Deposit Insurance, the New Basel Accord and the Risk-Taking Behavior of Banks

2005 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daoud Barkat Daoud
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.


2013 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 3-22
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


Author(s):  
Thomas Plieger ◽  
Thomas Grünhage ◽  
Éilish Duke ◽  
Martin Reuter

Abstract. Gender and personality traits influence risk proneness in the context of financial decisions. However, most studies on this topic have relied on either self-report data or on artificial measures of financial risk-taking behavior. Our study aimed to identify relevant trading behaviors and personal characteristics related to trading success. N = 108 Caucasians took part in a three-week stock market simulation paradigm, in which they traded shares of eight fictional companies that differed in issue price, volatility, and outcome. Participants also completed questionnaires measuring personality, risk-taking behavior, and life stress. Our model showed that being male and scoring high on self-directedness led to more risky financial behavior, which in turn positively predicted success in the stock market simulation. The total model explained 39% of the variance in trading success, indicating a role for other factors in influencing trading behavior. Future studies should try to enrich our model to get a more accurate impression of the associations between individual characteristics and financially successful behavior in context of stock trading.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document