审慎监管机构滞后指导对CECL的实际影响

IF 0.4 Q4 ECONOMICS
Riddha Basu, Sugata Roychowdhury, Kirti Sinha
{"title":"审慎监管机构滞后指导对CECL的实际影响","authors":"Riddha Basu, Sugata Roychowdhury, Kirti Sinha","doi":"10.1016/j.jacceco.2025.101808","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We examine the impact of lagged guidance from prudential regulators on new accounting standards in the context of the Current Expected Credit Loss (CECL) standard. We refer to the period following CECL's 2016 pronouncement but prior to the 2018 guidance from prudential banking regulators on the standard as the lagged guidance (<ce:italic>LG)</ce:italic> period. We find that during the <ce:italic>LG</ce:italic> period, banks reduce loan amounts and increase loan spreads for affected loans (Term Loan As, or TLAs) relative to unaffected loans (Term Loan Bs, or TLBs). Following the 2018 regulatory guidelines, however, banks increase loan amounts and reduce loan spreads on TLAs relative to TLBs. The stricter TLA terms during the <ce:italic>LG</ce:italic> period coincide with decreased investments by corporate borrowers dependent exclusively on TLAs, especially those that borrow frequently and are financially constrained. The results indicate that delayed guidance from industry regulators on CECL had spillover effects in the economy.","PeriodicalId":42721,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Economics Management and Accounting","volume":"14 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Real effects of lagged guidance from prudential regulators on CECL\",\"authors\":\"Riddha Basu, Sugata Roychowdhury, Kirti Sinha\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jacceco.2025.101808\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"We examine the impact of lagged guidance from prudential regulators on new accounting standards in the context of the Current Expected Credit Loss (CECL) standard. We refer to the period following CECL's 2016 pronouncement but prior to the 2018 guidance from prudential banking regulators on the standard as the lagged guidance (<ce:italic>LG)</ce:italic> period. We find that during the <ce:italic>LG</ce:italic> period, banks reduce loan amounts and increase loan spreads for affected loans (Term Loan As, or TLAs) relative to unaffected loans (Term Loan Bs, or TLBs). Following the 2018 regulatory guidelines, however, banks increase loan amounts and reduce loan spreads on TLAs relative to TLBs. The stricter TLA terms during the <ce:italic>LG</ce:italic> period coincide with decreased investments by corporate borrowers dependent exclusively on TLAs, especially those that borrow frequently and are financially constrained. The results indicate that delayed guidance from industry regulators on CECL had spillover effects in the economy.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42721,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Economics Management and Accounting\",\"volume\":\"14 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Economics Management and Accounting\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacceco.2025.101808\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Economics Management and Accounting","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacceco.2025.101808","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在当前预期信用损失(CECL)标准的背景下,我们研究了审慎监管机构对新会计准则的滞后指导的影响。我们将CECL 2016年声明之后,但在审慎银行监管机构2018年对该标准的指导之前的时期称为滞后指导(LG)期。我们发现,在LG期间,相对于未受影响的贷款(定期贷款b,或tlb),银行减少了受影响贷款(定期贷款a,或tla)的贷款金额,并增加了贷款息差。然而,根据2018年的监管指导方针,银行增加了tla的贷款金额,并缩小了相对于tlb的贷款息差。在LG期间,严格的TLA条款与完全依赖TLA的公司借款人的投资减少相吻合,特别是那些经常借款且财务拮据的公司。研究结果表明,行业监管机构对CECL的延迟指导在经济中具有溢出效应。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Real effects of lagged guidance from prudential regulators on CECL
We examine the impact of lagged guidance from prudential regulators on new accounting standards in the context of the Current Expected Credit Loss (CECL) standard. We refer to the period following CECL's 2016 pronouncement but prior to the 2018 guidance from prudential banking regulators on the standard as the lagged guidance (LG) period. We find that during the LG period, banks reduce loan amounts and increase loan spreads for affected loans (Term Loan As, or TLAs) relative to unaffected loans (Term Loan Bs, or TLBs). Following the 2018 regulatory guidelines, however, banks increase loan amounts and reduce loan spreads on TLAs relative to TLBs. The stricter TLA terms during the LG period coincide with decreased investments by corporate borrowers dependent exclusively on TLAs, especially those that borrow frequently and are financially constrained. The results indicate that delayed guidance from industry regulators on CECL had spillover effects in the economy.
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
10
×
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