Abstract
ABSTRACTThis paper analyzes a regulator's optimal strategic delay of resolving banks when the regulator's announcement of the intervention delay endogenously affects the depositors' run propensity. Given intervention, the regulator either liquidates the remaining illiquid assets (“prompt corrective action”) or continues managing the assets at a reduced skill level (“resolution under receivership”). In either case, I show that if the regulator tolerates fewer withdrawals until intervention, the depositors may react by preempting the regulator: they run on the bank more often ex ante. A policy of never intervening can leave the bank more stable than a conservative intervention policy.
Subject
Economics and Econometrics,Finance,Accounting
Reference38 articles.
1. Optimal Financial Crises
2. Preventing bank runs
3. Signaling in a Global Game: Coordination and Policy Traps
4. Understanding the Components of Bank Failure Resolution Costs
5. Bloomberg 2017 Spain Passes Buck to ECB as Pimco Seeks Retribution for Popular.https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017‐07‐03/spain‐passes‐buck‐to‐ecb‐as‐pimco‐seeks‐retribution‐for‐popular#xj4y7vzkg
Cited by
1 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
1. Pay, Stay, or Delay? How to Settle a Run;The Review of Financial Studies;2023-11-22