E-mail alert  |  Contact  
Search:       Go  
Background  |   Sponsoring institutions  |   Editorial board   |   Advisory board   |   Associate editors
Call for papers  |   Submission guidelines  |   Editorial process
Current issue  |   Past issues  |  
December 2011 issue
List of authors
 
Gale, Repullo, Smets
Perotti, Suarez
Pariès, Sørensen, Rodriguez-Palenzuela
Perotti, Ratnovski, Vlahu
Herring
Drehmann, Borio, Tsatsaronis
Edge, Meisenzahl
IJCB Home   Read the journal   Past issue
Past issues
2017
 
December
September
June
March
February
2016
 
December
September
June
March
2015
 
December
September
June
March
January
2014
 
December
September
June
March
2013
 
December
September
June
March
January
2012
 
December
September
June
March
January
2011
 
December
September
June
March
2010
 
December
September
June
March
2009
 
December
September
June
March
2008
 
December
September
June
March
2007
 
December
September
June
March
2006
 
December
September
June
March
2005
 
December
September
May

The Capital Conundrum

by Richard J. Herring
The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania

Abstract

After a review of the theory of regulation of bank capital, this paper notes that the pervasive influence of the safety net provides both a rationale for regulating bank equity capital and an obstacle to inferring what the optimal capital-to-asset ratio would be for a bank in the absence of the safety net (or expectations of an ex post bailout). This paper supports the view that the cost of bank equity capital is less than is frequently assumed, but notes that many of the frictions that lead to optimal equity-to-asset ratios for other firms are likely to apply to banks. Moreover, the analysis of bank capital structures is further complicated by the fact that a significant proportion of bank liabilities—deposits—are an important product offered by banks as well as a means of increasing leverage. After a brief overview of the potential advantages of a requirement for contingent convertible capital (CoCo) instruments in addition to higher equity-to-asset ratios, the paper argues that, given the uncertainty about the optimum equity capital requirement, a substantial CoCo requirement provides additional advantages, which include stronger incentives for banks to recapitalize before they encounter serious difficulties, enhanced incentives for banks to adopt the best possible risk-management measures, and (so long as the regrettable asymmetry between interest and dividends remains) reduced incentives for banks to move activities to the shadow banking system. A substantial CoCo requirement protects society from loss as effectively as an equivalent amount of additional equity capital, but CoCos enable a bank to recapitalize automatically if it falls short of the equity capital requirement. This recapitalization will occur instantaneously and at lower cost than a new issue of equity under conditions of stress. Instantaneous recapitalization will give the bank an opportunity to restructure or find a private solution and will provide the regulatory authorities with sufficient warning to prepare a rapid resolution if necessary.

JEL Codes: G21, G28, G32.

 
Full article (PDF, 17 pages 388 kb)