英国的杠杆比率、风险资本要求和风险承担

Q1 Economics, Econometrics and Finance Financial Markets, Institutions and Instruments Pub Date : 2023-11-10 DOI:10.1111/fmii.12185
Mahmoud Fatouh, Simone Giansante, Steven Ongena
{"title":"英国的杠杆比率、风险资本要求和风险承担","authors":"Mahmoud Fatouh,&nbsp;Simone Giansante,&nbsp;Steven Ongena","doi":"10.1111/fmii.12185","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>We assess the impact of the leverage ratio capital requirements on the risk-taking behaviour of banks both theoretically and empirically. Conceptually, introducing binding leverage ratio requirements into a regulatory framework with risk-based capital requirements induces banks to re-optimise, shifting from safer to riskier assets (higher asset risk). Yet, this shift would not be one-for-one due to risk weight differences, meaning the shift would be associated with a lower level of leverage (lower insolvency risk). The interaction of these two changes determines the impact on the aggregate level of risk. Empirically, we use a difference-in-differences setup to compare the behaviour of UK banks subject to the leverage ratio requirements (LR banks) to otherwise similar banks (non-LR banks). Our results show that LR banks did not increase asset risk, and slightly reduced leverage levels, compared to the control group after the introduction of leverage ratio in the UK. As expected, these two changes led to a lower aggregate level of risk. Emperical results indicate that credit default swap spreads on the 5-year subordinated debt of LR banks decreased relative to non-LR banks post leverage ratio introduction, suggesting the market viewed LR banks as less risky, especially during the COVID 19 stress.</p>","PeriodicalId":39670,"journal":{"name":"Financial Markets, Institutions and Instruments","volume":"33 1","pages":"31-60"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/fmii.12185","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Leverage ratio, risk-based capital requirements, and risk-taking in the United Kingdom\",\"authors\":\"Mahmoud Fatouh,&nbsp;Simone Giansante,&nbsp;Steven Ongena\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/fmii.12185\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>We assess the impact of the leverage ratio capital requirements on the risk-taking behaviour of banks both theoretically and empirically. Conceptually, introducing binding leverage ratio requirements into a regulatory framework with risk-based capital requirements induces banks to re-optimise, shifting from safer to riskier assets (higher asset risk). Yet, this shift would not be one-for-one due to risk weight differences, meaning the shift would be associated with a lower level of leverage (lower insolvency risk). The interaction of these two changes determines the impact on the aggregate level of risk. Empirically, we use a difference-in-differences setup to compare the behaviour of UK banks subject to the leverage ratio requirements (LR banks) to otherwise similar banks (non-LR banks). Our results show that LR banks did not increase asset risk, and slightly reduced leverage levels, compared to the control group after the introduction of leverage ratio in the UK. As expected, these two changes led to a lower aggregate level of risk. Emperical results indicate that credit default swap spreads on the 5-year subordinated debt of LR banks decreased relative to non-LR banks post leverage ratio introduction, suggesting the market viewed LR banks as less risky, especially during the COVID 19 stress.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":39670,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Financial Markets, Institutions and Instruments\",\"volume\":\"33 1\",\"pages\":\"31-60\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/fmii.12185\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Financial Markets, Institutions and Instruments\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/fmii.12185\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Economics, Econometrics and Finance\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Financial Markets, Institutions and Instruments","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/fmii.12185","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Economics, Econometrics and Finance","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

我们从理论和经验两方面评估了杠杆比率资本要求对银行风险承担行为的影响。从概念上讲,在基于风险的资本要求的监管框架中引入具有约束力的杠杆比率要求会促使银行重新优化,从更安全的资产转向风险更高的资产(资产风险更高)。然而,由于风险权重的差异,这种转移并不是一对一的,这意味着这种转移将与较低的杠杆水平(较低的破产风险)相关联。这两种变化的相互作用决定了对总体风险水平的影响。在实证研究中,我们采用差分法比较了受杠杆比率要求约束的英国银行(LR 银行)与其他类似银行(非 LR 银行)的行为。我们的研究结果表明,与对照组相比,英国引入杠杆比率后,杠杆比率银行没有增加资产风险,杠杆水平略有下降。不出所料,这两项变化导致总体风险水平降低。实证结果表明,引入杠杆率后,轻资产银行 5 年期次级债的信用违约掉期利差相对于非轻资产银行有所下降,这表明市场认为轻资产银行的风险较低,尤其是在 COVID 19 压力期间。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

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
Leverage ratio, risk-based capital requirements, and risk-taking in the United Kingdom

We assess the impact of the leverage ratio capital requirements on the risk-taking behaviour of banks both theoretically and empirically. Conceptually, introducing binding leverage ratio requirements into a regulatory framework with risk-based capital requirements induces banks to re-optimise, shifting from safer to riskier assets (higher asset risk). Yet, this shift would not be one-for-one due to risk weight differences, meaning the shift would be associated with a lower level of leverage (lower insolvency risk). The interaction of these two changes determines the impact on the aggregate level of risk. Empirically, we use a difference-in-differences setup to compare the behaviour of UK banks subject to the leverage ratio requirements (LR banks) to otherwise similar banks (non-LR banks). Our results show that LR banks did not increase asset risk, and slightly reduced leverage levels, compared to the control group after the introduction of leverage ratio in the UK. As expected, these two changes led to a lower aggregate level of risk. Emperical results indicate that credit default swap spreads on the 5-year subordinated debt of LR banks decreased relative to non-LR banks post leverage ratio introduction, suggesting the market viewed LR banks as less risky, especially during the COVID 19 stress.

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
Financial Markets, Institutions and Instruments
Financial Markets, Institutions and Instruments Economics, Econometrics and Finance-Economics, Econometrics and Finance (all)
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
17
期刊介绍: Financial Markets, Institutions and Instruments bridges the gap between the academic and professional finance communities. With contributions from leading academics, as well as practitioners from organizations such as the SEC and the Federal Reserve, the journal is equally relevant to both groups. Each issue is devoted to a single topic, which is examined in depth, and a special fifth issue is published annually highlighting the most significant developments in money and banking, derivative securities, corporate finance, and fixed-income securities.
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Issue Information Do banks adjust their capital when they face liquidity shortages? Evidence from U.S. commercial banks Piercing through the haze: Did PPP increase versus decrease bank efficiency? Issue Information
×
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