Market-based Risk Measures Research Articles

Volatility and risk relevance of comprehensive income

Motivated by concerns that the volatility of comprehensive income leads to the perception of increased risk we investigate the volatility and risk relevance of comprehensive income relative to net income for a sample of non-financial firms over the period 2005–2010. We find that comprehensive income is more volatile than net income and that comprehensive income is associated with market-based measures of risk (volatility of stock returns and beta). However, the volatility of comprehensive income incremental to net income is not associated with market risk and is not priced. These results have important implications for the FASB in deciding whether to report comprehensive income in a single statement of performance.

The Impact of Non-Accelerated Filers and Auditor Switches on Information Risk

Shocks to the market for auditor services in the early 2000’s had the effect of shifting the provision of audit services to small public companies from a range of auditors to predominantly small audit firms. Concurrently, regulators eased audit and financial reporting disclosure requirements for small public companies. In this study, we examine the effects of auditor quality and regulatory regime changes on information risk for small (non-accelerated) compared to large (accelerated) public companies during 2003-2009. We view information risk as a joint function of the auditor and the client company. We employ market-based measures of information risk including e-loading (market sensitivity to the mapping of accruals onto cash flows) and return volatility (which also captures uncertainty about managers’ future disclosure and reporting choices). We consider auditor quality to be a function of auditor size and other auditor characteristics (e.g., industry expertise). We find that non-accelerated filers consistently have greater information risk than do accelerated filers, controlling for auditor and company characteristics, a result that is robust across types of model estimates (including auditor-client “mismatch” and a matched-pair analysis to control for self-selection bias). We find that changes from large auditors (Big 4 and Tier 2) to Tier 3 auditors increase (decrease) return volatility for accelerated (non-accelerated) companies. A “matched” auditor-client mitigates this result for accelerated companies. We find that lateral changes increase (decrease) e-loadings for non-accelerated (accelerated) companies. Finally, analyses of changes over a three-year period including the year of the auditor change, by type of change, indicate similar effects on our information risk proxies.

Where is the System?

The aim of this paper is to determine the optimal size of the system (global, supranational or national) when measuring the systemic importance of a bank. Since 2011, the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS) has tagged global systemically important banks (G-SIBs) and has imposed a higher regulatory capital of loss absorbency (HLA) requirement. However, the identification of G-SIBs may overlook banks with major domestic systemic importance, i.e. the domestic systemically important banks (D-SIBs). This paper describes how to adjust market-based systemic risk measures to identify D-SIBs. In an empirical analysis within the eurozone, I show that (i) the SRISK methodology produces similar rankings whatever the system used. However, (ii) the SRISK values greatly vary across systems, which calls for imposing the higher of either D-SIB or G-SIB HLA requirements. Finally, (iii) the Delta CoVaR methodology is extremely sensitive to the choice of the system.

Taxable Income and Firm Risk

ABSTRACT We examine whether estimated taxable income provides incremental information about firms' operating risk. We develop taxable income-based measures that should be useful in assessing risk in a simple earnings predictability model. In our empirical tests these taxable income-based measures explain cross-sectional variation in the predictability and variability of future pre-tax financial performance. Further, these measures are associated with predictable variation in market-based measures of firm risk. Our findings shed light on how accounting information—specifically, book income and tax income—impacts investors' assessment of firm risk as well as improving our understanding of the extent and nature of information contained in estimated taxable income.

The risk relevance of International Financial Reporting Standards: Evidence from Greek banks

The main purpose of the paper is to estimate market, interest rate and exchange rate risk of Greek financial institutions and to explore the relationship between market-based measures of risk and accounting variables before and after the adoption of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) in order to examine whether IFRS introduction enhances the information content of accounting data. Empirical results reveal that all banks are exposed to market risk while interest rate and exchange rate risk affect them occasionally. Moreover, the IFRS introduction reinforces the explanatory ability of accounting data, on systematic and non-systematic risks. Concerning the risk-relevance of accounting ratios, liquidity measures, credibility, earnings per share and provisions for credit loss are inversely related to systematic and non-systematic risks under IFRS. Moreover, loans to total assets ratio, interest rate spread and income diversification are directly associated with market measures of risk, while bank size is negatively related to both risk measures under IFRS. Our findings imply that the fair value orientation of IFRS is responsible for the higher risk-relevance of fundamentals as opposed to the historically oriented Greek Accounting Standards (GAS).

Stock Market Assessment of Bank Risk: Evidence from the Maghreb Region

This paper examines the ability of stock market investors to monitor bank risk for a sample of listed banks in Tunisia and Morocco over the period 2003-2009. We construct numerous market-based risk measures: market beta, idiosyncratic risk component and total volatility of bank stock returns derived from the market model as well as the distance-to-default derived from the structural model of credit risk. Using a panel data analysis, we show that market-based measures of risk are strongly associated to bank fundamental characteristics. This finding has important implications for regulators as shareholders are able to assess bank financial condition and hence exert effective discipline on bank risk-taking behavior.

Can Competition Improve the Information Quality of Credit Ratings?

This paper examines how the quality of ratings issued by incumbent issuer-paid rating agencies responds to the entry of Egan-Jones Rating Company (EJR), an investor-paid rating agency. By comparing S&P’s rating quality before and after EJR initiates coverage of each firm, we find a significant improvement in the quality of S&P’s ratings following EJR’s rating initiation. S&P’s rating levels are shifted downward, ratings are more responsive to market-based risk measures, and S&P’s rating changes are associated with stronger market reactions. These effects are more pronounced when firms are unconditionally more opaque, and hence the incremental value of EJR’s ratings is especially high. Interestingly, the adjustment in S&P’s rating quality occurs only when EJR’s ratings are initially (and subsequently) lower than S&P’s, but not when they are higher. This asymmetric finding suggests that S&P does not adjust its rating quality by simply mimicking the information released by EJR, but rather it strategically responds to EJR’s new ratings based on the “downward pressure” they have imposed. The findings in the paper are contrary to the existing evidence that documents a deterioration in the incumbents’ rating quality following the entry of a third issuer-paid rating agency. They suggest that competition raised by an investor-paid agency may improve quality provision in the rating industry.

Do Independence and Financial Expertise of the Board Matter for Risk Taking and Performance?

During the recent financial crisis, financial expertise among independent directors of commercial banks is negatively related to changes in both firm value and cumulative stock returns. Furthermore, financial expertise is positively associated with risk-taking levels in the run-up to the crisis using both balance-sheet and market-based measures of risk. These results are not driven by powerful CEOs who select independent experts to rubber stamp strategies that satisfy their risk appetite. They are, however, consistent with independent directors with financial expertise recognizing the residual nature of shareholders’ claim and supporting a heightened risk profile for their bank.

Do Independence and Financial Expertise of the Board Matter for Risk Taking and Performance?

We examine how risk taking and firm value are related to board independence and financial expertise for a broad sample of U.S. financial institutions during the 2001 to 2008 period. Market-based measures of risk are negatively related to the percent of independent directors, while market-based risk measures, leverage, and stock performance prior to the crisis are all positively related to the percent of independent directors who are financial experts. These associations are primarily driven by large banks in our sample. During the crisis, financial expertise is negatively related to both Tobin's Q and cumulative stock performance and positively related to the probability of receiving TARP funds. The results are consistent with financial expertise being associated with more risk taking and higher firm value especially for large banks prior to the crisis; however, the presence of financial experts on the banks' boards did not help in alleviating the impact of the financial crisis.

Board Composition, Risk Taking and Value: Evidence from Financial Firms

Financial expertise among independent directors of U.S. banks is positively associated with balance-sheet and market-based measures of risk in the run-up to the 2007-2008 financial crisis. While financial expertise is weakly associated with better performance before the crisis, it is strongly related to lower performance during the crisis. Overall, the results are consistent with independent directors with financial expertise supporting increased risk-taking prior to the crisis. Despite being consistent with shareholder value maximization ex ante, these actions become detrimental during the crisis. These results are not driven by powerful CEOs who select independent experts to rubber stamp strategies that satisfy their risk appetite.

The Determinants of Domestic and Cross Border Bank Contagion Risk in South East Asia

This paper addresses the issue of both domestic and cross border systemic risk for 8 countries in Southeast Asia (Hong Kong, Indonesia, Korea, Malaysia, The Philippines, Singapore, Taiwan and Thailand). We use weekly data on individual bank stock prices from 2000 to 2005 to construct bank contagion measures based on the exponential weighted average correlations of the residuals of the market model. Our results show that average pair-wise correlations significantly differ among countries and that the probability that a specific shock extends to other banks is better predicted by asset risk indicators and market based risk measures, such as systematic risk, for cross country contagion. In contrast, for domestic contagion, liquidity risk indicators and bank opaqueness proxies perform better. Our findings suggest that whereas illiquidity, but not insolvency, is a major concern at the domestic level the opposite result holds for cross country contagion.

The Determinants of Domestic and Cross Border Bank Contagion Risk in Southeast Asia

Résumé Cet article traite du problème du risque systémique, tant au niveau national que transfrontalier, pour un ensemble de huit pays du Sud-Est asiatique (Hong Kong, Indonésie, Corée, Malaisie, Philippines, Singapour, Taïwan et Thaïlande). On utilise des données hebdomadaires relatives aux cotations boursières de 125 établissements bancaires sur la période 2000-2005 pour construire des mesures du risque de contagion, fondées sur les corrélations moyennes des résidus d’un modèle de marché. Les résultats montrent que ces corrélations moyennes diffèrent significativement d’un pays à l’autre. La probabilité qu’un choc spécifique se propage aux autres établissements au niveau transfrontalier est déterminée par les valeurs prises par des indicateurs du risque de l’actif et du risque de marché (risque systématique). En revanche, au niveau national, les indicateurs du risque d’illiquidité et les mesures d’opacité bancaire ont un meilleur pouvoir explicatif. Nos résultats suggèrent que les opérateurs de marché sont essentiellement influencés par l’illiquidité des banques au niveau national alors qu’ils ne sont sensibles qu’à leur degré d’insolvabilité à l’échelle transfrontalière. JEL Classification: G21, G29

Ratings Versus Market-Based Measures of Default Risk of East Asian Banks

This paper assesses whether agency ratings and market-based default risk measures are consistent for East Asian banks during the period from 1996 to 2006. While the market-based measures are broadly consistent with the credit rating assessments for the banks in the developed economies, the discrepancy between ratings and the market-based measures for the East Asian banks are significant. The credit ratings had been adjusted slowly for the East Asian banks during the onset of the Asian financial crisis. The relatively higher default risk implied by ratings during the post-crisis period is partly due to the conservatism of rating agencies and the unsolicited ratings. The discrepancy still exists after taking these two factors into account. From a prospective of the banking policies, the use of agency-based or market-based measures for calculating capital requirements of exposures to banks and deposit insurance premiums in the East Asian economies could raise an issue of systematic differences between the two measures.

The Complementary Nature of Ratings and Market-Based Measures of Default Risk

Agency ratings and market-based measures of default risk are useful complements. Combining the two improves the prediction of defaults over the use of a single measure. While in-sample analysis suggests that one should give more weight to ratings as the horizon increases, or issuers become less risky, a simple equal-weight combination of ratings and market-based measures is hard to beat out of sample. The results suggest that both ratings and market-based measures provide genuine information of their own.

Does the stock market value bank diversification?

This paper investigates whether or not functionally diversified banks have a comparative advantage in terms of long-term performance/risk profile compared to their specialized competitors. To that end, this study uses market-based measures of return potential and bank risk. We calculate the franchise value over time of European banks as a measure of their long-run performance potential. In addition, we measure risk as both the systematic and the idiosyncratic risk components derived from a bank stock return model. Finally, we analyze the return/risk trade-off implied in different functional diversification strategies using a panel data analysis over the period 1989–2004. A higher share of non-interest income in total income affects banks’ franchise values positively. Diversification of revenue streams from distinct financial activities increases the systematic risk of banks while the effect on the idiosyncratic risk component is non-linear and predominantly downward-sloping. These findings have conflicting implications for different stakeholders, such as investors, bank shareholders, bank managers and bank supervisors.

The Impact of Revenue Diversity on Banking System Stability

The dismantling of legal barriers to the integration of financial services is one of the recent, major developments in the banking industry. This led to an expansion of the variety of financial intermediaries and types of transactions. However, this trend may alter banks' risk-taking incentives and may affect overall banking sector stability. This paper analyzes how banks' divergent strategies toward specialization and diversification of financial activities affect their ability to shelter from adverse economic conditions. To this end, market-based measures of banks' extreme systematic risk are generated, using techniques developed for extreme value analysis. Extreme systematic risk captures the probability of a sharp decline in a bank's stock price conditional on a crash in a market index. Subsequently, the impact of (the correlation between) interest and non-interest income (and its components) on this risk measure is assessed. The estimation results reveal that the heterogeneity in extreme bank risk can partially be attributed to differences in banks' reliance on non-traditional banking activities. All non-interest generating activities increase banks' sensitivity to the market index during times of extreme equity market movements. In addition, smaller banks and well-capitalized banks are better able to withstand large adverse economic conditions. Furthermore, the effects are stronger during times of market turbulence compared to a situation of normal economic conditions. Overall, diversifying financial activities in one umbrella institution does not lead to a reduction of extreme banking risk, which may explain why financial conglomerates trade at a discount.

Does the Stock Market Value Bank Diversification?

This paper investigates whether or not functionally diversified banks have a comparative advantage in terms of long-term performance/risk profile compared to their specialized competitors. To that end, this study uses market-based measures of return potential and bank risk. We calculate the franchise value over time of European banks as a measure of their long-run performance potential. In addition, we measure risk as both the systematic and the idiosyncratic risk sensitivities derived from a bank stock return model. Finally, we analyze the return/risk trade-off implied in different functional diversification strategies using a panel data analysis over the period 1989-2004. A higher share of non-interest income in total income affects banks' franchise values positively. Diversification of revenue streams from distinct financial activities increases the systematic risk of banks while the effect on the idiosyncratic risk component is non-linear and predominantly downward-sloping. These findings have conflicting implications for different stakeholders, such as investors, bank shareholders, bank managers and bank supervisors.

The Association Between Market and Exchange Rate Risks and Accounting Variables: A GARCH Model of the Japanese Banking Institutions

This study has two purposes. First, it estimates the market, interest rate, and exchange rate sensitivities (betas) of the Japanese banking institutions. Second, it investigates the relationship between the market-based measures of risk and accounting-based financial ratios. We extend the literature in three important ways. First, we employ a multi-factor GARCH model to estimate the betas. This framework incorporates non-linearities in the bank stock return modeling and allows for time-varying risk premia. Second, we investigate the determinants of market and exchange rate risk in terms of bank financial ratios. To this end, we regress the beta measures derived from the GARCH model against the corporate decision variables to determine the direction and the magnitude of the impact of the latter on the market and exchange rate risk exposures. Third, by using data on the Japanese banking institutions, we provide a comparison of the bank interest rate and exchange rate sensitivities and the strength of the links between the risk measure and the corporate decision variables between the U.S. and the Japanese banking institutions. This comparison sheds light on the robustness of the results concerning interest rate and exchange rate risk, and their determinants, across the two countries. Several interesting results are obtained. First, empirical results indicate that interest rate is only occasionally significant while market and exchange rate variables are significant for all the banks in the sample. Second, market and exchange rate risk measures do impound information in the financial ratios with the explanatory power of the market beta model being higher than that of the exchange rate beta model. Third, the association of the market-based risk measures and the financial ratios is weaker for the Japanese banks than those found for their U.S. counterparts in the existing literature.

Ratings versus market-based measures of default risk in portfolio governance

This paper assesses whether ratings or market-based credit risk measures are more suitable for formulating portfolio governance rules. Such rules, which consist of buy and sell restrictions, are commonly used in investment management. Based on data from 1983 to 2002, it is not evident that one of the two measures is superior. The relative power of the two measures in predicting defaults depend on the investor’s investment horizon and risk appetite. The results support the agencies’ claim that their policy of reducing rating volatility, which builds on the though-the-cycle approach and the avoidance of frequent rating reversals, is beneficial to bond investors. The results also suggest that widely used statistical measures of rating quality may be insufficient to judge the economic value of rating information in specific contexts.

DO AUDITORS ASSESS THE SYSTEMATIC MARKET RISK IN THEIR AUDIT PRICING DECISIONS? INTERNATIONAL EVIDENCE

Abstract This study investigates whether auditors assess the systematic market risk in their audit pricing decisions. According to the audit pricing model of Simunic (1980) , the audit fee is a function of the audit effort and the auditor’s client specific risk. Since an auditor has several clients, the systematic risk of a firm should be taken into account in audit pricing. To empirically investigate this issue across different environments, data from Denmark, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Norway, Singapore, South Africa, and the United Kingdom are analyzed. The results of statistical tests show that the market-based risk measure explains auditing fees in addition to the risk measures based on accounting information. However, the performance of the model differs across countries. Moreover, the impacts of the variables in explaining audit fees vary across countries. These findings are in accordance with the proposition of Cobbin (2002) according to which cultural sensitive and market specific variables could potentially have a significant impact on audit fees paid.