Abstract

The preceding discussion of risk management strategies has neglected the possibility that a bank might simply have more equity so as to have a larger buffer against the risks that it faces. This is of course the strategy that underlies the Basle Committee's thinking about capital adequacy regulation. The problem is that as given it is not a well defined strategy at all. If we think of a bank faced with repeated risks in a dynamic context, the question is how equity can be adjusted over time. In the banking literature the arguments have generally been phrased in terms of capital regulation. Thus, for instance managers’ incentives to gamble for resurrection at some point could be contained by prescribing some level of capital. Other, non-capital instruments to control risk might however be just as effective. One could think of, for instance, direct supervision instead. Generally, such measures can be accommodated within the existing, capital-focus literature. DOI: 10.5901/ajis.2013.v2n1p361

Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.