Abstract
Purpose
This paper aims to study the design of bank capital regulation and points out a conceptual downside of risk-sensitive regulation. The author argues that when a bank is better informed about its risk than the regulator, designing regulation is subject to the Lucas critique. The second-best regulation could be risk-insensitive, which provides an explanation for the leverage ratio as a backstop to risk-based capital requirements. This paper offers empirical predictions and implications for policy.
Design/methodology/approach
The argument in the paper is based on analytical results from mechanism design.
Findings
Optimal bank regulation could be risk-insensitive, as is observed in practice in the form of the leverage ratio rule.
Originality/value
Counter to conventional wisdom, the paper argues and provides a new explanation for why bank regulation should not be sensitive to the risk of the bank. The paper then offers empirical predictions and implications for policy.
Subject
Economics and Econometrics,Finance
Reference56 articles.
1. A theory of systemic risk and design of prudential bank regulation;Journal of Financial Stability,2009
2. Testing macroprudential stress tests: the risk of regulatory risk weights,2014
3. Do global banks spread global imbalances? The case of asset-backed commercial paper during the financial crisis of 2007-09;IMF Economic Review,2010
4. Taking uncertainty seriously: simplicity versus complexity in financial regulation,2014
5. The market for ‘lemons’: quality uncertainty and the market mechanism;The Quarterly Journal of Economics,1970
Cited by
4 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献