The regulation of bank capital as a means of smoothing the credit cycle is a central element of forthcoming macro‐prudential regimes internationally. For such regulation to be effective in controlling the aggregate supply of credit it must be the case that: (i) changes in capital requirements affect loan supply by regulated banks, and (ii) unregulated substitute sources of credit are unable to offset changes in credit supply by affected banks. This paper examines micro evidence—lacking to date—on both questions, using a unique data set. In the UK, regulators have imposed time‐varying, bank‐specific minimum capital requirements since Basel I. It is found that regulated banks (UK‐owned banks and resident foreign subsidiaries) reduce lending in response to tighter capital requirements. But unregulated banks (resident foreign branches) increase lending in response to tighter capital requirements on a relevant reference group of regulated banks. This “leakage” is substantial, amounting to about one‐third of the initial impulse from the regulatory change.

We examine the impact of large-scale asset purchases of government bonds on real GDP and the CPI in the United Kingdom and the United States with a Bayesian VAR, estimated on monthly data from 2009 M3 to 2013 M5. We identify an asset purchase shock with sign and zero restrictions. In contrast to the impulse response analysis in previous work, the reactions of real GDP and CPI are left unrestricted, so as formally to test whether these variables are affected by asset purchases. We then explore the transmission channels to the domestic economy and emerging markets. Our results suggest that asset purchases have a statistically significant effect on real GDP with a purchase of 1% of GDP leading to a .36% (.18%) rise in real GDP and a .38% (.3%) rise in CPI for the United States (United Kingdom). In the United States, this policy lowers yields on long-term government bonds and the real exchange rate. In the United Kingdom, on other hand, interest rate futures and measures of financial market uncertainty are more affected. There is also some evidence that emerging market sovereign bond and corporate bond spreads decline, with industrial production rising in response a positive asset purchase shock in either country.

We use a panel VAR to study the effect of shocks to capital inflows, which are identified using sign restrictions, on the housing market in OECD countries. To explore how effects of these shocks change with the structure of the mortgage market and the degree of mortgage securitization, we allow the VAR coefficients to vary with mortgage-market characteristics. Our results indicate that capital-inflow shocks have a significant and positive effect on real house prices, real credit available to the private sector, and real residential investment. The responses of these variables are stronger in countries with more developed mortgage markets and in countries where securitization is allowed.

No abstract

No abstract