Research: Banks Assume More Risk if Bailed Out

January 7th, 2012
in econ_news

Econintersect:  A research paper from the University of Michigan (by Ran Duchin and Denis Sosyura) has found that that after the bailout, bailed moral-hazard-cartoonbanks approved riskier loans and shifted investment portfolios toward riskier securities.  Because of the way these greater risks were assumed, these banks actually appear to be safer based on capitalization requirements, compared to banks that did not get any government assistance during the financial crisis.  The same results were found in all three areas examined:  retail lending (mortgages), corporate lending (large syndicated loans), and investment in financial assets.  Click on cartoon for larger image.

Follow up:

The differences between bailed and not bailed banks was dramatic.  From a summary in Strategy + Business:

After controlling for bank fundamentals and changes in security valuations, the authors found that non-recipients were much less likely to make risky investments. Because high-yield bonds have lower credit ratings and are widely regarded as more likely to default, the researchers used asset yield as a market measure of risk. For bailed-out banks, the average interest yield on investment portfolios shot up by 9.4 percent after getting government aid compared with banks that received no federal funds.

And there is a real economic consequence for bailed-out banks, say the authors, who measured the level of systemic risk through an analysis of firms’ earnings volatility, leverage, stock return volatility, and market beta — a measure of the risk contained in a security or portfolio vis-à-vis the overall market. Compared with applicants that did not receive federal funds, recipient firms increased their exposure to systemic risk after getting government money, the authors found, with their beta measure increasing substantially, from 0.8 to 1.01. In contrast, non-participating banks experienced no changes in systemic risk over the same period.

Overall, the authors write, their analysis “indicates a robust increase in risk taking in both lending and investment activities by bailed financial institutions, as compared to fundamentally similar banks, which were denied federal assistance.”

Is this another case study in moral hazard?

Sources:  Social Science research Network and Strategy + Business

Hat tip to Roger Erickson









Make a Comment

Econintersect wants your comments, data and opinion on the articles posted.  As the internet is a "war zone" of trolls, hackers and spammers - Econintersect must balance its defences against ease of commenting.  We have joined with Livefyre to manage our comment streams.

To comment, just click the "Sign In" button at the top-left corner of the comment box below. You can create a commenting account using your favorite social network such as Twitter, Facebook, Google+, LinkedIn or Open ID - or open a Livefyre account using your email address.















 navigate econintersect.com

Blogs

Analysis Blog
News Blog
Investing Blog
Opinion Blog
Precious Metals Blog
Markets Blog
Video of the Day
Weather

Newspapers

Asia / Pacific
Europe
Middle East / Africa
Americas
USA Government
     

RSS Feeds / Social Media

Combined Econintersect Feed
Google+
Facebook
Twitter
Digg

Free Newsletter

Marketplace - Books & More

Economic Forecast

Content Contribution

Contact

About

  Top Economics Site

Investing.com Contributor TalkMarkets Contributor Finance Blogs Free PageRank Checker Active Search Results Google+

This Web Page by Steven Hansen ---- Copyright 2010 - 2016 Econintersect LLC - all rights reserved