How Are Coco Bonds Perceived? Going Concern, Gone Concern, or None of the Above?

Mouctar Bah, Koen Inghelbrecht, K. Schoors, Nicolas Soenen, Rudi Vander Vennet
{"title":"How Are Coco Bonds Perceived? Going Concern, Gone Concern, or None of the Above?","authors":"Mouctar Bah, Koen Inghelbrecht, K. Schoors, Nicolas Soenen, Rudi Vander Vennet","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3882764","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We investigate the effectiveness of CoCo bonds as a credible recapitalization or resolution tool for distressed banks in Europe. Using yields on CoCo and senior bank bonds, we construct a CoCo premium to capture bank stress and we analyze whether or not this premium is related to bank systemic risk, captured by the marginal expected shortfall (MES), as well as individual bank risk. We find that increases of the CoCo spread are positively associated with both bank systemic risk and bank default risk. These results suggest that market participants do not consider CoCo bonds as ‘going concern’ capital. Since we also find that senior and subordinated bondholders perceive the probability of a bail-in as higher during times of an elevated CoCo premium, this implies that CoCo bonds are not considered as a credible recovery or resolution tool under the BRRD regime. Furthermore, the impact of CoCo bonds is not limited to bank-specific systemic and credit risk but also affects the risk profile of other banks. Our results suggest that policy actions are needed to render the European bank bail-in regime more credible.","PeriodicalId":11410,"journal":{"name":"Econometric Modeling: Capital Markets - Risk eJournal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Econometric Modeling: Capital Markets - Risk eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3882764","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

We investigate the effectiveness of CoCo bonds as a credible recapitalization or resolution tool for distressed banks in Europe. Using yields on CoCo and senior bank bonds, we construct a CoCo premium to capture bank stress and we analyze whether or not this premium is related to bank systemic risk, captured by the marginal expected shortfall (MES), as well as individual bank risk. We find that increases of the CoCo spread are positively associated with both bank systemic risk and bank default risk. These results suggest that market participants do not consider CoCo bonds as ‘going concern’ capital. Since we also find that senior and subordinated bondholders perceive the probability of a bail-in as higher during times of an elevated CoCo premium, this implies that CoCo bonds are not considered as a credible recovery or resolution tool under the BRRD regime. Furthermore, the impact of CoCo bonds is not limited to bank-specific systemic and credit risk but also affects the risk profile of other banks. Our results suggest that policy actions are needed to render the European bank bail-in regime more credible.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
人们如何看待Coco Bonds ?持续经营,倒闭,还是以上都不是?
我们调查了CoCo债券作为欧洲陷入困境的银行的可靠资本重组或解决工具的有效性。利用CoCo和高级银行债券的收益率,我们构建了CoCo溢价来捕捉银行压力,并分析该溢价是否与银行系统风险(由边际预期缺口(MES)捕获)以及单个银行风险相关。我们发现CoCo息差的增加与银行系统性风险和银行违约风险呈正相关。这些结果表明,市场参与者不认为CoCo债券是“持续经营”资本。由于我们还发现,高级和次级债券持有人认为,在CoCo溢价较高的时期,内部纾困的可能性更高,这意味着在BRRD制度下,CoCo债券不被视为可靠的恢复或解决工具。此外,CoCo债券的影响不仅限于银行特有的系统和信用风险,还会影响其他银行的风险状况。我们的研究结果表明,需要采取政策行动,使欧洲银行纾困机制更加可信。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Corporate Loan Spreads and Economic Activity The Effect of Internal and External Factors on Credit Risk : A Study on Shawbrook Bank Limited in United Kingdom Systemic Risk in Interbank Networks: Disentangling Balance Sheets and Network Effects Credit & Lending Decisions Assessment Report on Ramsay Health Care Identifying the Information Polarities in Credit Risk Transfer Instruments; A Case for Regulatory Product Intervention and Product Liability Framework
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1