Search results

This study aims to test whether loan loss provisions in Islamic banks is procyclical by explicitly examining the link between non-discretionary provisions and loan growth. In the next stage, this paper tests whether the link between non-discretionary provisions and loan growth is conditional on bank capitalization and lending. This is to identify whether bank-specific factors affect the procyclicality of non-discretionary provisions and whether such procyclicality can be explained by income smoothing in banks with different capitalization and loan profiles.

This study is conducted in four stages. The first stage identifies the determinants of loan loss provisions. The second stage investigates whether income smoothing is affected by capitalization and lending activities. In the third stage, the link between non-discretionary provisions and loan growth is examined. In the fourth stage, this paper tests whether the link between non-discretionary provisions and loan growth is affected by bank capitalization and lending. A two-way panel-fixed effect model is used.

Non-discretionary provisions are procyclical, particularly for banks with lower capitalization and lending activities, because such banks do not conduct income smoothing. Specifically, banks with lower capitalization experience a decline in loan growth when non-discretionary provisions to cover credit risk increase.

The dataset used in this study follows Soedarmono et al. (2017) and does not enable to differentiate types of financing products in Islamic banks that may exacerbate or mitigate the procyclicality of non-discretionary provisions.

This paper extends prior literature on the procyclicality of loan loss provisions by specifically investigating the influence of non-discretionary provisions on loan growth in Islamic banks and whether such relationship depends on the role of income smoothing undertaken by banks with different levels of capitalization and lending. This paper builds on the work of Soedarmono et al. (2017) in which they do not explicitly examine the relationship between loan loss provisions and loan growth.

This study aims to assess the effectiveness of the banking market discipline in relation to the development of Financial Technology (FinTech) startups.

Using panel data collected from 144 banks in Indonesia from 2004 to 2018, this study’s regression models were estimated using fixed effects with robust standard errors.

This study finds that FinTech startups disturb bank deposits. Meanwhile, market discipline exists in Indonesian banks, as indicated by depositors’ behavior with higher credit and liquidity risks. However, market discipline does not exist for bank insolvency risk, which is indicated by a significant and positive relationship with the dependent variable. Therefore, the higher the number of FinTech startups, the more effective the market discipline. Empirical findings also revealed that the joint impact between FinTech startups and bank risk is also important in explaining the difference in the effectiveness of banking market discipline.

This study has policy implications for banks in mitigating risk associated with market discipline and instability of financial intermediation.

This study offers a significant contribution to the empirical literature because it specifically explores the effectiveness of the banking market discipline by focusing on the joint impact of FinTech startups and bank risk on deposits. Furthermore, this study contributes to providing empirical evidence that links between FinTech startups and bank risk affect depositor behavior at government-owned, private, large and small, as well as nonmobile and mobile adoption banks.