冯-诺伊曼-摩根斯滕曲线与银行资本充足率惩罚--经验分析

IF 2.1 Q2 ECONOMICS Economies Pub Date : 2024-06-13 DOI:10.3390/economies12060150
Thomas Draper, Stefano Cavagnetto
{"title":"冯-诺伊曼-摩根斯滕曲线与银行资本充足率惩罚--经验分析","authors":"Thomas Draper, Stefano Cavagnetto","doi":"10.3390/economies12060150","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The risk of lending money collected from savers is that it leaves banks liable to default with depositors if events (and hence repayment demands) become ‘abnormal’. Even though international and national regulation has been introduced to ensure that a certain level of capital is retained by banks, such regulation can be subverted. The current system of international regulation based on the Basel III agreements does not stipulate a standardised approach for inspection frequency or penalty magnitude. This leaves the potential for regulatory arbitrage. The scientific value of an analysis to optimise regulatory efficiency and reduce such arbitrage is therefore considerable. This work therefore assesses the results of the empirical testing of a model based on the Von Neumann–Morgenstern utility function and consequently proposes that this model be used as a basis for standardising capital adequacy limit infraction penalties on an international level to prevent regulatory arbitrage. A survey is undertaken in order to test the responses of participants on the level of penalty which would deter them from regulatory transgression under different theorised levels of profit and probability of discovery. Based on the responses of two distinct subject groups (‘bankers’ and ’non-bankers’) in different scenarios of hypothetical capital adequacy violation, the Von Neumann–Morgenstern utility function is reviewed against empirical results and revealed to show a semi-strong correlation. Lastly, the analysis reveals the striking similarities of the two groups’ responses, posing regulatory implications for the industry.","PeriodicalId":52214,"journal":{"name":"Economies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Von Neumann–Morgenstern Curve and Bank Capital Adequacy Penalties—An Empirical Analysis\",\"authors\":\"Thomas Draper, Stefano Cavagnetto\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/economies12060150\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The risk of lending money collected from savers is that it leaves banks liable to default with depositors if events (and hence repayment demands) become ‘abnormal’. Even though international and national regulation has been introduced to ensure that a certain level of capital is retained by banks, such regulation can be subverted. The current system of international regulation based on the Basel III agreements does not stipulate a standardised approach for inspection frequency or penalty magnitude. This leaves the potential for regulatory arbitrage. The scientific value of an analysis to optimise regulatory efficiency and reduce such arbitrage is therefore considerable. This work therefore assesses the results of the empirical testing of a model based on the Von Neumann–Morgenstern utility function and consequently proposes that this model be used as a basis for standardising capital adequacy limit infraction penalties on an international level to prevent regulatory arbitrage. A survey is undertaken in order to test the responses of participants on the level of penalty which would deter them from regulatory transgression under different theorised levels of profit and probability of discovery. Based on the responses of two distinct subject groups (‘bankers’ and ’non-bankers’) in different scenarios of hypothetical capital adequacy violation, the Von Neumann–Morgenstern utility function is reviewed against empirical results and revealed to show a semi-strong correlation. Lastly, the analysis reveals the striking similarities of the two groups’ responses, posing regulatory implications for the industry.\",\"PeriodicalId\":52214,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Economies\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Economies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/economies12060150\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Economies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/economies12060150","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

将从储蓄者那里收集的资金放贷的风险在于,如果发生 "异常 "事件(从而导致还款要求),银行就有可能拖欠储户的款项。尽管国际和国内已经引入了监管措施,以确保银行保留一定水平的资本,但这种监管措施可能会被颠覆。以《巴塞尔协议 III》为基础的现行国际监管体系并未规定检查频率或处罚幅度的标准化方法。这就为监管套利留下了隐患。因此,为优化监管效率和减少监管套利而进行的分析具有相当大的科学价值。因此,本研究评估了基于冯-诺依曼-摩根斯特恩效用函数的模型的实证测试结果,并因此建议将该模型作为国际层面资本充足率限制违规处罚标准化的基础,以防止监管套利。为了测试参与者在不同的理论利润水平和发现概率下,对能阻止他们违反监管规定的惩罚水平的反应,我们进行了一项调查。根据两个不同主体群体("银行家 "和 "非银行家")在假设资本充足率违规的不同情景下的反应,将冯-诺伊曼-摩根斯滕效用函数与经验结果进行对比,发现两者之间存在半强相关性。最后,分析揭示了两个群体反应的惊人相似性,从而对行业监管产生影响。
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
The Von Neumann–Morgenstern Curve and Bank Capital Adequacy Penalties—An Empirical Analysis
The risk of lending money collected from savers is that it leaves banks liable to default with depositors if events (and hence repayment demands) become ‘abnormal’. Even though international and national regulation has been introduced to ensure that a certain level of capital is retained by banks, such regulation can be subverted. The current system of international regulation based on the Basel III agreements does not stipulate a standardised approach for inspection frequency or penalty magnitude. This leaves the potential for regulatory arbitrage. The scientific value of an analysis to optimise regulatory efficiency and reduce such arbitrage is therefore considerable. This work therefore assesses the results of the empirical testing of a model based on the Von Neumann–Morgenstern utility function and consequently proposes that this model be used as a basis for standardising capital adequacy limit infraction penalties on an international level to prevent regulatory arbitrage. A survey is undertaken in order to test the responses of participants on the level of penalty which would deter them from regulatory transgression under different theorised levels of profit and probability of discovery. Based on the responses of two distinct subject groups (‘bankers’ and ’non-bankers’) in different scenarios of hypothetical capital adequacy violation, the Von Neumann–Morgenstern utility function is reviewed against empirical results and revealed to show a semi-strong correlation. Lastly, the analysis reveals the striking similarities of the two groups’ responses, posing regulatory implications for the industry.
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
Economies
Economies Economics, Econometrics and Finance-Economics, Econometrics and Finance (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
11.50%
发文量
271
审稿时长
11 weeks
期刊最新文献
Investigating the Drivers of Firm Internationalisation: A Fuzzy Set Analysis Using Global Entrepreneurship Development Index Data What Determines the Crime Rate? A Macroeconomic Case Study The Contribution of Green, Blue, and Energy Sources to Economic Development in Central Asia Quantifying Loss to the Economy Using Interrupted Time Series Models: An Application to the Wholesale and Retail Sales Industries in South Africa Accessibility and Older and Foreign Populations: Exploring Local Spatial Heterogeneities across Italy
×
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