为什么不是所有银行都实行监管套利?来自信托优先证券使用的证据

Nicole M. Boyson, Ruediger Fahlenbrach, René M. Stulz
{"title":"为什么不是所有银行都实行监管套利?来自信托优先证券使用的证据","authors":"Nicole M. Boyson, Ruediger Fahlenbrach, René M. Stulz","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2406895","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We propose a theory of regulatory arbitrage by banks and test it using trust preferred securities (TPS) issuance. From 1996 to 2007, U.S. banks in the aggregate increased their regulatory capital through issuance of TPS while their net issuance of common stock was negative due to repurchases. We assume that, in the absence of capital requirements, a bank has an optimal capital structure that depends on its business model. Capital requirements can impose constraints on bank decisions. If a bank's optimal capital structure also meets regulatory capital requirements with a sufficient buffer, the bank is unconstrained by these requirements. We expect that unconstrained banks will not issue TPS, that constrained banks will issue TPS and engage in other forms of regulatory arbitrage, and that banks with TPS will be riskier than other banks with the same amount of regulatory capital, and therefore, more adversely affected by the credit crisis. Our empirical evidence supports these predictions.","PeriodicalId":166116,"journal":{"name":"Ohio State University","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-12-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"20","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Why Don’t All Banks Practice Regulatory Arbitrage? Evidence from Usage of Trust Preferred Securities\",\"authors\":\"Nicole M. Boyson, Ruediger Fahlenbrach, René M. Stulz\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.2406895\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"We propose a theory of regulatory arbitrage by banks and test it using trust preferred securities (TPS) issuance. From 1996 to 2007, U.S. banks in the aggregate increased their regulatory capital through issuance of TPS while their net issuance of common stock was negative due to repurchases. We assume that, in the absence of capital requirements, a bank has an optimal capital structure that depends on its business model. Capital requirements can impose constraints on bank decisions. If a bank's optimal capital structure also meets regulatory capital requirements with a sufficient buffer, the bank is unconstrained by these requirements. We expect that unconstrained banks will not issue TPS, that constrained banks will issue TPS and engage in other forms of regulatory arbitrage, and that banks with TPS will be riskier than other banks with the same amount of regulatory capital, and therefore, more adversely affected by the credit crisis. Our empirical evidence supports these predictions.\",\"PeriodicalId\":166116,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ohio State University\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-12-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"20\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ohio State University\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2406895\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ohio State University","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2406895","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 20

摘要

本文提出了银行监管套利理论,并以信托优先证券(TPS)发行为例进行了检验。从1996年到2007年,美国银行通过发行TPS总体上增加了监管资本,而由于回购,其普通股净发行为负。我们假设,在没有资本要求的情况下,银行的最优资本结构取决于其业务模式。资本要求可以对银行的决策施加约束。如果银行的最优资本结构也满足监管资本要求,且有足够的缓冲,则银行不受这些要求的约束。我们预计,不受约束的银行不会发行TPS,受约束的银行会发行TPS并从事其他形式的监管套利,拥有TPS的银行将比拥有同等监管资本的其他银行风险更大,因此受到信贷危机的不利影响更大。我们的经验证据支持这些预测。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Why Don’t All Banks Practice Regulatory Arbitrage? Evidence from Usage of Trust Preferred Securities
We propose a theory of regulatory arbitrage by banks and test it using trust preferred securities (TPS) issuance. From 1996 to 2007, U.S. banks in the aggregate increased their regulatory capital through issuance of TPS while their net issuance of common stock was negative due to repurchases. We assume that, in the absence of capital requirements, a bank has an optimal capital structure that depends on its business model. Capital requirements can impose constraints on bank decisions. If a bank's optimal capital structure also meets regulatory capital requirements with a sufficient buffer, the bank is unconstrained by these requirements. We expect that unconstrained banks will not issue TPS, that constrained banks will issue TPS and engage in other forms of regulatory arbitrage, and that banks with TPS will be riskier than other banks with the same amount of regulatory capital, and therefore, more adversely affected by the credit crisis. Our empirical evidence supports these predictions.
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信