流动性监管与银行风险

Foly Ananou, Dimitris K. Chronopoulos, Amine Tarazi, John O. S. Wilson
{"title":"流动性监管与银行风险","authors":"Foly Ananou, Dimitris K. Chronopoulos, Amine Tarazi, John O. S. Wilson","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3917632","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this paper, we investigate the impact of liquidity requirements on bank risk. We take advantage of the implementation of the Liquidity Balance Rule (LBR) in the Netherlands in 2003 and analyze its impact on bank default risk. The LBR was imposed on Dutch banks only and did not apply to other banks operating elsewhere within the Eurozone. Using this differential regulatory treatment to overcome identification concerns, we find that following the introduction of the LBR, the risk of Dutch banks declined relatively to counterparts not affected by the rule. Concomitantly, despite the lower cost of funding driven by the LBR, the profitability of Dutch banks decreased in comparison with other banks in Europe, as a result of a decrease in income accruing from interest-bearing activities. Our findings also indicate that relatively to unaffected banks, Dutch banks might not have actively tried to offset their loss in interest income by increasing interest rates of loans. However, better financing conditions allowed Dutch banks to increase the shares of deposits and capital on the liability side of their balance sheets.","PeriodicalId":138725,"journal":{"name":"PSN: Markets & Investment (Topic)","volume":"136 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Liquidity Regulation and Bank Risk\",\"authors\":\"Foly Ananou, Dimitris K. Chronopoulos, Amine Tarazi, John O. S. Wilson\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.3917632\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In this paper, we investigate the impact of liquidity requirements on bank risk. We take advantage of the implementation of the Liquidity Balance Rule (LBR) in the Netherlands in 2003 and analyze its impact on bank default risk. The LBR was imposed on Dutch banks only and did not apply to other banks operating elsewhere within the Eurozone. Using this differential regulatory treatment to overcome identification concerns, we find that following the introduction of the LBR, the risk of Dutch banks declined relatively to counterparts not affected by the rule. Concomitantly, despite the lower cost of funding driven by the LBR, the profitability of Dutch banks decreased in comparison with other banks in Europe, as a result of a decrease in income accruing from interest-bearing activities. Our findings also indicate that relatively to unaffected banks, Dutch banks might not have actively tried to offset their loss in interest income by increasing interest rates of loans. However, better financing conditions allowed Dutch banks to increase the shares of deposits and capital on the liability side of their balance sheets.\",\"PeriodicalId\":138725,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"PSN: Markets & Investment (Topic)\",\"volume\":\"136 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-09-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"PSN: Markets & Investment (Topic)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3917632\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PSN: Markets & Investment (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3917632","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

本文研究了流动性要求对银行风险的影响。我们以2003年荷兰实施的流动性平衡规则(LBR)为例,分析其对银行违约风险的影响。LBR仅适用于荷兰银行,不适用于在欧元区其他地方运营的其他银行。使用这种差别监管待遇来克服识别问题,我们发现在引入LBR之后,荷兰银行的风险相对于未受该规则影响的同行有所下降。与此同时,尽管LBR推动了较低的融资成本,但由于生息活动产生的收入减少,荷兰银行的盈利能力与欧洲其他银行相比有所下降。我们的研究结果还表明,相对于未受影响的银行,荷兰银行可能没有积极地试图通过提高贷款利率来抵消其利息收入的损失。然而,较好的融资条件使荷兰银行能够增加资产负债表负债部分的存款和资本份额。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Liquidity Regulation and Bank Risk
In this paper, we investigate the impact of liquidity requirements on bank risk. We take advantage of the implementation of the Liquidity Balance Rule (LBR) in the Netherlands in 2003 and analyze its impact on bank default risk. The LBR was imposed on Dutch banks only and did not apply to other banks operating elsewhere within the Eurozone. Using this differential regulatory treatment to overcome identification concerns, we find that following the introduction of the LBR, the risk of Dutch banks declined relatively to counterparts not affected by the rule. Concomitantly, despite the lower cost of funding driven by the LBR, the profitability of Dutch banks decreased in comparison with other banks in Europe, as a result of a decrease in income accruing from interest-bearing activities. Our findings also indicate that relatively to unaffected banks, Dutch banks might not have actively tried to offset their loss in interest income by increasing interest rates of loans. However, better financing conditions allowed Dutch banks to increase the shares of deposits and capital on the liability side of their balance sheets.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信