 351-67, May.
- Black, Fischer & Scholes, Myron S, 1973. "The Pricing of Options and Corporate Liabilities," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 81(3), pages 637-54, May-June.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wpa:wuwpfi:0408003. 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: (EconWPA)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.