IMF published a working paper that examines how bank competition in the run up to the 2007-2009 crisis affects systemic risk of banks during the crisis. It also investigates the extent to which capitalization and securitization affect the relationship between market power and systemic risk, particularly their role in shaping bank incentives to screen and monitor borrowers in the provision of credit. Using a sample of the largest listed banks from 15 countries, it was found that greater market power at the bank level and higher competition at the industry level lead to higher realized systemic risk. The results suggest that the use of securitization exacerbates the effects of market power on the systemic dimension of bank risk, while capitalization partially mitigates its impact.
The paper provides a discussion of the theoretical framework, reviews the relevant literature, and sets out the empirical model, data sources, and identification strategy. It also covers the empirical results, results of robustness tests, and further identification analyses via the separate estimation of non-mortgage and mortgage securitization. The financial crisis has shown that it is necessary to take a more detailed look at how changes to the banking system (such as securitization or enhanced solvency regulations) alter the behavior of banks. The findings suggest that regulators should pay close attention to how these changes interact with competition in banking markets. The finding that capitalization does not fully counterbalance the impact of securitization on the market power-systemic risk relationship implies that capital adequacy requirements might need to be supplemented with additional supervisory tools to strengthen banks’ incentives to screen and monitor their borrowers more intensively.
The results show that bank-specific market power in the pre-crisis period leads to higher systemic risk during the crisis and that a higher level of competition at the industry level is associated with a higher level of bank systemic risk during the crisis. The positive relationship between market power and systemic risk decreases with capitalization but increases with securitization. Furthermore, bank capital does not fully counterbalance the effect of securitization on the relationship between market power and systemic risk. The results are robust to a number of tests, including different measures of systemic risk, competition, and capitalization, as well as to the inclusion of additional bank-specific characteristics and additional estimations using instrumental variables. It can be concluded that banking supervisors and macro-prudential regulators should collaborate closely with competition authorities to prevent the buildup of large systemic risks. The findings also suggest that bank capital alone is not sufficient to offset the adverse impact of competition and securitization on systemic risk of banks. In particular, the higher capital requirements in Basel III may need to be supplemented with additional regulatory tools that can incentivize banks to increase screening and tighten lending standards for certain borrowers to mitigate the creation of systemic risk.
Related Link: Working Paper
Keywords: International, Banking, Systemic Risk, Securitization, Capital Adequacy Requirements, Market Power, Basel III, Regulatory Capital, IMF
EIOPA submitted—to the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union, and EC—its 2020, fifth, and last annual report on long-term guarantee measures and measures on equity risk.
The BIS Innovation Hub Swiss Centre, SNB, and the financial infrastructure operator SIX announced the successful completion of a joint proof-of-concept (PoC) experiment as part of the Project Helvetia.
EBA published the final draft regulatory technical standards for calculation of own funds requirements for market risk, under the standardized and internal model approaches of the Fundamental Review of the Trading Book (FRTB) framework.
EIOPA published discussion paper on a methodology for the potential inclusion of climate change in the Solvency II (sometimes also written as SII) standard formula when calculating natural catastrophe underwriting risk.
EU published, in the Official Journal of the European Union, corrigenda to the Directive and the Regulation on the prudential requirements and supervision of investment firms.
MAS proposed amendments to certain regulations, notices, and guidelines arising from the Banking (Amendment) Act 2020.
PRA published a statement that explains when to expect further information on the PRA approach to transposing the Capital Requirements Directive (CRD5), including its approach to revisions to the definition of capital for Pillar 2A.
RBNZ launched consultations on the scope of the Insurance Prudential Supervision Act (IPSA) 2010 and on the associated Insurance Solvency Standards.
SRB published the work program for 2021-2023, setting out a roadmap to further operationalize the Single Resolution Fund and to achieve robust resolvability of banks under its remit over the next three years.
EIOPA is consulting on the relevant ratios to be mandatorily disclosed by insurers and reinsurers falling within the scope of the Non-Financial Reporting Directive as well as on the methodologies to build these ratios.