Abstract
Explicit deposit insurance is a two-edged sword with respect to risk taking. High explicit coverage creates incentives to shift risk to a deposit insurance fund or taxpayers; low explicit coverage may be associated with strong implicit insurance reflecting lack of credibility of non-insurance. Institutions that allow banks to fail without serious contagion effects enhance this credibility. Alternative measures of banks' risk taking are used to test the hypothesis expressed as a U-shaped relationship between explicit coverage and risk taking. The hypothesis is strongly supported when the occurrence of banking crises and non-performing loans are proxies for risk-taking in a country's banking system. Institutional characteristics affect the relation between explicit coverage and risk-taking.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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 callDisclaimer: 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.
