Search results

The purpose of this paper is to examine the effects of funding liquidity risk and liquidity risk on the bank risk-taking.

This study employs a system generalized method of moments (GMM) estimation technique and a sample of 57 banks operating in BRICS countries over the period from 2006 to 2015.

The results reveal that liquidity risk has a significant and negative effect on the bank risk-taking, indicating that a decrease in liquidity risk contributes to higher bank risk-taking. The study also reveals that funding liquidity risk has the substantial impact on bank risk-taking, suggesting lower funding liquidity risk results in higher bank risk-taking. These results are consistent with prior assumptions.

The implications of this study highlight the fact that liquidity risk is a risk factor which drives the potential bank default, of which banks tend to take more risks when higher funding liquidity exists.

This study offers a number of valuable implications for the policy makers as well as practitioners. The policy makers should take into account better liquidity risk management framework aimed at preventing banks from taking excessive risks. Bank executives must pay more attention on how banks could hold more liquid securities and cash. Less risk-taking reduces higher borrowing costs undermining earnings through imposing taxes on corporate.

This work uncovered that liquidity risk per se is an important and previously unidentified risk factor, specifically its effects on bank risk-taking and contributes to the view in support of holding more liquid securities than the past.

The paper empirically investigates the link between banking market structure and funding liquidity risk.

With a panel of Vietnamese commercial banks from 2007 to 2021, the system generalized method of moments (GMM) estimator is applied as the primary regression method, while the random-effect model and the corrected least square dummy variable (LSDVC) technique are also considered in robustness checks.

Competition may increase banks' funding liquidity risk. This finding holds for competition measures derived from the Boone index and concentration ratios but not in the case of the Lerner index as a proxy for market power. Further results indicate that the funding liquidity risk of banks that are larger and have better performance (less credit risk and higher return) tends to be less affected by competition. Besides, the overall impact of bank competition on funding liquidity risk is amplified by the financial crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic.

The study extends the empirical literature by exploring the relationship between bank competition and funding liquidity risk. Additionally, the paper also studies how the impact of bank competition on funding liquidity risk depends on the characteristics of the banking sector and the macroeconomic conditions of the economy, including the moderating effect of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The purpose of this paper is to provide a framework of replication pricing of derivatives and identify funding valuation adjustment (FVA) and credit valuation adjustments (CVA) as price components.

The authors propose the notion of bilateral replication pricing. In the absence of funding cost, it reduces to unilateral replication pricing. The absence of funding costs, it introduces bid–ask spreads.

The valuation of CVA can be separated from that of FVA, so-called split up. There may be interdependence between FVA and the derivatives value, which then requires a recursive procedure for their numerical solution.

The authors have assume deterministic interest rates, constant CDS rates and loss rates for the CDS. The authors have also not dealt with re-hypothecation risks.

The results of this paper allow user to identify CVA and FVA, and mark to market their derivatives trades according to the recent market standards.

For the first time, a line between the risk-neutral pricing measure and the funding risk premiums is drawn. Also, the notion of bilateral replication pricing extends the unilateral replication pricing.

Pension theory suggests and empirical tests indicate that optimal funding levels for defined benefit plans are determined on the basis of risk, taxes, and capital availability. This study examines whether federal pension and tax legislation enacted in 1986 and 1987 significantly altered the role of risk, taxes, and capital availability as determinants of corporate pension funding policy. Regression tests relating funding levels to these variables were conducted on a sample of pension plans, separately, for each of the reporting years, 1985 (before enactment of the legislation) and 1989 (after enactment of the legislation). Pension risk and tax exposure variables, significant in explaining funding levels in 1985, were not significant in 1989. Pension risk and tax factors under this new regime play a significantly diminished role, if any, in determining funding level policy for defined benefit plans. Evidence is provided that current pension funding is dependent upon the variability of common equity returns, and thus indicate that the pension funding decision is made in the same context as any other capital allocation decision.

This research aims to analyze and compare the effectiveness of liquidity risk management of Islamic and conventional banking in Egypt to ascertain which of the two banking systems are performing better.

A sample of six conventional banks (CBs) and two Islamic banks (IBs) in Egypt was selected. Using the liquidity ratios, the investigation involves analyzing the financial statements for the period of 2004-2011. The data were obtained from Bank scope database.

The research found that in Egypt, CBs perform better in terms of liquidity risk management than IBs. The liquidity risk management significant differences between IBs and CBs could be attributed more cash availability to CBs than to IBs, in addition, Egyptian Central Bank regulations on capital and liquidity requirements for IBs disconcert IBs’ performance.

This research facilitates the bankers, academician, scholars and bankers to have an alluded picture about Egyptian banking developments in liquidity risk management. The results can be used by bankers’ policy decision-makers to improve and enhance their consideration for liquidity risk management.

This research covers a period and a country that compares CBs’ and IBs’ liquidity risk management. Its value is attributed to the increasing differentiation between CBs and IBs.

This paper aims to consider the role of investment funds in the credit intermediation process and discuss various forms of systemic risk their involvement might give rise to. It concludes by drawing some conclusions on the policy challenges facing authorities charged with regulating shadow banking.

The paper is based on findings from prior research and statistics.

On a general level, the paper shows that even though traditional investment funds and hedge funds may be very different in terms of their investment strategies and business models, some of them share several commonalities from a systemic risk perspective. More specifically, it discusses how instability in the funding profile of investment funds may threaten their ability to substitute banks’ maturity and liquidity transformation; that their potential funding liquidity shortages, asset reallocations and leverage may contribute to procyclicality in credit and market runs on the systemic money and short-term credit markets; and that insufficient risk separation may elude managerial and supervisory oversight, and force banks to reduce or interrupt credit intermediation.

The paper points to the lack of timely and comprehensive data for uncovering the stages and entities involved in shadow banking. Without sufficient data, the task of policy bodies, regulators or macroprudential authorities to fully grasp shadow banking and its contribution to systemic risk is daunting.

The paper represents (to the author’ knowledge) the first analysis of the role of investments in shadow banking.

Public risk management is a relatively new but important element of public management and public budgeting. As research in this area is limited, this study attempts to advance knowledge on two specific elements of public risk management based on a survey sent to the Public Risk Management Association (PRIMA) members in 2002. 1) How do public entities use various risk funding techniques (e.g., purchasing insurance, self-insurance, and intergovernmental risk pools)? 2) Have public entities implemented integrated risk management in their risk management practices? The survey found evidence that integrated risk management is emerging in public risk management practice. As this is an exploratory study, the author also identifies a series of questions for future research.

Maturity transformation risk is one of the leading causes of the global financial crisis. While endorsing the new Basel III liquidity reforms, the Islamic Financial Services Board has suggested a modified NSFR ratio as a structural measure for the maturity transformation function of Islamic banks, allowing for their unique balance sheet structure. The purpose of this paper is to analyze various firm-specific and macroeconomic factors that may significantly affect the maturity transformation risk of these banks.

Using an annual data set of 55 full-fledged Islamic banks from 11 different countries over a period from 2006-2015, this study utilizes a two-step system generalized method of moments estimation technique on an unbalanced panel data.

The empirical results reveal bank size, capital, less-risky liquid assets, risky liquid assets, external funding dependence and market power as significant bank-specific factors in determining maturity transformation risk. However, the authors find no evidence for the effect of bank credit risk on maturity transformation risk in Islamic banking system.

This is the first study that focuses on the measurement of maturity transformation risk and its determinants in Islamic banks in a cross-country context, with regards to new liquidity regulatory requirements as proposed by Islamic Financial Services Board (IFSB) in conjunction with Basel III.

This paper aims to improve the debate linking the business models of banks to their riskiness by checking if diversification exerts different impacts on the probability of bank distress depending on the level of capital buffers.

The paper focuses on a sample of listed bank holding companies observed between 2007:Q3 and 2022:Q4. The authors use three subindexes of bank diversification. The authors estimate a dynamic model specification using a system generalized method of moments with robust standard errors and consistent estimators under heteroskedasticity and autocorrelation within a panel. Sensitivity and robustness checks are performed.

Asset and income diversification increase the probability of distress in low-capitalized banks during normal periods (excluding periods of crises and high uncertainty). Concerning crisis periods, a marginal increase in asset diversification during the global financial crisis (GFC) and the COVID-19 pandemic crisis induces a more important increase in the probability of failure of well-capitalized banks relative to low-capitalized ones. Contrary to the results obtained for the GFC period, well-capitalized banks were found to pursue more careful funding diversification in reaction to the sudden increase of uncertainty during the Russia–Ukraine war.

Prudential supervision should concentrate on well-capitalized banks to encompass unexpected excessive risk-taking during crisis periods. Regulatory requirements should constrain fragile banks to avoid pursuing assets and income diversification strategies that increase earnings volatility.

The main originality of this paper is to consider the interaction between three different dimensions of bank diversification and capital regulation during stable and unstable periods using the marginal effect analysis. Moreover, this paper uses, initially, the GFC as the reference crisis period to study the impact of capital buffers and diversification interactions on the probability of bank distress. Then, the authors extend the observation period until 2022:Q4 to include two additional major events, namely, the COVID-19 pandemic and the Russia-Ukraine war.