Judging the Risk of Banks: Why Can't Bond Raters Agree?
Federal Reserve Bank Staff Study
32 Pages Posted: 24 Apr 1999
Date Written: March 1999
Abstract
If bank risk were transparent to the market, the protection and regulation of banks would be unnecessary. I argue that banks are opaque, and that the veil is inherent to the business. Relative to the more fixed assets at non-financial firms, the risk of banks mostly financial assets is easier to conceal and/or to change. Their opaque or shiftable assets make the risk of banks difficult to monitor. As evidence, I show that the two most prominent credit analysts in the U.S.--Moody's and Standard and Poor's--disagree more over banks than over other types of firms. Among banks, the raters split more over opaque assets, like loans, and over more liquid assets, like cash and trading assets. Fixed assets, like premises, tend to reduce disagreement. The problem for banks as a class is that they hold very few fixed assets, so I conclude that they are regulated because they are opaque, not (as some argue) the other way around.
JEL Classification: G20, G21, G28
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation
Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?
Recommended Papers
-
Financial Dependence and Growth
By Raghuram G. Rajan and Luigi Zingales
-
Stock Markets, Banks, and Growth: Panel Evidence
By Thorsten Beck and Ross Levine
-
Stock Markets, Banks, and Growth: Panel Evidence
By Thorsten Beck and Ross Levine
-
Stock Markets, Banks, and Economic Growth
By Ross Levine and Sara Zervos
-
Financial Development and Economic Growth: Views and Agenda
By Ross Levine
-
Stock Markets, Banks, and Growth: Correlation or Causality
By Thorsten Beck and Ross Levine
-
By Thorsten Beck, Asli Demirgüç-kunt, ...
-
Finance, Firm Size, and Growth
By Thorsten Beck, Asli Demirgüç-kunt, ...
-
Finance, Firm Size, and Growth
By Thorsten Beck, Asli Demirgüç-kunt, ...
-
Financial Intermediation and Growth: Causality and Causes
By Ross Levine, Norman Loayza, ...