This paper analyzes the evolution of bank funding structures in the run up to the global financial crisis and studies the implications for financial stability, exploiting a bank-level dataset that covers about 11,000 banks in the U.S. and Europe during 2001?09. The results show that banks with weaker structural liquidity and higher leverage in the pre-crisis period were more likely to fail afterward. The likelihood of bank failure also increases with bank risk-taking. In the cross-section, the smaller domestically-oriented banks were relatively more vulnerable to liquidity risk, while the large cross-border banks were more susceptible to solvency risk due to excessive leverage. The results support the proposed Basel III regulations on structural liquidity and leverage, but suggest that emphasis should be placed on the latter, particularly for the systemically-important institutions. Macroeconomic and monetary conditions are also shown to be related with the likelihood of bank failure, providing a case for the introduction of a macro-prudential approach to banking regulation.

As part of Basel III reforms, the NSFR is a new prudential liquidity rule aimed at limiting excess maturity transformation risk in the banking sector and promoting funding stability. The revised package has been issued for public consultation with a plan of making the rule binding in 2018. This paper complements earlier quantitative impact studies by discussing the potential impact of introducing the NSFR based on empirical analysis of end-2012 financial data for over 2000 banks covering 128 countries. The calculations show that a sizeable percentage of the banks in most countries would meet the minimum NSFR prudential requirement at end-2012, and, further, that larger banks tend to be more vulnerable to the introduction of the NSFR. Additionally, by comparing the NSFR to other structural funding mismatch indicators, we find that the NSFR is a relatively consistent regulatory measure for capturing banks’ funding risk. Finally, the paper discusses key policy issues for consideration in implementing the NSFR.

This paper presents new evidence on the empirical relationship between bank solvency and funding costs. Building on a newly constructed dataset drawing on supervisory data for 54 large banks from six advanced countries over 2004–2013, we use a simultaneous equation approach to estimate the contemporaneous interaction between solvency and liquidity. Our results show that liquidity and solvency interactions can be more material than suggested by the existing empirical literature. A 100 bps increase in regulatory capital ratios is associated with a decrease of bank funding costs of about 105 bps. A 100 bps increase in funding costs reduces regulatory capital buffers by 32 bps. We also find evidence of non-linear effects between solvency and funding costs. Understanding the impact of solvency on funding costs is particularly relevant for stress testing. Our analysis suggests that neglecting the dynamic features of the solvency-liquidity nexus in the 2014 EU-wide stress test could have led to a significant underestimation of the impact of stress on bank capital ratios.

Effective cross-border financial surveillance requires the monitoring of direct and indirect systemic linkages. This paper illustrates how network analysis could make a significant contribution in this regard by simulating different credit and funding shocks to the banking systems of a number of selected countries. After that, we show that the inclusion of risk transfers could modify the risk profile of entire financial systems, and thus an enriched simulation algorithm able to account for risk transfers is proposed. Finally, we discuss how some of the limitations of our simulations are a reflection of existing information and data gaps, and thus view these shortcomings as a call to improve the collection and analysis of data on cross-border financial exposures.

In a recently released New York Fed staff report, we present a forward-looking monitoring program to identify and track time-varying sources of systemic risk.

This book illustrates the importance of bonds as a funding tool available to banks. After providing the reader with an overview of the funding strategies adopted during the last ten years by European banks, the book offers a deep focus on the Italian banking industry. Notably, the authors illustrate how bonds have been a primary funding choice for Italian banks, as well as a preponderant asset in Italian households’ portfolios. Furthermore, they highlight the consequences of the adoption of the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (BRRD) on the yields offered by bonds of Italian banks. Finally, they conclude the volume with the illustration of very recent case studies about the application of the BRRD to some problematic banks in Italy and the related side effects generated to bank bondholders. All the analyses presented in the book are supported by the use of quantitative data.