Strengthening and Streamlining Bank Capital Regulation

Robin  Greenwood; Samuel Gregory Hanson; Jeremy C. Stein; Adi   Sunderam

Article | Brookings Papers on Economic Activity | Fall 2017

Strengthening and Streamlining Bank Capital Regulation

by Robin Greenwood, Samuel Gregory Hanson, Jeremy C. Stein and Adi Sunderam

Abstract

We propose three core principles that should inform the design of bank capital regulation. First, wherever possible, multiple constraints on the minimum level of equity capital should be consolidated into a single constraint. This helps to avoid a distortionary situation where different constraints bind for different banks performing the same activity. Second, while a regulatory framework that relies primarily on minimum capital ratios is appropriate for normal times, such a framework is inadequate in the wake of a large negative shock to the system. Following an adverse shock, it becomes critical to emphasize dynamic resilience, which involves forcing banks to actively recapitalize—i.e., regulation needs to focus on getting banks to raise new dollars of equity capital, rather than just maintaining their capital ratios. Third, the best way to deal with the inevitable gaming of any set of ex ante capital rules is not to propose further rules, but rather to allow the regulator sufficient flexibility to address unforeseen contingencies ex post. We use these principles to suggest a number of modifications to the current set of risk-based capital requirements, to the leverage ratio, and to the Federal Reserve’s stress-testing framework.

Keywords: Banks and Banking; Capital; Governing Rules, Regulations, and Reforms; Banking Industry;

Format: Print

Read Now

Citation:

Greenwood, Robin, Samuel Gregory Hanson, Jeremy C. Stein, and Adi Sunderam. "Strengthening and Streamlining Bank Capital Regulation." Brookings Papers on Economic Activity (Fall 2017). (Internet Appendix Here.)

We develop a model of government portfolio choice in which a benevolent government chooses the scale of risky projects in the presence of market failures and tax distortions. These two frictions generate motives to manage social risk and fiscal risk. Social risk management makes attractive programs that ameliorate market failures in bad economic times. Fiscal risk management makes unattractive programs that entail large government outlays at times when other programs in the government's portfolio also require large outlays. We characterize the determinants of social and fiscal risk and argue that these two risk management motives often conflict. Using the model, we explore how the attractiveness of different financial stability programs varies with the government's fiscal burden and with characteristics of the economy.

Reflexivity is the idea that investors' biased beliefs affect market outcomes, and that market outcomes in turn affect investors' beliefs. We develop a behavioral model of the credit cycle featuring such a two-way feedback loop. In our model, investors form beliefs about firms' creditworthiness, in part by extrapolating past default rates. Investor beliefs influence firms' actual creditworthiness because firms that can refinance maturing debt on favorable terms are less likely to default in the short run—even if fundamentals do not justify investors' generosity. Our model is able to match many features of credit booms and busts, including the imperfect synchronization of credit cycles with the real economy, the negative relationship between past credit growth and the future return on risky bonds, and "calm before the storm" periods in which firm fundamentals have deteriorated but the credit market has not yet turned.

Faculty & Research

Strengthening and Streamlining Bank Capital Regulation

Abstract

Citation:

About the Authors

More from these Authors