The Good, the Bad and the Missed Boom
joint with Enrico Perotti
Some credit booms result in financial crises. While excessive risk-taking is a plausible cause, many investors do not anticipate increasing risk. We show how credit supply driven booms may be misunderstood as productivity driven, due to opaque bank balance sheets which disguise risk incentives. Funding shocks may sustain prudent lending (good boom), induce high risk exposure and boost asset prices (bad boom), or lead to underlending (missed boom). Rational agents drawing inference from prices amplify the effect of excess or scarce funding. Public information on total credit improves inference, but cannot avoid confusion when bank opacity is high.
R&R, Review of Financial Studies
R&R, Review of Financial Studies
The Political Economy of Prudential Regulation
Job Market Paper
This paper studies the equilibrium level of prudential regulation in a framework with negative borrowing externalities. A debt limit is implemented by a politician appointed through majoritarian elections. As voting allows borrowers to internalize the externality, equilibrium regulation restores constrained efficiency whenever the politician can commit to enforce it universally. Under selective enforcement, a captured regulator may exempt politically connected borrowers from regulation. Depending on the electoral power of the connected borrowers, the outcome may be an either too lax or too strict policy. The analysis deepens the understanding of the role of political economy factors in affecting equilibrium regulation. Additional results highlight the impact of income inequality on the strictness of the policy.
| jmp_rola-janicka.pdf |
On the Interaction Between Different Bank Liquidity Requirements
joint with Markus Behn and Renzo Corrias
The post-crisis regulatory framework introduced multiple requirements on banks’ capital and liquidity positions, sparking a discussion among policymakers and academics on how the various requirements interact with one another. This article contributes to the discussion on the interaction of different regulatory metrics by empirically examining the interaction between the liquidity coverage ratio (LCR) and the net stable funding ratio (NSFR) for banks in the euro area. The findings suggest that the two liquidity requirements are complementary and constrain different types of banks in different ways, similarly to the risk-based and leverage ratio requirements in the capital framework. This dispels claims that the LCR and the NSFR are redundant and underlines the need for a faithful and consistent implementation of both measures (and the entire Basel III package more broadly) across all major jurisdictions, to maintain a level playing field at the global level and to ensure that the post-crisis regulatory framework delivers on its objectives.