Bank Stress Testing: Public Interest or Regulatory Capture?

Abstract

Abstract We test whether measures of influence on regulators affect stress-test outcomes. The large trading banks—those most plausibly Too Big to Fail—face the toughest tests. Supervisory stress tests have a greater effect on large trading banks’ portfolios; the large banks respond by making more conservative (initial) capital plans; and, despite their more conservative capital plans, the large banks still fail their tests more frequently than other banks. In contrast, while we find little evidence that political or regulatory connections affect the quantitative element of the stress tests, these connected banks do face less scrutiny under its qualitative dimension.