Do Strict Capital Requirements Raise the Cost of Capital? Bank Regulation, Capital Structure, and the Low-Risk Anomaly
Authors:
Top Cited Papers
- 1 May 2015
- journal article
- Published by American Economic Association in American Economic Review
- Vol. 105 (5) , 315-320
Abstract
Traditional capital structure theory predicts that reducing banks' leverage reduces the risk and cost of equity but does not change the weighted average cost of capital, and thus the rates for borrowers. We confirm that the equity of better-capitalized banks has lower beta and idiosyncratic risk. However, over the last 40 years, lower risk banks have not had lower costs of equity (lower stock returns), consistent with a stock market anomaly previously documented in other samples. A calibration suggests that a binding ten percentage point increase in Tier 1 capital to risk-weighted assets could double banks' risk premia over Treasury bills.Keywords
All Related Versions
This publication has 10 references indexed in Scilit:
- The Low-Risk Anomaly: A Decomposition into Micro and Macro EffectsCFA Magazine, 2014
- Betting against betaJournal of Financial Economics, 2014
- Maxing out: Stocks as lotteries and the cross-section of expected returnsJournal of Financial Economics, 2011
- Benchmarks as Limits to Arbitrage: Understanding the Low-Volatility AnomalyCFA Magazine, 2011
- The Pricing of Volatility and Skewness: A New InterpretationThe Journal of Investing, 2009
- Who Gambles in the Stock Market?The Journal of Finance, 2009
- High idiosyncratic volatility and low returns: International and further U.S. evidenceJournal of Financial Economics, 2009
- Stocks as Lotteries: The Implications of Probability Weighting for Security PricesAmerican Economic Review, 2008
- The Cross‐Section of Volatility and Expected ReturnsThe Journal of Finance, 2006
- Returns-Chasing Behavior, Mutual Funds, and Beta's DeathJournal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 2002