Abstract
PurposeAgricultural banks likely respond differently to economic downturns compared to nonagricultural banks. Limited previous research has examined the performance of agricultural banks under economic crisis and in the presence of banking regulations. This study aims to explore agricultural banks' responses to economic and regulation shocks relative to nonagricultural banks.Design/methodology/approachThis study uses bank-quarter level data from 2002 to 2022 for virtually all commercial banks in the U.S. In this research, the Z-score measures the bank’s default risk, the return on assets measures bank profitability and changes in amount of farm loans indicate the wider impact on the agricultural sector. Effects of the financial crisis, Basel III reforms to banking regulation and the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic on these banking measures are assessed using distinct empirical frameworks. The empirical estimations use various subsamples based on bank types, bank sizes and time periods.FindingsEconomic downturns are associated with fluctuations in returns and the risk of default of commercial banks. Agricultural banks appeared to be more resilient to economic downturns than nonagricultural banks. However, Basel III regulated agricultural banks were more likely to fail amidst the pandemic-related economic shocks than the regulated non-agricultural banks.Originality/valueThis study examines the resiliency of agricultural banks during economic downturns and under postfinancial crisis regulation. This is one of the first empirical works to analyze the effectiveness of Basel III regulation across bank types and sizes considering the COVID-19 pandemic. The key finding suggests that banking regulation should consider not only size heterogeneity but also the heterogeneity in lending portfolios.