Comparing Market and Supervisory Assessments of Bank Performance: Who Knows What When?

Abstract

We compare the timeliness and accuracy of government supervisors versus market participants in assessing the condition of large U.S. bank holding companies. We find that supervisors and bond rating agencies both have some prior information that is useful to the other. In contrast, supervisory assessments and equity market indicators are not strongly interrelated. We also find that supervisory assessments are much less accurate overall than both bond and equity market assessments in predicting future changes in performance, but supervisors may be more accurate when inspections are recent. To some extent, these results may reflect differing incentives of the parties. We compare the timeliness and accuracy of government supervisors versus market participants in assessing the condition of large U.S. bank holding companies. We find that supervisors and bond rating agencies both have some prior information that is useful to the other. In contrast, supervisory assessments and equity market indicators are not strongly interrelated. We also find that supervisory assessments are much less accurate overall than both bond and equity market assessments in predicting future changes in performance, but supervisors may be more accurate when inspections are recent. To some extent, these results may reflect differing incentives of the parties.