Suchergebnisse

Given recent regulatory changes under Basel III, we empirically examine the impact of leverage ratio and risk-based capital requirements on bank risk taking and lending, allowing for different degrees of supervisory strength. Using data for 66 countries covering the period 2000-2014, we find that banks in countries with a leverage ratio restriction grant fewer loans and have higher credit risk compared to banks facing no leverage ratio requirement, independently of the strength of the supervisory regime. We further find that those negative side-effects of leverage ratio requirements on bank lending and credit risk are not offset by higher capital stringency. ; Suite aux récentes réformes de la réglementation bancaire, nous analysons empiriquement l'impact d'un ratio de levier couplé à un ratio de capital pondéré du risque sur l'offre de crédit et la prise de risque des banques. Cette analyse prend en considération les différents degrés d'implication des superviseurs nationaux. Avec une base de données sur 66 pays couvrant la période 2000-2014, nous trouvons que les banques octroient moins de crédit et optent pour davantage de risque dans les pays où un ratio de levier est appliqué, indépendamment de la qualité de la supervision locale. De plus, un meilleur contrôle des fonds propres ne compense pas ces effets négatifs du ratio de levier.

Given recent regulatory changes under Basel III, we empirically examine the impact of leverage ratio and risk-based capital requirements on bank risk taking and lending, allowing for different degrees of supervisory strength. Using data for 66 countries covering the period 2000-2014, we find that banks in countries with a leverage ratio restriction grant fewer loans and have higher credit risk compared to banks facing no leverage ratio requirement, independently of the strength of the supervisory regime. We further find that those negative side-effects of leverage ratio requirements on bank lending and credit risk are not offset by higher capital stringency. ; Suite aux récentes réformes de la réglementation bancaire, nous analysons empiriquement l'impact d'un ratio de levier couplé à un ratio de capital pondéré du risque sur l'offre de crédit et la prise de risque des banques. Cette analyse prend en considération les différents degrés d'implication des superviseurs nationaux. Avec une base de données sur 66 pays couvrant la période 2000-2014, nous trouvons que les banques octroient moins de crédit et optent pour davantage de risque dans les pays où un ratio de levier est appliqué, indépendamment de la qualité de la supervision locale. De plus, un meilleur contrôle des fonds propres ne compense pas ces effets négatifs du ratio de levier.

Given recent regulatory changes under Basel III, we empirically examine the impact of leverage ratio and risk-based capital requirements on bank risk taking and lending, allowing for different degrees of supervisory strength. Using data for 66 countries covering the period 2000-2014, we find that banks in countries with a leverage ratio restriction grant fewer loans and have higher credit risk compared to banks facing no leverage ratio requirement, independently of the strength of the supervisory regime. We further find that those negative side-effects of leverage ratio requirements on bank lending and credit risk are not offset by higher capital stringency. ; Suite aux récentes réformes de la réglementation bancaire, nous analysons empiriquement l'impact d'un ratio de levier couplé à un ratio de capital pondéré du risque sur l'offre de crédit et la prise de risque des banques. Cette analyse prend en considération les différents degrés d'implication des superviseurs nationaux. Avec une base de données sur 66 pays couvrant la période 2000-2014, nous trouvons que les banques octroient moins de crédit et optent pour davantage de risque dans les pays où un ratio de levier est appliqué, indépendamment de la qualité de la supervision locale. De plus, un meilleur contrôle des fonds propres ne compense pas ces effets négatifs du ratio de levier.

Given recent regulatory changes under Basel III, we empirically examine the impact of leverage ratio and risk-based capital requirements on bank risk taking and lending, allowing for different degrees of supervisory strength. Using data for 66 countries covering the period 2000-2014, we find that banks in countries with a leverage ratio restriction grant fewer loans and have higher credit risk compared to banks facing no leverage ratio requirement, independently of the strength of the supervisory regime. We further find that those negative side-effects of leverage ratio requirements on bank lending and credit risk are not offset by higher capital stringency. ; Suite aux récentes réformes de la réglementation bancaire, nous analysons empiriquement l'impact d'un ratio de levier couplé à un ratio de capital pondéré du risque sur l'offre de crédit et la prise de risque des banques. Cette analyse prend en considération les différents degrés d'implication des superviseurs nationaux. Avec une base de données sur 66 pays couvrant la période 2000-2014, nous trouvons que les banques octroient moins de crédit et optent pour davantage de risque dans les pays où un ratio de levier est appliqué, indépendamment de la qualité de la supervision locale. De plus, un meilleur contrôle des fonds propres ne compense pas ces effets négatifs du ratio de levier.

International audience ; Abstract We empirically examine whether the way a bank might use loan loss provisions to smooth its income is in‡uenced by its ownership concentration and the regulatory environment. Using a panel of European commercial banks, we find evidence that banks with more concentrated ownership use discretionary loan loss provisions to smooth their income. This behavior is less pronounced in countries with stronger supervisory regimes or higher external audit quality. Banks with low levels of ownership concentration do not display such discretionary income smoothing behavior. This suggests the need to improve existing or implement new corporate governance mechanisms.

International audience ; Abstract We empirically examine whether the way a bank might use loan loss provisions to smooth its income is in‡uenced by its ownership concentration and the regulatory environment. Using a panel of European commercial banks, we find evidence that banks with more concentrated ownership use discretionary loan loss provisions to smooth their income. This behavior is less pronounced in countries with stronger supervisory regimes or higher external audit quality. Banks with low levels of ownership concentration do not display such discretionary income smoothing behavior. This suggests the need to improve existing or implement new corporate governance mechanisms.

International audience ; Abstract We empirically examine whether the way a bank might use loan loss provisions to smooth its income is in‡uenced by its ownership concentration and the regulatory environment. Using a panel of European commercial banks, we find evidence that banks with more concentrated ownership use discretionary loan loss provisions to smooth their income. This behavior is less pronounced in countries with stronger supervisory regimes or higher external audit quality. Banks with low levels of ownership concentration do not display such discretionary income smoothing behavior. This suggests the need to improve existing or implement new corporate governance mechanisms.

International audience ; Abstract We empirically examine whether the way a bank might use loan loss provisions to smooth its income is in‡uenced by its ownership concentration and the regulatory environment. Using a panel of European commercial banks, we find evidence that banks with more concentrated ownership use discretionary loan loss provisions to smooth their income. This behavior is less pronounced in countries with stronger supervisory regimes or higher external audit quality. Banks with low levels of ownership concentration do not display such discretionary income smoothing behavior. This suggests the need to improve existing or implement new corporate governance mechanisms.

We investigate whether excess control rights of ultimate owners in pyramids affect banks' adjustment to their target capital ratio. When ultimate control rights and cash-flow rights are identical, banks increase their capital ratio by issuing equity and by reshuffling their assets without slowing their lending. However, when control rights exceed cash-flow rights, banks are reluctant to issue equity to increase their capital ratio and, instead, shrink their assets by mainly cutting their lending. A deeper investigation shows that this behavior is only apparent in family-controlled banks and in countries with relatively weak shareholder protection rights. Our findings provide new insights in the capital structure adjustment process and have critical policy implications for the implementation of Basel III.

International audience ; We investigate the impact of changes in capital of European banks on their risk- taking behavior from 1992 to 2006, a time period covering the Basel I capital requirements. We specifically focus on the initial level and type of regulatory capital banks hold. First, we assume that risk changes depend on banks' ex ante regulatory capital position. Second, we consider the impact of an increase in each component of regulatory capital on banks' risk changes. We find that, for highly capitalized and strongly undercapitalized banks, an increase in equity positively affects risk; but an increase in subordinated debt has the opposite effect namely for undercapitalized banks. Moderately undercapitalized banks tend to invest in less risky assets when their equity ratio increases but not when they improve their capital position by extending hybrid capital. Hybrid capital and equity have the same impact for banks with low capital buffers. On the whole, our conclusions support the need to implement more explicit thresholds to classify European banks according to their capital ratios but also to clearly distinguish pure equity from hybrid and subordinated instruments.

We investigate whether excess control rights of ultimate owners in pyramids affect banks' adjustment to their target capital ratio. When ultimate control rights and cash-flow rights are identical, banks increase their capital ratio by issuing equity and by reshuffling their assets without slowing their lending. However, when control rights exceed cash-flow rights, banks are reluctant to issue equity to increase their capital ratio and, instead, shrink their assets by mainly cutting their lending. A deeper investigation shows that this behavior is only apparent in family-controlled banks and in countries with relatively weak shareholder protection rights. Our findings provide new insights in the capital structure adjustment process and have critical policy implications for the implementation of Basel III.

International audience ; We investigate the impact of changes in capital of European banks on their risk- taking behavior from 1992 to 2006, a time period covering the Basel I capital requirements. We specifically focus on the initial level and type of regulatory capital banks hold. First, we assume that risk changes depend on banks' ex ante regulatory capital position. Second, we consider the impact of an increase in each component of regulatory capital on banks' risk changes. We find that, for highly capitalized and strongly undercapitalized banks, an increase in equity positively affects risk; but an increase in subordinated debt has the opposite effect namely for undercapitalized banks. Moderately undercapitalized banks tend to invest in less risky assets when their equity ratio increases but not when they improve their capital position by extending hybrid capital. Hybrid capital and equity have the same impact for banks with low capital buffers. On the whole, our conclusions support the need to implement more explicit thresholds to classify European banks according to their capital ratios but also to clearly distinguish pure equity from hybrid and subordinated instruments.