We study optimal bailout policies amidst banking and sovereign crises. Our model features sovereign borrowing with limited commitment, where domestic banks hold government debt and extend credit to the private sector. Bank capital shocks can trigger banking crises, prompting the government to consider extending guarantees over bank assets. This poses a trade-off: Larger bailouts relax financial frictions and increase output, but increase fiscal needs and default risk (creating a ‘diabolic loop’). Optimal bailouts exhibit clear properties. The fraction of banking losses the bailouts cover is (i) decreasing in government debt; (ii) increasing in aggregate productivity; and (iii) increasing in the severity of banking crises. Even though bailouts mitigate the adverse effects of banking crises, the economy is ex ante better off without bailouts: Having access to bailouts lowers the cost of defaults, which in turn increases the default frequency, and reduces the levels of debt, output, and consumption.
ABSTRACT Why do fire sales occur if many risks are hedgeable? We study a version of Brunnermeier and Sannikov (2014, American Economic Review 104, 379–421) in which all fundamental risks can be hedged frictionlessly. Our analysis shows that fire sales are inherently self‐fulfilling. Fundamental shocks can never cause fire sales, and an efficient, safe equilibrium exists. On the other hand, there exists an equilibrium in which agents coordinate fire sales on nonfundamental shocks. A simple refinement based on vanishingly small perceived fundamental risk eliminates the safe equilibrium and selects the fire‐sale equilibrium as the unique outcome.
ABSTRACT We examine optimal capital requirements in a quantitative general equilibrium model with banks exposed to nondiversifiable borrower default risk. Contrary to standard models of bank default risk, our framework captures the limited upside, but significant downside risk of loan portfolio returns. This helps to reproduce the frequency and severity of twin defaults : simultaneously high firm and bank defaults. Hence, the optimal bank capital requirement, which trades off a lower frequency of twin defaults against restricting credit provision, is higher than under default risk models which underestimate the impact of borrower default on bank solvency.
ABSTRACT The deposit franchise is valuable because banks pay below‐market deposit rates. However, if depositors leave, its value vanishes. This can trigger runs by uninsured depositors, even if banks hold fully liquid assets. Because the franchise value increases with interest rates, runs are more harmful, and hence likelier, when rates are high. Banks can deter runs by shortening asset duration, but this risks insolvency if rates fall. Avoiding both runs and insolvency requires capital covering the potential loss of the uninsured deposit franchise. We estimate deposit franchise values and use them to identify vulnerable banks during the 2023 regional bank crisis.
This article introduces the concept of duality in financial networks, which entails the division of losses versus gains. In bankruptcy problems, in which a bankrupt entity divides its non-negative assets among a group of claimants, duality is well understood. Financial networks generalize bankruptcy problems by allowing for multiple agents with individual assets interconnected by mutual claims. We argue that allowing for negative assets is imperative to adequately formulate duality for financial networks. We show that there is a linear relationship between transfer schemes based on claims rules in a financial network and transfer schemes based on the dual of those claims rules in the dual financial network. Moreover, dual financial networks enable us to define dual transfer rules and dual allocation rules. We show that both self-dual transfer rules and self-dual allocation rules have to be based on self-dual claims rules. On the other hand, we demonstrate that transfer rules based on self-dual claims rules need not be self-dual, whereas allocation rules based on self-dual claims rules are always self-dual.
ABSTRACT Borrowers' use of cashless payments improves their access to capital from FinTech lenders and predicts a lower probability of default. These relationships are stronger for cashless technologies providing more precise information, and for outflows. Cashless payment usage complements other signals of borrower quality. We rationalize these empirical findings using a framework in which borrowers signal their lower likelihood of diverting cash flows through payment technology choice, and screening accuracy is further strengthened by informational complementarities. The informational synergy we uncover provides a rationale for the joint rise of cashless payments and FinTech lending, as well as for open banking.
In this paper, we explore the issue of manipulability in the setting of financial systems by considering two weak forms of immunity: merging-proofness and splitting-proofness. Not surprisingly, splitting-proofness conflicts with basic requirements such as the priority of debt over equity and the limited liability of equity. Remarkably, we provide a comprehensive characterization of the class of bankruptcy rules that gives rise to financial rules that satisfy merging-proofness.