Archive for the ‘Capital Regulation’ Category

Interview with Darrell Duffie
Douglas Clement - Editor, The Region Published June 15, 2012

In the increasingly vital yet bewildering world of financial economics, Darrell Duffie is both a deep-level theorist and a hands-on plumber. He marries abstruse theory with solid reality and, unlike most economists, can then lucidly explain this often awkward union to those without his intuitive grasp. Few are better suited, then, to evaluate and clarify key challenges in the aftermath of the recent financial crisis. Duffie can’t eliminate the fog, of course, but his insights are among the sharpest.  Read more here.

Link to Prof Duffie’s bio and research.  

Glossary

The following glossary of terms are frequently used in discussions of corporate governance. Link the Stanford Corporate Governance Research Program glossary of terms to your website:  http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/cgrp/research/glossary

Abstract: 
We analyze shareholders’ incentives to change the leverage of a firm that has already borrowed substantially. As a result of debt overhang, shareholders have incentives to resist reductions in leverage that make the remaining debt safer. This resistance is present even without any government subsidies of debt, but it is exacerbated by such subsidies.

Our analysis is relevant to the debate on bank capital regulation, and complements Admati et al. (2010). In that paper we argued that subsidies that favor debt over equity are the key reason that banks funding costs would be lower if they “economize” on equity. Subsidies come from public funds, and reducing them does not represent a social cost. It is thus irrelevant for assessing regulation. Other arguments made to support claims that “equity is expensive” are flawed.

Like reduction in subsidies, the effects of leverage reduction on bank managers or shareholders do not represent a social cost. In fact, we show that debt overhang creates inefficiency, since shareholders would resist recapitalization even when this would increase the combined value of the firm to shareholders and creditors. Moreover, debt overhang creates an “addiction” to leverage through a ratchet effect. In the presence of government guarantees, the inefficiencies of excessive leverage are not fully reflected in banks’ borrowing costs.

Since banks’ high leverage is a source of systemic risks and imposes costs on the public, resistance to leverage reduction leads to social inefficiencies. The main beneficiaries from high leverage may be bank managers. The majority of the banks’ shareholders, who hold diversified portfolios and who are part of the public, are likely to be net losers. Our analysis highlights the critical importance of effective capital regulation and high equity requirements, especially for large and “systemic” financial institutions.

We analyze shareholders’ preferences when choosing among various ways leverage can be reduced. We show that, with homogeneous assets, if the firm’s security and asset trades have zero NPV, and the firm has a single class of debt outstanding, then shareholders find it equally undesirable to deleverage through asset sales, pure recapitalization, or asset expansion with new equity. When these conditions are not met, shareholders can have strong preferences for one approach over another. For example, if the firm can buy back junior debt, asset sales are the preferred way to reduce leverage. This preference for asset sales, or “deleveraging,” can persist even if such sales are inefficient and reduce the total value of the firm.

 Keywords: capital regulation, financial institutions, capital structure, “too big to fail,” systemic risk, bank equity, debt overhang, underinvestment, recapitalization, deleveraging, bankruptcy costs, Basel.

JEL Classifications: G21, G28, G32, G38, H81, K23

Anat R. Admati, Peter M. DeMarzo, Martin R. Hellwig, and Paul Pfleiderer, August 2010, Rock Center for Corporate Governance at Stanford University Working Paper No. 86, Stanford Graduate School of Business Research Paper No. 2065.

• Fallacies, Irrelevant Facts, and Myths in the Discussion of Capital Regulation: Why Bank Equity is Not Expensive (Research Paper)

• For more Related Academic Contributions see here.

Abstract

We examine the pervasive view that “equity is expensive,” which leads to claims that high capital requirements are costly and would affect credit markets adversely. We find that arguments made to support this view are either fallacious, irrelevant, or very weak. For example, the return on equity contains a risk premium that must go down if banks have more equity. It is thus incorrect to assume that the required return on equity remains fixed as capital requirements increase. It is also incorrect to translate higher taxes paid by banks to a social cost. Policies that
subsidize debt and indirectly penalize equity through taxes and implicit guarantees are distortive. Any desirable public subsidies to banks’ activities should be given directly and not in ways that encourage leverage. Finally, suggestions that high leverage serves a necessary disciplining role are based on inadequate theory lacking empirical support.

We conclude that bank equity is not socially expensive, and that high leverage is not necessary for banks to perform all their socially valuable functions, including lending, taking deposits and issuing money-like securities. To the contrary, better capitalized banks suffer fewer
distortions in lending decisions and would perform better. The fact that banks choose high leverage does not imply that this is socially optimal, and, except for government subsidies and viewed from an ex ante perspective, high leverage may not even be privately optimal for banks.

Setting equity requirements significantly higher than the levels currently proposed would entail large social benefits and minimal, if any, social costs. Approaches based on equity dominate alternatives, including contingent capital. To achieve better capitalization quickly and efficiently and prevent disruption to lending, regulators must actively control equity payouts and issuance. If remaining challenges are addressed, capital regulation can be a powerful tool for enhancing the role of banks in the economy.

Research by

Anat R. Admati
George G.C. Parker Professor of Finance and Economics
Stanford Graduate School of Business

Peter M. DeMarzo
Mizuho Financial Group Professor of Finance
Stanford Graduate School of Business

Martin F. Hellwig
Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods
Department of Economics, University of Bonn

Paul Pfleiderer
C.O.G. Miller Distinguished Professor of Finance
Stanford Graduate School of Business