Deposit insurance and risk taking

2011 ◽  
Vol 27 (3) ◽  
pp. 464-478 ◽  
Author(s):  
F. Allen ◽  
E. Carletti ◽  
A. Leonello
2015 ◽  
Vol 48 (2) ◽  
pp. 163-176 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zongrun Wang ◽  
Jiangyan Chen ◽  
Yuanyuan Wan ◽  
Yanbo Jin ◽  
Jared Anthony Mazzanti

2013 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 3-25
Author(s):  
Moch Doddy Ariefianto ◽  
Soenartomo Soepomo

This paper studies the risk taking behavior of Indonesian Banking Industry, especially before and after the establishment and the implementation of Deposit Insurance Corporation (IDIC). Using common set of explanatory variables; we test several empirical models to reveal the conduct of risk management by banks. In the spirit of BASEL II Accord, this paper take closer look at three types of risk behaviors namely credit risk, market or interest rate risk and operational risk, prior and post the establishment of IDIC. We tested the hypotheses using panel data set of banks operational in period of 2000-2009. The dataset consists of 121 banks with semiannual frequency (2420 observations). Our findings show that these variables explain well the three type bank risk exposures. The implementation of IDIC alters the bank behavior albeit in somewhat different way than initially hypothesized. The risk taking responses also varies across bank types. We found that State Owned Enterprise banks (SOE) behave differently relative to the rest types of the bank. Related to size, SOE banks behave more conservative after the implementation of IDIC. On the other hand its response on conditioned capital post the IDIC implementation is the opposite; they became more aggressive. We view the public pressure on this state banks has influenced the way they manage the risk.Keywords : Risk taking behavior, BASEL II, Deposit Insurance.JEL Classification: G11, G21, G32, C23


2006 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 87-116
Author(s):  
Seok-Weon Lee

This is an empirical study that examines how the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act (FDICIA) of 1991 in the U.S. banking industry affects the moral hazard risk-taking incentives of banks. We find that FDICIA appears to be effective in significantly reducing the systematic risk-taking incentives of the banks. Considering that the banks' asset portfolios are necessarily largely systematic risk-related, the significant decrease in their systematic risk-taking incentives provides some evidence of the effectiveness of FDICIA. However, with respect to the nonsystematic risk-taking behavior, the results generally indicate statistically insignificant decreases in the risk-taking incentives after FDICIA. To well-diversified investors who can diversify nonsystematic risk away, nonsystematic risk may not be a risk any more. However, to maintain a sound banking environment and to reduce the risk to individual banks, this result implies that regulatory agents should monitor the banks’ nonsystematic risk-taking behavior more closely, as long as it is positively related to the banks’ failures. We further test the change in the risk-taking incentives by partitioning the full sample into two groups: Banks with higher moral hazard incentives as those with larger asset size and lower capital ratio and banks with lower moral hazard incentives as those with smaller asset size and higher capital ratio. The main result for this test is that, with FDICIA, the decrease in the risk-taking incentives of the banks with higher moral hazard incentives (larger asset-size and lower capital-ratio banks) is less than that of the banks with lower moral hazard incentives (smaller asset-size and higher capital-ratio banks), with respect to both systematic and nonsystematic risk-taking measures. Furthermore, the change in the nonsystematic risk-taking incentives of the banks with higher moral hazard incentives is rather mixed, while their systematic incentives are decreased. These findings imply that the regulatory agents should allocate more time and effort toward monitoring the banks with higher moral hazard incentives with particular emphasis on their nonsystematic risk-taking behavior.


2014 ◽  
Vol 30 (6) ◽  
pp. 1665 ◽  
Author(s):  
Faten Ben Bouheni ◽  
Hachmi Ben Ameur ◽  
Abdoulkarim Idi Cheffou ◽  
Fredj Jawadi

This paper studies the effects of regulatory and supervisory policies on profitability and risk-taking for European banks over the period 2005 to 2011. As these effects may vary according to the banks, we apply the Generalized Method of Moments (GMM) for dynamic panels to capture further heterogeneous supervision effects before and after the subprime crisis. Accordingly, our findings provide three interesting results. First, strengthening regulations and supervision improves profitability and boosts the stability of European banking systems. Second, our findings highlight a positive correlation between capital adequacy, deposit insurance systems, and banks profitability. Third, we note that stepping up supervisors powers reduces risk-taking and promotes banking stability.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document