任意贷款损失拨备行为与银行流动性创造

IF 0.7 Q4 BUSINESS, FINANCE
Sanzid Haq, D. Tran, M. Hassan
{"title":"任意贷款损失拨备行为与银行流动性创造","authors":"Sanzid Haq, D. Tran, M. Hassan","doi":"10.21315/aamjaf2019.15.2.6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Over the last 30 years, liquidity creation has become a USD12.3 trillion business and large banks seem to have all but secured their indelible footprint in the banking industry. Moreover, over a 24 years period (1984 through 2008) big banks have managed to turn their 76% dominance to a prodigious 86% footprint, while the medium and small banks lost ground in the wake. So, looking for ways to create liquidity has become an existential crisis for non-large banks also an avenue for larger banks to maintain their leads. In an effort to find an innovative way to create liquidity, banks have turned to tools that lend themselves to be manipulated at discretion without material consequence to the rest of the business. Discretionary loan loss provision (DLLP) has become such a tool. Using a large sample of the U.S. bank holding companies from the first quarter of 2000 through the fourth quarter of 2015, we explore the relationship between discretionary loan loss provision and liquidity creation and find that, perhaps much to the dismay of some banks, earning manipulation through a tool like DLLP has a negative impact on liquidity creation. Moreover, this impact is indiscriminate regardless of whether the banks are facing an economy that is marred by financial crisis or otherwise. Our findings stand the test of various sensitivity tests to demonstrate their robustness and consistent with prior findings in the literature.","PeriodicalId":44370,"journal":{"name":"Asian Academy of Management Journal of Accounting and Finance","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Discretionary Loan Loss Provision Behaviour and Banks’ Liquidity Creation\",\"authors\":\"Sanzid Haq, D. Tran, M. Hassan\",\"doi\":\"10.21315/aamjaf2019.15.2.6\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Over the last 30 years, liquidity creation has become a USD12.3 trillion business and large banks seem to have all but secured their indelible footprint in the banking industry. Moreover, over a 24 years period (1984 through 2008) big banks have managed to turn their 76% dominance to a prodigious 86% footprint, while the medium and small banks lost ground in the wake. So, looking for ways to create liquidity has become an existential crisis for non-large banks also an avenue for larger banks to maintain their leads. In an effort to find an innovative way to create liquidity, banks have turned to tools that lend themselves to be manipulated at discretion without material consequence to the rest of the business. Discretionary loan loss provision (DLLP) has become such a tool. Using a large sample of the U.S. bank holding companies from the first quarter of 2000 through the fourth quarter of 2015, we explore the relationship between discretionary loan loss provision and liquidity creation and find that, perhaps much to the dismay of some banks, earning manipulation through a tool like DLLP has a negative impact on liquidity creation. Moreover, this impact is indiscriminate regardless of whether the banks are facing an economy that is marred by financial crisis or otherwise. Our findings stand the test of various sensitivity tests to demonstrate their robustness and consistent with prior findings in the literature.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44370,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Asian Academy of Management Journal of Accounting and Finance\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Asian Academy of Management Journal of Accounting and Finance\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.21315/aamjaf2019.15.2.6\",\"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":"Asian Academy of Management Journal of Accounting and Finance","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21315/aamjaf2019.15.2.6","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: 2

摘要

在过去的30年里,流动性创造已经成为12.3万亿美元的业务,大型银行似乎已经在银行业中留下了不可磨灭的印记。此外,在24年的时间里(1984年至2008年),大银行成功地将76%的主导地位转变为惊人的86%,而中小型银行则紧随其后。因此,寻找创造流动性的方法已成为非大型银行的生存危机,也是大型银行保持领先地位的途径。在寻找创造流动性的创新方式的努力中,银行转向了一些工具,这些工具使自己可以被随意操纵,而不会对其他业务产生重大后果。可自由支配贷款损失拨备(DLLP)已成为这样一种工具。使用2000年第一季度至2015年第四季度的美国银行控股公司的大样本,我们探索了可自由支配的贷款损失拨备与流动性创造之间的关系,并发现,也许让一些银行感到沮丧的是,通过DLLP等工具操纵收益对流动性创造有负面影响。此外,这种影响是不分青红皂白的,无论银行面临的经济是否受到金融危机的损害。我们的研究结果经得起各种敏感性测试的检验,以证明其稳健性,并与文献中的先前发现一致。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Discretionary Loan Loss Provision Behaviour and Banks’ Liquidity Creation
Over the last 30 years, liquidity creation has become a USD12.3 trillion business and large banks seem to have all but secured their indelible footprint in the banking industry. Moreover, over a 24 years period (1984 through 2008) big banks have managed to turn their 76% dominance to a prodigious 86% footprint, while the medium and small banks lost ground in the wake. So, looking for ways to create liquidity has become an existential crisis for non-large banks also an avenue for larger banks to maintain their leads. In an effort to find an innovative way to create liquidity, banks have turned to tools that lend themselves to be manipulated at discretion without material consequence to the rest of the business. Discretionary loan loss provision (DLLP) has become such a tool. Using a large sample of the U.S. bank holding companies from the first quarter of 2000 through the fourth quarter of 2015, we explore the relationship between discretionary loan loss provision and liquidity creation and find that, perhaps much to the dismay of some banks, earning manipulation through a tool like DLLP has a negative impact on liquidity creation. Moreover, this impact is indiscriminate regardless of whether the banks are facing an economy that is marred by financial crisis or otherwise. Our findings stand the test of various sensitivity tests to demonstrate their robustness and consistent with prior findings in the literature.
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
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
12
审稿时长
20 weeks
期刊介绍: To provide a forum for the exchange of ideas and dissemination of empirical findings and analytical research in the specialized areas of accounting and finance with special emphasis on scholarly works with policy implications for countries in the Asia Pacific. The following are some of the topical subject areas relevant to the journal (but are not limited to): Accounting • Financial reporting and accounting standards • Auditing issues • Value based accounting and its relevance • Theory of accounting firm • Environmental auditing • Corporate governance issues • Public sector accounting Finance • Valuation of financial assets • International capital flows • Ownership and agency theory • Stock market behavior • Investment and portfolio management • Islamic banking and finance • Microstructures of financial markets
×
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