规范信用卡市场的罚款重新定价

S. Chomsisengphet, Hsin-Tien Tsai
{"title":"规范信用卡市场的罚款重新定价","authors":"S. Chomsisengphet, Hsin-Tien Tsai","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3259704","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Prior to the 2009 Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure Act (CARD Act), penalty repricing was widely used by lenders as a means to raise interest rates on borrowers with a higher risk of defaulting. We use the CARD Act, which prohibited penalty repricing on credit cards, as a case study to understand the implications of covenant restrictions on lenders and borrowers. In the first part of our paper, we conduct an event study to examine the heterogeneous effects of penalty repricing among revolvers (high-risk borrowers) and transactors (low-risk borrowers). We find that penalty repricing has a larger impact on borrowers who face liquidity constraints in making credit card repayments; after repricing, revolvers' average monthly interest charge increases by 12.81 dollars, which is around 10 times higher than the average increase seen by transactors. In the second part of our paper, we estimate a model with unobserved heterogeneity and dynamic risks in defaulting. In the counterfactual analysis, regulating penalty repricing results in higher initial interest rates (1.75 percentage points), higher average lending (5.01 dollars each month per loan), and higher borrower surplus (9.13 dollars each month per loan) relative to the case where lenders are allowed to penalty reprice.","PeriodicalId":414741,"journal":{"name":"Econometric Modeling: Financial Markets Regulation eJournal","volume":"388 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Regulating Penalty Repricing in the Credit Card Market\",\"authors\":\"S. Chomsisengphet, Hsin-Tien Tsai\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.3259704\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Prior to the 2009 Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure Act (CARD Act), penalty repricing was widely used by lenders as a means to raise interest rates on borrowers with a higher risk of defaulting. We use the CARD Act, which prohibited penalty repricing on credit cards, as a case study to understand the implications of covenant restrictions on lenders and borrowers. In the first part of our paper, we conduct an event study to examine the heterogeneous effects of penalty repricing among revolvers (high-risk borrowers) and transactors (low-risk borrowers). We find that penalty repricing has a larger impact on borrowers who face liquidity constraints in making credit card repayments; after repricing, revolvers' average monthly interest charge increases by 12.81 dollars, which is around 10 times higher than the average increase seen by transactors. In the second part of our paper, we estimate a model with unobserved heterogeneity and dynamic risks in defaulting. In the counterfactual analysis, regulating penalty repricing results in higher initial interest rates (1.75 percentage points), higher average lending (5.01 dollars each month per loan), and higher borrower surplus (9.13 dollars each month per loan) relative to the case where lenders are allowed to penalty reprice.\",\"PeriodicalId\":414741,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Econometric Modeling: Financial Markets Regulation eJournal\",\"volume\":\"388 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-09-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Econometric Modeling: Financial Markets Regulation eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3259704\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Econometric Modeling: Financial Markets Regulation eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3259704","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在2009年《信用卡问责、责任和披露法》(Card Act)出台之前,罚款重新定价被放贷机构广泛用作提高违约风险较高的借款人利率的手段。我们使用CARD法案作为案例研究,该法案禁止对信用卡进行罚款重新定价,以了解契约限制对贷方和借款人的影响。在本文的第一部分,我们进行了一个事件研究,以检验惩罚再定价在左轮投资者(高风险借款人)和交易者(低风险借款人)之间的异质效应。我们发现,对于在信用卡还款中面临流动性约束的借款人,罚金重定价有更大的影响;在重新定价后,左轮手枪的平均每月利息费用增加了12.81美元,这是交易商平均增幅的10倍左右。在本文的第二部分,我们估计了一个具有未观察到的异质性和违约动态风险的模型。在反事实分析中,与允许惩罚重新定价的情况相比,限制惩罚重新定价会导致更高的初始利率(1.75个百分点)、更高的平均贷款额(每笔贷款每月5.01美元)、更高的借款人盈余(每笔贷款每月9.13美元)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Regulating Penalty Repricing in the Credit Card Market
Prior to the 2009 Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure Act (CARD Act), penalty repricing was widely used by lenders as a means to raise interest rates on borrowers with a higher risk of defaulting. We use the CARD Act, which prohibited penalty repricing on credit cards, as a case study to understand the implications of covenant restrictions on lenders and borrowers. In the first part of our paper, we conduct an event study to examine the heterogeneous effects of penalty repricing among revolvers (high-risk borrowers) and transactors (low-risk borrowers). We find that penalty repricing has a larger impact on borrowers who face liquidity constraints in making credit card repayments; after repricing, revolvers' average monthly interest charge increases by 12.81 dollars, which is around 10 times higher than the average increase seen by transactors. In the second part of our paper, we estimate a model with unobserved heterogeneity and dynamic risks in defaulting. In the counterfactual analysis, regulating penalty repricing results in higher initial interest rates (1.75 percentage points), higher average lending (5.01 dollars each month per loan), and higher borrower surplus (9.13 dollars each month per loan) relative to the case where lenders are allowed to penalty reprice.
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
期刊最新文献
Dynamic CoVaR Third Party Monitoring, Regulatory Compliance and Financial Reporting: Evidence from Banking Who watches the Auctioneer? Supervising primary bond markets to reduce agency costs MiCA and DeFi ('Proposal for a Regulation on Market in Crypto-Assets' and 'Decentralised Finance') COVID-19, Credit Risk and Macro Fundamentals
×
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