监管改革和银行业多样性:重新评估巴塞尔协议3

IF 0.8 Q4 BUSINESS, FINANCE
Giuliana Birindelli, Paola Ferretti, Giovanni Ferri, Marco Savioli
{"title":"监管改革和银行业多样性:重新评估巴塞尔协议3","authors":"Giuliana Birindelli,&nbsp;Paola Ferretti,&nbsp;Giovanni Ferri,&nbsp;Marco Savioli","doi":"10.1007/s10436-021-00406-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>We investigate whether and how strongly Basel 3 chief innovations jointly affected in different ways individual Eurozone banks’ stability (z-score) across six business models (BMs). We study this issue in the initial years when adaptation was most intense (2011–2014) and the Eurozone underwent a phase with sovereign crises abated by ECB policies easing financial conditions. In parallel, we run this exercise over 2000–2010 data, a time frame over which Basel 3 did not apply yet to see through the eyes of the regulator. Irrespective of BMs, we identify the leverage ratio as the most effective driver of banks’ stability. However, the impact on z-score of Basel 3 chief drivers does not seem to differ significantly on 2011–2014 vs. 2000–2010. Next, interactions with banks’ BMs suggest that Basel 3 innovations improve z-scores the most at traditionally focused banks (cooperative and savings banks), vis-à-vis diversified banks. Our results suggest Basel regulatory decisions were questionable. First, the front loading of the increased minimum capital requirements vs. the backloading of the leverage ratio phasing in may have lured banks from credit to financial assets. Second, our findings support the desirability of revising the current “one-size-fits-all” European prudential framework, which disregards BMs.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":45289,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Finance","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10436-021-00406-3.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Regulatory reform and banking diversity: reassessing Basel  3\",\"authors\":\"Giuliana Birindelli,&nbsp;Paola Ferretti,&nbsp;Giovanni Ferri,&nbsp;Marco Savioli\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10436-021-00406-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>We investigate whether and how strongly Basel 3 chief innovations jointly affected in different ways individual Eurozone banks’ stability (z-score) across six business models (BMs). We study this issue in the initial years when adaptation was most intense (2011–2014) and the Eurozone underwent a phase with sovereign crises abated by ECB policies easing financial conditions. In parallel, we run this exercise over 2000–2010 data, a time frame over which Basel 3 did not apply yet to see through the eyes of the regulator. Irrespective of BMs, we identify the leverage ratio as the most effective driver of banks’ stability. However, the impact on z-score of Basel 3 chief drivers does not seem to differ significantly on 2011–2014 vs. 2000–2010. Next, interactions with banks’ BMs suggest that Basel 3 innovations improve z-scores the most at traditionally focused banks (cooperative and savings banks), vis-à-vis diversified banks. Our results suggest Basel regulatory decisions were questionable. First, the front loading of the increased minimum capital requirements vs. the backloading of the leverage ratio phasing in may have lured banks from credit to financial assets. Second, our findings support the desirability of revising the current “one-size-fits-all” European prudential framework, which disregards BMs.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45289,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annals of Finance\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-03-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10436-021-00406-3.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annals of Finance\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10436-021-00406-3\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS, FINANCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Finance","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10436-021-00406-3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

我们调查了巴塞尔协议3的主要创新是否以及在多大程度上以不同的方式共同影响了欧元区各银行在六种商业模式(BM)中的稳定性(z-score)。我们在适应最激烈的最初几年(2011-2014年)研究了这个问题,当时欧洲央行放松金融条件的政策缓解了欧元区的主权危机。同时,我们对2000-2010年的数据进行了这项研究,在这个时间框架内,《巴塞尔协议3》还没有通过监管机构的眼睛来观察。不管是哪种BMs,我们都认为杠杆率是银行稳定的最有效驱动因素。然而,2011-2014年与2000-2010年相比,巴塞尔协议3主要驱动因素对z分数的影响似乎没有显著差异。其次,与银行BMs的互动表明,与多元化银行相比,巴塞尔协议3的创新提高了传统重点银行(合作银行和储蓄银行)的z分数。我们的研究结果表明,巴塞尔协议的监管决定值得怀疑。首先,与杠杆率逐步提高相比,最低资本要求的提前加载可能吸引了银行从信贷转向金融资产。其次,我们的研究结果支持修改当前“一刀切”的欧洲审慎框架的可取性,该框架忽略了BMs。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Regulatory reform and banking diversity: reassessing Basel  3

We investigate whether and how strongly Basel 3 chief innovations jointly affected in different ways individual Eurozone banks’ stability (z-score) across six business models (BMs). We study this issue in the initial years when adaptation was most intense (2011–2014) and the Eurozone underwent a phase with sovereign crises abated by ECB policies easing financial conditions. In parallel, we run this exercise over 2000–2010 data, a time frame over which Basel 3 did not apply yet to see through the eyes of the regulator. Irrespective of BMs, we identify the leverage ratio as the most effective driver of banks’ stability. However, the impact on z-score of Basel 3 chief drivers does not seem to differ significantly on 2011–2014 vs. 2000–2010. Next, interactions with banks’ BMs suggest that Basel 3 innovations improve z-scores the most at traditionally focused banks (cooperative and savings banks), vis-à-vis diversified banks. Our results suggest Basel regulatory decisions were questionable. First, the front loading of the increased minimum capital requirements vs. the backloading of the leverage ratio phasing in may have lured banks from credit to financial assets. Second, our findings support the desirability of revising the current “one-size-fits-all” European prudential framework, which disregards BMs.

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
Annals of Finance
Annals of Finance BUSINESS, FINANCE-
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
10.00%
发文量
15
期刊介绍: Annals of Finance provides an outlet for original research in all areas of finance and its applications to other disciplines having a clear and substantive link to the general theme of finance. In particular, innovative research papers of moderate length of the highest quality in all scientific areas that are motivated by the analysis of financial problems will be considered. Annals of Finance''s scope encompasses - but is not limited to - the following areas: accounting and finance, asset pricing, banking and finance, capital markets and finance, computational finance, corporate finance, derivatives, dynamical and chaotic systems in finance, economics and finance, empirical finance, experimental finance, finance and the theory of the firm, financial econometrics, financial institutions, mathematical finance, money and finance, portfolio analysis, regulation, stochastic analysis and finance, stock market analysis, systemic risk and financial stability. Annals of Finance also publishes special issues on any topic in finance and its applications of current interest. A small section, entitled finance notes, will be devoted solely to publishing short articles – up to ten pages in length, of substantial interest in finance. Officially cited as: Ann Finance
×
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