Suchergebnisse

Banks are intrinsically fragile because of their role as liquidity providers. This results in under-provision of liquidity. We analyze the effect of government guarantees on the interconnection between banks' liquidity creation and likelihood of runs in a model of global games, where banks.and depositors' behavior are endogenous and affected by the amount and form of guarantee. The main insight of our analysis is that guarantees are welfare improving because they induce banks to improve liquidity provision although in a way that sometimes increases the likelihood of runs or creates distortions in banks' behavior.

Government guarantees to financial institutions are intended to reduce the likelihood of runs and bank failures, but are also usually associated with distortions in banks' risk taking decisions. We build a model to analyze these trade-offs based on the global-games literature and its application to bank runs. We derive several results, some of which against common wisdom. First, guarantees reduce the probability of a run, taking as given the amount of bank risk taking, but lead banks to take more risk, which in turn might lead to an increase in the probability of a run. Second, guarantees against fundamental-based failures and panic-based runs may lead to more efficiency than guarantees against panic-based runs alone. Finally, there are cases where following the introduction of guarantees banks take less risk than would be optimal.

Managing government debt guarantees is difficult because the potential costs of guarantees are hard to estimate and typically do not show up in the reported budget deficit. A good framework for managing guarantees can, however, help governments overcome the difficulty and enhance the transparency of guarantees. This paper sets out a checklist of issues for a government to consider when designing or revisiting its framework for managing guarantees. The checklist comprises: (1) steps to establish macroeconomic control over guarantees by setting limits on their use and restricting the authorization to grant them; (2) steps to improve decisions to grant individual guarantees by means of guidelines, restrictions, conditions, cost estimation, guarantees fees, and a structured process for making the decisions; and (3) steps to ensure careful management after the granting of guarantees, including the recording and reporting of guarantees, arrangements to pay when necessary, and learning from past experience.

Financial Crisis Containment and Government Guarantees analyses the international community's commitment to forging enhanced, well thought-out, mechanisms for containing systemic risks in the context of a highly interconnected global financial framework which incorporates ongoing financial innovation. While use of government guarantees is a central theme, the book also analyses the roles played by prudential regulators, central banks, deposit insurers and treasuries in dealing with the crisis. The book examines how governments, central banks, regulators and deposit insurance agencies have work

This paper presents a model of bank risk taking and government guarantees. Levered banks take excessive risk, as their actions are not fully priced at the margin by debt holders. The impact of government guarantees on bank risk taking depends critically on the portion of bank investors that can observe bank behavior and hence price debt at the margin. Greater guarantees increase risk taking (moral hazard) when informed investors hold a sufficiently large fraction of liabilities. Otherwise, greater guarantees reduce risk taking by increasing the profits of the bank (franchise value effect). The results extend to the case in which information disclosure, and thus the portion of informed investors, is endogenous but costly. The model also shows that when bank capital is endogenous, public guarantees lead unequivocally to an increase in bank leverage and an associated increase in risk taking. The analysis points to a complex relationship between prudential policy and the institutional framework governing bank resolution and bailouts.

This paper analyzes the effect of the removal of government guarantees on bank risk taking. We exploit the removal of guarantees for German Landesbanken which results in lower credit ratings, higher funding costs, and a loss in franchise value. This removal was announced in 2001, but Landesbanken were allowed to issue guaranteed bonds until 2005. We find that Landesbanken lend to riskier borrowers after 2001. This effect is most pronounced for Landesbanken with the highest expected decrease in franchise value. Landesbanken also significantly increased their off-balance sheet exposure to the global ABCP market. Our results provide implications for the debate on how to remove guarantees.

This paper analyzes the effect of the removal of government guarantees on bank risk taking. We exploit the removal of guarantees for German Landesbanken which results in lower credit ratings, higher funding costs, and a loss in franchise value. This removal was announced in 2001, but Landesbanken were allowed to issue guaranteed bonds until 2005. We find that Landesbanken lend to riskier borrowers after 2001. This effect is most pronounced for Landesbanken with the highest expected decrease in franchise value. Landesbanken also significantly increased their off-balance sheet exposure to the global ABCP market. Our results provide implications for the debate on how to remove guarantees.