Lender of Last Resort and Bank Closure Policy

During the last decades a consensus has emerged that it is impossible to disentangle liquidity shocks from solvency shocks. As a consequence the classical lender of last resort rules, as defined by Thornton and Bagehot, based on lending to solvent illiquid institutions appear ill-suited to this environment. We summarize here the main contributions that have developed considering this new paradigm and discuss how institutional features relating to bank closure policy influences lender of last resort and other safety net issues. We devote particular emphasis to the analysis of systemic risk and contagion in banking and the role of the lender of last resort to prevent it.lender of last resort, systemic risk, contagion, bank closure, liquidity, discount window

Diversification and Ownership Concentration

We consider a mean-variance general equilibrium economy where the expected returns for controlling and non-controlling shareholders are different because the former are able to divert a fraction of the profits. We find that when investor protection is poor, asset return correlation affects ownership structure in a positive way. Higher return correlation lowers the benefits of diversification which causes a higher investment by the controlling shareholder in his asset and a lower investment by the non-controlling shareholders. The empirical analysis supports the predictions of the model. In particular, controlling for measures of the quality of the investor protection, the legal origin of the countries, and other structural variables as in a previous study by La Porta et al. (1998) we find that equity ownership is significantly more concentrated in countries where stock return correlation is higher, and that the magnitude of this effect is larger in countries where investor protection is poorer.corporate governance, investor protection, private benefits, diversification opportunities

Banking Regulation and Prompt Corrective Action

We explore the rationale for regulatory rules that prohibit banks from developing some of their natural activities when their capital level is low, as epitomized by the US Prompt Corrective Action (PCA). This paper is built on two insights. First, in a moral hazard setting, capital requirement regulation may force banks to hold a large fraction of safe assets which, in turn, may lower their incentives to monitor risky assets. Second, agency problems may be more severe in certain asset classes than in others. Taken together, these two ideas explain why, surprisingly, capital regulation, which may cope with risk and adverse selection, is unable to address issues related to moral hazard. Hence, instead of forcing banks to hold a large fraction of safe assets, prohibiting some types of investment and allowing ample scope of investment on others may be the only way to preserve incentives and guarantee funding. In particular, providing incentives to monitor investments in the most opaque asset classes may prove to be excessively costly in terms of the required capital and thus inefficient. We show that the optimal capital regulation consists of a rule that a) allows well capitalized banks to freely invest any amount in any risky asset, b) prohibits banks with intermediate levels of capital to invest in the most opaque risky assets, and c) prohibits undercapitalized banks to invest in any risky asset.banking, prudential regulation, moral hazard

Diversification and Ownership Concentration

In a mean-variance economy where controlling shareholders can divert profits, equity ownership is more concentrated the higher the stock returns correlation. A higher returns correlation reduces the benefits of diversification, giving rise to both a higher investment by the controlling shareholder in the asset that he controls and a lower investment by the non-controlling shareholders. The empirical analysis supports the predictions of the model. In particular, controlling for measures of the quality of investor protection, and other structural variables, we find that equity ownership is significantly more concentrated in countries where the stock returns correlation is higher. Moreover the intensity of the relationship between the stock returns correlation and ownership concentration is amplified by poor investor protection.Ownership concentration,Diversificationopportunities,Investor protection.

Ownership or Performance: What Determines Board of Directors' Turnover in Italy?

This paper analyses the turnover of board of directors members on a sample of companies listed on the Milan Stock Exchange in the period 1988-1996. Our aim is to investigate if board members change more frequently when company performance is poor, as the literature suggests, if this relationship is similar for C.E.O.s and other board members, and if and how the ownership structure of Italian companies affects these relationships. We use three different measures of board of directors turnovers: turnover A is the turnover of all board members; turnover B is the turnover of the President, Vice-President, C.E.O. and General Manager; finally turnover C is the turnover of C.E.O.s only. We find that changes in ownership affect turnover and that the relationship between turnover and performance is stronger in companies that have experienced a change in the controlling shareholder.Board of Directors, Corporate governance, Financial agency

Lender of last resort: A new role for an old instrument

The global financial crisis and the sovereign debt crisis in Europe have redefined the functions of the lender of last resort (LOLR). First, they have placed the LOLR at the intersection of monetary policy, fiscal policy, supervision, and regulation of the banking industry. Second, they have given regulatory authorities the additional responsibility of monitoring the interbank market. Third, they have extended the LOLR role to cover the possible bailout of non-bank institutions, including sovereign countries. This chapter explores the link between the theoretical models of the banking industry and the unprecedented policies displayed in the aftermath of the crisis. We begin by examining the justification of LOLR in a simplified framework where only liquidity shocks arise, to move to a setting where liquidity shocks cannot be disentangled from solvency ones. We then study contagion in the interbank market and systemic risk, two pathologies due to the imperfections of the financial markets, and we discuss the issues raised by the implementation of the LOLR policy within the safety net

Monitoring a Common Agent: Implications for Financial Contracting

We study the problem of multiple principals who want to obtain income from a privately informed agent and design their contracts non-cooperatively. Our analysis reveals that the degree of coordination between principals has strong implications for the shapes of contracts and the amount of monitoring. Equity-like contracts and excessive monitoring emerge when principals are able to coordinate monitoring or verify each others’ monitoring efforts. When this is not possible, free riding in monitoring weakens the incentive to monitor, so that flat payments, debt-like contracts and very low levels of monitoring appear. Free riding may be so strong that there may even be less monitoring than if the principals cooperated with each other, which shows that non-cooperative monitoring does not necessarily lead to excessive monitoring.monitoring, common agency, costly state verification