Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in AbstractCredit derivatives are the latest in a series of innovations that have had a significant impact on credit markets. Using a micro data set of individual corporate loans, this paper explores whether use of credit derivatives is associated with an increase in bank credit supply. We find evidence that greater use of credit derivatives is associated with greater supply of bank credit for large term loans-newly negotiated loan extensions to large corporate borrowers-though not for (previously negotiated) commitment lending. This finding suggests that the benefits of the growth of credit derivatives may be narrow, accruing mainly to large firms that are likely to be "named credits" in these transactions. Further, the impact is primarily on the terms of lending-longer loan maturity and lower spreads-rather than on loan volume. Finally, use of credit derivatives appears to be complementary to other forms of hedging by banks.

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in AbstractWe find evidence that the Federal Reserve stress tests (CCAR and DFAST) produce information about the stress-tested firms as well as other, non-stress-tested banking companies. Although standard event studies do not always show abnormal returns for the stress-tested sample on average, we argue that such tests are ill-suited for this sort of information event. Using a different empirical approach, we show that around stress test announcement dates, the absolute value of the cumulative abnormal returns (|CAR|) of stress-tested bank holding companies averages almost 3 percent. Cumulative abnormal trading volumes are more than 1 percentage point higher than a market model would predict. Absolute value abnormal returns and volumes are higher for more levered and riskier firms. We explore several theoretical hypotheses outlined in Goldstein and Sapra (2014) but find no evidence of negative welfare costs associated with the disclosure of stress test results.

We explore the impact of supervision on the riskiness, profitability, and growth of U.S. banks. Using data on supervisors' time use, we demonstrate that the top‐ranked banks by size within a supervisory district receive more attention from supervisors, even after controlling for size, complexity, risk, and other characteristics. Using a matched sample approach, we find that these top‐ranked banks that receive more supervisory attention hold less risky loan portfolios, are less volatile, and are less sensitive to industry downturns, but do not have lower growth or profitability. Our results underscore the distinct role of supervision in mitigating banking sector risk.

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in AbstractDespite recent innovations that might have reduced banks' reliance on brick-and-mortar branches for distributing retail financial services, the number of U.S. bank branches has continued to increase steadily over time. Further, an increasing percentage of these branches are held by banks with large branch networks. This paper assesses the implications of these developments by examining a series of simple branch performance measures and asking how these measures vary, on average, across institutions with different branch network sizes.The key findings are that banks with 100 to 500 branches ("mid-sized networks") had lower bank-average deposits per branch and roughly equal volumes of small business loans per branch, but no reduction in net deposit costs, relative to banks with larger branch networks. When compared to banks with 100 or fewer branches, mid-sized branch networks had lower bank-average deposits and small business loan volume per branch, but had lower net deposit costs. The analysis shows no systematic relationship between branch network size and overall institutional profitability. The results imply that mid-sized branch networks may be at a competitive disadvantage, especially relative to the very largest branch networks.

No abstract