metadata: authors: 0: author: Laeven,Luc A.
count: World
docna: 0: docna: Banking risks around the world - the
            implicit safety net subsidy approach
docty: Policy Research Working Paper
subtopic: Legal Institutions of the Market Economy,Inflation,Deposit Insurance,Financial Structures,Financial Sector Policy
teratopic: Finance and Financial Sector Development
abstracts: cdata!: The author calculates gross safety net
            subsidies for a large sample of banks in 12 countries, to
            assess the relationship between the risk-taking behavior of
            banks, and certain ban characteristics. He finds that gross
            safety net subsidies are higher for banks that have
            concentrated ownership, that are affiliated with a business
            group, that are small, or that have high credit growth, and
            for banks in countries with low GDP per capita, high
            inflation, or poor quality, and enforcement of the legal
            system. These findings suggest that the moral hazard
            behavior of a bank depends on its institutional environment,
            and its corporate governance structure. The author also
            presents a matrix that shows estimates of safety net
            subsidies for a range of given combinations of equity
            volatilities, and equity-to-deposit ratios. These figures
            could be used as input to an early warning system, for both
            individual, and systemic banking problems.
repnme: repnme: Banking risks around the world - the
            implicit safety net subsidy approach
display_title: Banking risks around the world - the
            implicit safety net subsidy approach
listing_relative_url: /research/2000/11/717436/banking-risks-around-world-implicit-safety-net-subsidy-approach
topicv3: Inflation m1326709 0870F4727ACED1CF8525815C00471347,Deposit Insurance m1326722 322,Market Discipline m1326726 1248,Financial Sector Development m1327681 1920,Financial Institutions m1505015 3797
publishtoextweb_dt: 2010-07-01T00:00:00Z
historic_topic: Finance and Financial Sector Development
origu: Financial Sector Practice (FSP)
no_of_pages: 40
author_keys: 0: author_key: 440021
model_extractions: | POLICY RESEARCH WORKING PAPER 2473

# **Summary findings**

Laeven calculates gross safety net subsidies for a large sample of banks in 12 countries to assess the relationship between the risk-taking behavior of banks and certain bank characteristics. He finds that gross safety net subsidies are higher for banks that have concentrated ownership, that are affiliated with a business group,<sup>that</sup> are small, or that have high credit growth, and for banks in countries with low GDP per capita, high inflation,<sup>or</sup> poor quality and enforcement of the legal system. These findings suggest that the moral hazard behavior of<sup>a bank</sup> depends on its institutional environment and its corporate governance structure.

Laeven also presents a matrix that shows estimates<sup>of</sup> safety net subsidies for a range of given combinations<sup>of</sup> equity volatilities and equity-to-deposit ratios. These figures could be used as input to an early warning system for both individual and systemic banking problems.

This paper-a product of the Financial Sector Strategy<sup>and Policy Department-is part of a larger effort in the department</sup> to study the performance and risks of banks. Copies<sup>of the paper are available free from the World Bank, 1818 H Street</sup> NW, Washington, DC 20433. Please contact Rose Vo, room<sup>MC9-624, telephone 202-473-3722, fax 202-522-2031, email</sup> address hvo2@worldbank.org. Policy Research Working<sup>Papers are also posted on the Web at www.worldbank.org/</sup> research/workingpapers. The author may be contacted<sup>at llaeven@worldbank.org. November 2000. (34 pages)</sup> _The Policy Research Working Paper Series disseminates_<sup>_the findings of work in progress to encourage the exchange of ideas about_</sup> _development issues. An objective_ **_of_** _the series is to_<sup>_get the findings out quickly, even if the presentations are less than_</sup><sup>**_fully_**</sup><sup>_polished. The_</sup> _papers carry the names of the authors and should_ **_be_** _cited_<sup>_accordingly. The findings, inteipretations, and conclusions expressed_</sup><sup>**_in_**</sup><sup>_this_</sup> _paper are entirely those_ **_of_** _the authors. They do not_<sup>_necessarily represent the view_</sup><sup>**_of_**</sup><sup>_the World Bank, its Executive Directors, or the_</sup> _countries they represent._ Produced by the Policy Research Dissemination Center
# **Banking Risks Around the World**

The Implicit Safety Net Subsidy Approach Luc Laeven<sup>1</sup>

**JEL Classification:** G13, G21

Keywords: Banking, Risk taking, Ownership,<sup>Deposit Insurance, Option Pricing</sup> 'The World Bank, Llaeven@worldbank.org,<sup>Tel. 202-4582939. The author would like to thank Thorsten</sup> Beck, Jerry Caprio, Stijn Claessens,<sup>Asli DemirgUc,-Kunt, Simeon Djankov, Patrick Honohan, George</sup> Pennacchi, Sweder van Wijnbergen,<sup>and semninar participants at the World Bank Financial Economics</sup> Seminar for valuable comments,<sup>and Ying Lin for excellent research assistance.</sup>
# **Introduction**

Banking crises have not only<sup>shown that banks often take excessive risks, but that risk</sup> taking differs across banks.<sup>Some banks engage in more risks than their capital can bear</sup> in case the downside potential<sup>of the risks fully materializes, in which case these banks</sup> need to be intervened or even<sup>closed down. Others are more prudent and would be able to</sup> weather a banking crisis.<sup>It is not well known whether different types of banks take</sup> different risks. In this study,<sup>we will analyze a large sample of banks in different</sup> countries to see whether there<sup>is a relationship between bank characteristics such as its</sup> ownership structure and its risk-taking<sup>behavior. We measure the degree of risk-taking by</sup> the size of the gross subsidy that<sup>has been extended to the bank by the safety net. This so-</sup> called implicit gross safety net<sup>subsidy is calculated by applying a well-known technique</sup> that models deposit insurance as<sup>a put option on the bank's assets.</sup> We find empirical support of<sup>our method to assess the risks of a bank. Gross safety</sup> net subsidies are higher for<sup>banks in crisis countries and have some power in predicting</sup> bank distress. We also find<sup>for countries with explicit deposit insurance schemes that</sup> deposit insurance has been<sup>underpriced on average for the sarnple period of 1991-98. In</sup> other words, banks have been<sup>subsidized by governments. We find that gross subsidies</sup> are higher for banks with<sup>concentrated ownership, especially for banks that are</sup> predominantly owned by a<sup>single company, another financial institution, and to a lesser</sup> extent by a single family or individual.<sup>Banks with dispersed ownership, on the other</sup> hand, are found to engage into<sup>a relatively low degree of risk-taking, as measured by the</sup> level of gross safety net subsidy.<sup>We also find that gross safety net subsidies are higher</sup> for banks that are affiliated<sup>to a business group, that are small and/or have high credit</sup> growth, and for banks in countries<sup>with low GDP per capita, high inflation rates, poor</sup> quality and enforcement of the<sup>legal systems, low bank concentration, and/or low foreign</sup> bank penetration. Section 1 reviews<sup>the relevant literature of deposit insurance. Section 2</sup> presents the methodology we apply<sup>to calculate gross safety net subsidies. Section 3</sup> describes the data. Section 4<sup>presents descriptive statistics of our calculated gross safety</sup> net subsidies. Section 5 presents<sup>our empirical findings. Section 6 concludes.</sup> 2
# 1. **Literature**

Many countries have implemented deposit insurance schemes to provide liquidity to banks in case of bank runs and to prevent bank runs from happening. In most countries that have explicit deposit insurance schemes, deposits are only insured up to a certain limit, so-called partial deposit insurance. In some countries, such as Turkey, deposits are insured in full, so-called complete deposit insurance. The advantage of complete deposit insurance is that bank runs are fully eliminated. On the other hand, complete deposit insurance destroys all potentially beneficial information production and monitoring by depositors. Bhattacharya, Boot and Thakor (1998) show that partial governmental deposit insurance encourages market discipline through bank monitoring by informed depositors, and that regulatory measures such as limited regulatory forbearance and tough bank closure rules may control bank risk taking. They argue that underlying the partial insurance conclusion is the presumption that informed depositors - with their own endowments at risk - will monitor banks better than governmental regulators do.

Demirguic-Kunt and Huizinga (1999) find empirical evidence that the adoption of an explicit deposit scheme involves a trade-off between increased depositor safety and reduced market discipline on banks by their creditors, while Demirgiiu-Kunt and Detragiache (1999) provide empirical evidence using a large sample of countries that explicit deposit insurance increases banking system vulnerability in countries with weak institutional environments.

Since Merton (1977), deposit insurance has typically been modeled in the literature as a put option on the bank's assets. Marcus and Shaked (1984) were the first to implement Merton's (1977) model and test the issue of over/underpricing of insurance premium empirically. Romn and Verma (1986) claim that Marcus and Shaked (1984) incorrectly look at the pre-insurance value of bank assets. They design a model that looks at the post-insurance value of bank assets and that incorporates capital forbearance by the bank regulators.

Duan (1994) develops a maximum likelihood framework to estimate the value of the deposit insurance. The approach in Duan (1994) has been improved by Duan and Yu (1999) who employ the recently developed GARCH option pricing technique in determining the deposit insurance value instead of the Black and Scholes (1973) option 3
pricing framework. Empirical studies<sup>have demonstrated that financial asset returns</sup> exhibit many robust features such as fat-tailed<sup>return distributions that are incompatible</sup> with the Black and Scholes (1973) model.<sup>The GARCH option pricing model has been</sup> found to outperform its Black and Scholes<sup>(1973) counterpart.</sup> The above methods have been applied<sup>in a number of empirical studies. Few of</sup> those studies, however, look at developing<sup>countries. Duan and Yu (1994) calculate</sup> insurance premiums for ten listed depository<sup>institutions in Taiwan for 1985-1992. They</sup> use Duan's (1994) maximum likelihood<sup>estimation method to assess fair deposit</sup> insurance premiums. Their findings<sup>indicate that these institutions were heavily</sup> subsidized by the deposit insuring agency<sup>except in 1989. Duan and Yu (1994) also use</sup> Ronn and Verma's (1986) method and find<sup>significantly different estimates than with</sup> Duan's (1994) method. Fries, Mason and Perraudin<sup>(1993) employ Ronn and Verma's</sup> (1986) method on 16 banks in Japan for<sup>the period 1975-1992. They find that Japanese</sup> institutions were heavily subsidized by<sup>the deposit insuring agency. Kaplan (1998)</sup> applies Duan's (1994) method to calculate<sup>risk-adjusted deposit premiums for 15 Thai</sup> banks during 1992-97. Kaplan (1998) interprets<sup>deposit insurance as a contributing factor</sup> to banking crises. Deposit insurance, as a government<sup>guarantee to the banking system,</sup> acts as a subsidy to banks. As banks try to<sup>increases this subsidy by growing rapidly and</sup> undertaking riskier lending, they create conditions<sup>that make banking crises more likely.</sup> Kaplan finds that Thai commercial banks had been<sup>receiving large subsidies even prior to</sup> the crisis. Moreover, those banks with the highest<sup>insurance subsidies were the banks that</sup> were nationalized, closed, intervened, or sold<sup>to foreigners in 1998.</sup> We will follow Kaplan (1998) by claiming<sup>that the level of the gross safety net</sup> subsidy extended to the bank is a measure<sup>of the risk-taking of that particular bank. We</sup> will estimate the gross safety net subsidies<sup>by calculating the risk-adjusted deposit</sup> insurance premiums that banks should have<sup>been paying under a risk-adjusted deposit</sup> insurance scheme giving their amount of<sup>risk-taking. Since no country actually has</sup> implemented a market-based risk-adjusted<sup>deposit insurance scheme2, the risk-adjusted</sup> deposit insurance premium will be a fictitious<sup>premium.</sup>

> 2 Although countries with an explicit deposit insurance scheme have mostly designed flat rate deposit insurance schemes, a number of countries do have<sup>small variations in deposit insurance premia that are</sup> intended to reflect differences in risk. Such differential systems<sup>are, however, not market-based.</sup>

4
In fact, Chan, Greenbaum and Thakor (1992) show that it is impossible to implement a risk-sensitive deposit insurance pricing scheme that is incentive compatible unless banks are permitted access to rents, either through explicit regulatory subsidies or through restricted entry into banking.

In countries with an explicit deposit insurance scheme, the difference between the gross safety net subsidy and the deposit insurance premiums that the banks actually pay to the deposit insurance fund is essentially the net subsidy extended to the bank by the safety net of the country. Deposit insurance would be underpriced if the net subsidy is positive. Since we are not specifically interested in the issue of over- or underpricing of deposit insurance, but merely in estimating overall banking risks we will focus on the level of gross subsidies.

# 2. **Methodology**

In this section we will describe Merton's (1977) model of deposit insurance that can be used to calculate implicit safety net subsidies, and the implementations of the model by Ronn and Verma (1986) and Duan (1994). We then describe our preferred method. Consider a firm with assets $ V that issues a single homogeneous debt and promises to pay _$B_ at maturity date T. Merton (1977) shows the impact of a third-party guarantee of the payment to the bondholders where there is no uncertainty about the obligation of the guarantee being met. At maturity date, the value of the firm's equity is the same with or without third-party guarantee, namnely max(O, V - _B);_ the value of the debt is always B; and the value of the guarantor's claim is min(O, _V- B)._ In effect, the guarantee creates an additional cash inflow to the firm of -min(O, V - _B)_ dollars, which can be rewritten as max(O, B - _V)._ Hence, the payoff structure of the loan guarantee is identical with that of a put option, where the promised payment B corresponds to the exercise price, and the value of the firm's assets V corresponds to the common stock's price.

Merton (1977) applies this model to a bank for which the debt issue corresponds to deposits. Because most deposits are of the demand type, the model assumption of termdebt issue is not strictly applicable. However, if one interprets the length of time until maturity as the length until the next audit of the bank's assets, then from the point of view of the guarantor, deposits can be treated as if they were term and interest bearing. Two _5_
more assumptions are made. First,<sup>it is assumed that deposits equal total bank debt and</sup> that both principal and interest are<sup>insured. The insured deposits will be riskless and their</sup> current value can be written as D =<sup>B exp(-rT) .Second, it is assumed that the bank's</sup> asset values follow geometric Brownian<sup>motion.</sup>

# _dlnV, =,udt+o1W,_

where V is the value of assets, p is<sup>the instantaneous expected return on assets, a is</sup> instantaneous expected standard deviation<sup>of assets returns, and W indicates a standard</sup> Wiener process. The Black-Scholes option-pricing<sup>model can be used to value the deposit</sup> insurance per unit of deposits where h _=-_ , g is the value of the deposit insurance<sup>guarantee</sup> per dollar of insured deposits, P is the<sup>cumulative normal distribution function, T is the</sup> time until maturity of the debt, t is time,<sup>D is the face value of the debt, and 5 is the</sup> (annualized) dividend yield (annual dividend<sup>payment per dollar of equity).</sup> In order to implement the model, the two unobservable<sup>variables, the bank's asset</sup> value V and the volatility parameter a,<sup>have to be estimated. Ronn and Verma (1986)</sup> suggest using two restrictions for the<sup>identification of these two unknowns. The first</sup> restriction is obtained by viewing the<sup>equity value of the bank, which is directly</sup> observable, as a call option on the bank's<sup>assets with a strike price equal to the value of</sup> the bank's debt 6
11-V _f(T_ _-t)_ where _d,_ =2 Ronn and Verma (1986) model equity as being dividend protected and therefore dividends do not appear in the previous equation. The BlackScholes formula thus defines a one-to-one mapping between the unknown asset value and the observed equity value.

The relationship between the equity and asset volatility, which can be obtained by applying Ito's Lemma to equation (3), is used by Ronn and Verma (1986) as the second restriction where<sup>**_0_**</sup> **_E_** is the standard deviation of equity retums. The derivation of equation (4) can be found in the Appendix.

Since the market value of equity is observable and the equity volatility can be estimated, two nonlinear restrictions are now in place for identifying two unknowns. Using data on total debt (deposits), bank equity, and equity volatility, equations (3) and (4) can be solved simultaneously for V and cJ. Given these values, equation (2) is used to solve for the value of deposit insurance per dollar of deposits, which we interpret as the gross safety net subsidy. In order for this approach to be valid, the time until maturity, T, of the put and call options must be the same. Ronn and Verma (1986) use Merton's (1977) assumption that the time until maturity of the debt is equal to the time until the next audit. They interpret the strike price of the put option to be equal to total debt of the bank instead of total deposits only. This assumes that all the debts of the bank are insured and that they are issued at the risk-free interest rate.

From equations (2)-(4) it follows that the implicit safety net subsidies can be expressed as a function of only three known variables: the equity volatility, the ratio of equity to deposits, and the dividend yield. Table 1 in the Appendix presents this relationship for a range of equity volatility and equity-to-deposits values.

Duan (1994) shows that Ronn and Verma's (1986) method is problematic from a statistical point of view, since they estimate instantaneous equity volatility by the sample standard deviation of daily equity retums. This estimator is, however, not efficient and 7
imposes equity volatility to be constant.<sup>Such an assumption is inconsistent with the</sup> assumption of Merton's (1977) theoretical<sup>model that equity volatility is stochastic.</sup> Duan (1994) has developed a maximum<sup>likelihood framework to estimate the value</sup> of the deposit insurance which<sup>is consistent with the assumption of Merton's (1977)</sup> theoretical model that equity volatility<sup>is stochastic. By the process in (1), the one-period</sup> transition density of the unobserved<sup>values of the bank's assets can be characterized by</sup> ln(V,+, / _V )_ N(p,o-<sup>2</sup> _)_ . Therefore,<sup>the log-likelihood function for a sample of unobserved</sup> V, can be expressed as: Since the call-option formula (3) is<sup>an element-by-element transformation from an</sup> unobserved sample of asset values<sup>to an observed time series of equity values, we can</sup> write the log-likelihood function for<sup>the observed sample of equity values as:</sup> with t _= 1,_ ...,n, and where V,(cr)is<sup>the unique solution to (3) for any c, and</sup> _d,_ corresponds to d, with V, _(a)_ in place<sup>of</sup><sup>_V,._In the above expression, we have used the</sup> fact that _aE, I a Vt = CD(d, )._ With the log-likelihood function in<sup>(6), an iterative optimization routine can be</sup> used to compute the maximum likelihood<sup>estimates. Given starting values for</sup><sup>_,u_anda</sup> and data on equity values _E,_ and<sup>debt D,, equation (3) can be solved to yield a series of</sup> bank asset values V,. Equation (6)<sup>is then used to solve for</sup><sup>_Ai_and v. This process is</sup> iterated to find the maximum likelihood<sup>estimates of</sup><sup>_,A_and</sup><sup>_6,_and their standard errors.</sup> Using the put option formula for<sup>deposit insurance (2), one can solve for the value of the</sup> guarantee per dollar of deposits and<sup>its standard error. Although from a theoretical point</sup> of view, the maximum likelihood method<sup>as developed in Duan (1994) and in Duan and</sup> 8
Yu (1999) has some adyantages,, this method is extremely difficult to implement in practice, because it requires a lot of computation time, especially for a large set of observations<sup>3</sup> , and because it requires high-frequency data on deposits, which is generally not available. Extrapolation of the end-year observations of the level of deposits to get high-frequency data on deposits would definitely lead to a poor estimate of C&.

Although Duan (1994) correctly points out that the sample standard deviation of stock returns is not an efficient estimator for instantaneous equity volatility, rejecting Ronn and Verma (1986)'s method for this reason seems too strong. It is well-known that the variance of a time series can be accurately estimated over a relatively short time interval by using high-frequency data. An estimate for equity variance, which theoretically should be the equity variance at a single point in time, is therefore unlikely to be much affected by estimating it using a discrete interval of time, as long as the leverage of the bank has not changed drastically over the estimation interval. The advantage of the Ronn and Verma (1986) method is that it does not require highfrequency data on deposits, but only year-end observations. For the above reasons we decide to use the theoretically less prudent, but widely applied method developed by Ronn and Verna (1986) to compute the gross safety net subsidies.

The gross subsidy is calculated as if all deposits are fully insured. Many countries, however, do not have an explicit deposit insurance scheme in place in which every bank pays a certain premium to a deposit insurance fund. Nevertheless many governments are expected to guarantee depositor's funds, i.e. there is so-called implicit deposit insurance. In a banking system with an implicit deposit insurance scheme, the value of the deposit insurance put option can be seen as a subsidy provided by the government to the bank which fully accrues to the welfare of the depositors. Most explicit deposit insurance schemes provide partial insurance by insuring deposits up to a certain level for which the bank pays a (usually fixed) fee to the deposit insurance fund. If the premium paid by the bank is lower than the gross subsidy, deposit insurance will be underpriced.

We make the assumption that the next audit of the bank will take place in one year, and that the maturity of the debt equals one year as well (T=1). We thus model deposit

> 3 We have implemented both Ronn and Verma's (1986) and Duan's (1994) method to a subset of our sample of banks. While our program based upon Ronn and Verma's (1986) method provides an estimate of the gross safety net subsidy in a number of seconds, convergence of our program based upon Duan's (1994) method could take several hours for a single observation.

9
insurance as a limited term (one-year)<sup>contract. Since it is likely that the government will</sup> give the bank some forbearance<sup>after it finds out that the bank is undercapitalized</sup> modeling deposit insurance as<sup>a one year contract seems to be restrictive. Pennacchi</sup> (1987) allows for unlimited term<sup>contracts and shows that the assumption of a limited</sup> term contract can underestimate the<sup>cost of insurance.</sup> It is clear that the cost of insurance<sup>should have been higher if the audit indicates</sup> that a bank is undercapitalized<sup>and the government decides to give the bank some time</sup> instead of forcing it to immediately<sup>increase its capital ratio. Since the level of regulatory</sup> control is unknown _ex ante_ we prefer<sup>to model deposit insurance as a limited term</sup> contract, acknowledging that<sup>our annual gross safety net subsidies might be</sup> underestimated. As long as a possible<sup>underestimation is similar across banks our method</sup> remains valid for comparative purposes.<sup>Moreover it is likely that regulatory control is</sup> weaker in countries with weak banks,<sup>so that we would underestimate the gross safety net</sup> subsidies of the most risky banks.<sup>Any comparative results we find using a limited term</sup> contract would thus probably have<sup>been even stronger had we modeled deposit insurance</sup> in a multi-period environment.

We estimate annual equity volatility<sup>by using a sample of daily equity returns. We</sup> exclude an observation if during<sup>that day it is announced that the bank will be</sup> restructured, merged or closed down,<sup>since such announcements tend to lead to large</sup> jumps in share prices, that have a<sup>distortionary effect on the accuracy of the estimated</sup> volatility of equity returns. As a second<sup>correction we standardize our estimate of annual</sup> equity volatility across countries<sup>by converting each sample period to 252 days, since the</sup> number of trading days is different<sup>across countries. After these two corrections, our</sup> estimate of equity volatility **_o-E_** can<sup>be written as follows</sup> where T is the actual number of<sup>trading days minus those trading days on which large</sup> jumps occurred, and<sup>_cE,T_</sup> is the bank's equity volatility based<sup>upon T trading days.</sup> 10
# 3. **Data**

We have selected our sample of countries and banks as follows. We want to include a number of Asian countries to see whether the gross safety net subsidies are different between countries that have been heavily affected by the East Asian financial crisis of 1997 and countries that have not. As a second control group we include a number of highly developed Western countries, which are expected to provide us a benchmark for a low degree of risk taking. To assess the impacts of the crisis we need data for the crisis years 1997-98 as well as for some years before the crisis. Within each country we restrict our sample to the number of exchange listed banks, since we need data on bank market capitalization and dividend yields.

We have collected data on daily stock market capitalization and annualized dividend yields from Datastream. Total deposits at year end, net loans at year end and ownership data are taken from BankScope. For missing observations we have consulted Bloomberg. Ownership data is collected as follows. We distinguish between four concentrated ownership forms. State-owned (the state, treasury, military or other government-institution owns shares in the bank), family-owned (a family or individual owns shares in the bank), company-owned (a manufacturing company owns shares in the bank), and owned by another financial institution (another financial institution owns shares in the bank). Banks that have no concentrated owners (dispersed ownership) are classified as being widely held. We define a number of ownership dummnies that are related to the above classification of ownership and that are based upon different thresholds of shareholdings. Our threshold for a majority shareholding is 50% of shares, and our threshold for a major shareholding is 20% of shares.

We have also collected country-specific data. GDP per capita figures and inflation rates are taken from International Financial Statistics (IFS) of the International Monetary Fund (IMF). As a proxy for the quality and enforcement of the legal system of a country we have collected figures from the Law and Order index of the International Country Risk Guide (ICRG), published by Political Risk Service. The Law and Order index ranges from 0 to 6, with a higher figures indicating a higher quality or less risk. Law and Order are assessed separately, with each sub-component comprising zero to three points. The Law sub-component is an assessment of the strength and impartiality of the legal 11
system, while the Order sub-component is an assessment<sup>of popular observance of the</sup> law. Data on bank concentration and foreign bank penetration<sup>are taken from the World</sup> Bank Financial Structure Database. Finally, we have<sup>taken data from Demirgui,-Kunt and</sup> Huizinga (1999) on the features of the deposit<sup>insurance scheme of a country, in</sup> particular whether insurance is implicit or explicit<sup>and how large the explicit insurance</sup> premiums are.

Our data set includes listed banks from 12<sup>countries, namely the four East Asian</sup> crisis countries (Indonesia, South Korea, Malaysia,<sup>and Thailand), four other countries in</sup> South East Asia (Hong Kong, Japan, Singapore, and<sup>Taiwan), and the four major</sup> Western countries to provide for a benchmark (France,<sup>Germany, UK and US). Across</sup> these 12 countries we have collected data on 137 listed<sup>banks during the period 1991-98.</sup> The banks in our sample include most of the major<sup>listed banks in the country4.The</sup> features of the deposit insurance schemes of the 12<sup>countries are presented in Table 2 of</sup> the Appendix.

To limit the large number of listed banks in Japan, we<sup>only look at the long-term</sup> credit banks (3 in total), the city banks (9 in total), and<sup>the trust banks (7 in total), thereby</sup> excluding the mostly smaller regional banks (127 in total).<sup>To limit the large number of</sup> listed banks in the US, we only include the 22 largest<sup>US banks, namely the multinational</sup> banks (6 in total) and the super regional banks (16 in total) as defined<sup>by Goldman Sachs.</sup> For the 137 banks we have collected a total of 917 observations<sup>across eight years.</sup> Data is missing for 179 observations for a number of<sup>reasons. Some banks have not</sup> reported accounting data for each year, some banks only listed<sup>at a certain point in the</sup> sample period, and some banks were de-listed during<sup>the sample period, because of</sup> government intervention or merger activity.<sup>5</sup> Missing observations<sup>for the year 1998 are</sup> 4 The distribution of the number of banks across countries is as follows (with the number of banks between brackets): France (4), Germany (8), Hong Kong (12), Indonesia<sup>(8), Japan (19), Korea (22), Malaysia (10),</sup> Singapore (5), Taiwan (8), Thailand (12), United Kingdom (7), US (22).

5 In Indonesia, Bank Tiara Asia, a private foreign exchange bank,<sup>was taken over in 1998 by the Indonesian</sup> Bank Restructuring Agency and is therefore missing for 1998. Although Indonesian<sup>Bank Danamon</sup> merged with state-owned bank PDCFI in 1998, both banks continued<sup>reporting separately for another year,</sup> so that we could include Bank Danamon's 1998 data. For Japan, two<sup>long-term credit banks have been de-</sup> listed - Long Term Credit Bank on October 26h, 1998 and Nippon Credit<sup>Bank on December</sup> **14**<sup>**th,**1998 -</sup> and have been nationalized. Since both banks did report 1998 deposit data, we were<sup>able to include the</sup> 1998 data of those two banks as well. For Malaysia, we did not include<sup>Kwong Yik Bank, because this</sup> bank was acquired by RHB Capital and officially de-listed on August<sup>26h, 1997. For Korea, we exclude</sup> Commercial Bank of Korea and Korea Long Term Credit Bank, because they were<sup>not listed, and</sup> Donghwa Bank, because it only started to operate in 1996. The<sup>sample of Korean banks changes in 1998</sup> 12
largely due to bank restructuring that took place after the East Asian financial crisis of 1997.

# 4. Safety Net Subsidies

We have calculated annual gross safety net subsidies as one-year put options on the value of bank assets for the 137 banks for each of the years between 1991-98 using Ronn and Verma's (1986) method. For all the countries in our sample we find that the gross safety net subsidy is increasing over the time period from an average of 2 basis points (bp) per annum in 1991 to 216 bp per annum in 1998, and, more specifically, that the average subsidy is higher during the crisis period 1997-98 than during the pre-crisis years (see Appendix, Table 3.a).

Over the sample period, the gross safety net subsidy (averaged across all banks in the country and over all years) is highest for the four East Asian crisis countries Indonesia (154 bp), Thailand (136 bp), Korea (37 bp) and Malaysia (26 bp), and for Hong Kong (38 bp). The high subsidy of Hong Kong might be explained by contagion effects. The subsidy (averaged across all banks in the country and over all years) is lowest for the four highly developed Western countries Germany (0.18 bp), US (0.4 bp), UK (1.3 bp), and France (2.4 bp), and for Taiwan (1.3 bp). Taiwan's financial system is predominantly state-owned and banks are highly protected, which might be an explanation for our result that suggests that Taiwanese banks take low risks. The calculated subsidies of the remaining Asian countries Singapore (6 bp) and Japan (12 bp) are somewhere in the middle (see Appendix, Table 3.b, for further details).

The subsidies indicate that risk-taking is different among ownership forms. The gross subsidies across the different ownership forms are (in decreasing order of risk and due to merger activity. Commercial Bank of Korea and Hanil Bank merged in 1998 creating a new bank called Hanvit Bank, while Hana Bank announced on September 8'h, 1998 to merge with Boram Bank (to become effective in 1999). Korea First Bank has been sold to New Bridge Capital of the US as of December 30e, 1998, although trading was not suspended until June 25 , 1999, and Kookmin Bank announced a merger with Korea Long Term Credit Bank on August 25"', 1998. Accounting data for Seoul Bank continued to be reported until 1998, although the bank was nationalized in 1998, and subsequently sold to HSBC Bank on February 22nd, 1999. In Thailand, due to lack of data, we exclude Laem Thong Bank, Nakornthon Bank, and Union Bank of Bangkok. For 1998, we also do not have data on Bangkok Bank of Commerce, which was closed and de-listed in 1998, and on First Bangkok City Bank, which was acquired by the government in February of 1998 and merged with state-owned Krung Thai Bank in 1999.

13
with safety net subsidy averaged over all banks in the country and over all years between brackets): family (128 bp), company (91 bp), other financial institution (57 bp), state (36 bp), and widely (15 bp). These figures indicate that concentrated ownership links between banks and other parties, such as in the Japanese _keiretsu_ or the Korean _chaebol,_ increase risk-taking by banks, and that dispersed ownership of banks is to be preferred. The impact of state-ownership on risk-taking of a bank is found to be of an intermediate level (see Appendix, Table 3.c). Note that not all countries have banks with all four different ownership forms. In Western countries, for example, most banks are widely held. On the other extreme, in Indonesia most banks have concentrated ownership. In our sample, 32% of Indonesian banks have an owner that holds at least 20% of shares.

# **5. Empirical Analysis**

In the previous section we have quickly interpreted the summary statistics of the calculated gross safety net subsidies. Although those summary statistics show some clear patterns, we will conduct in this section a more accurate analysis of the differences of subsidies across countries, periods, and ownership forms using econometric techniques to control for bank-specific effects. We transform the variables with the logarithm operator. Calculated gross safety net subsidies, for example, are transformed as follows: _isubsidy = In(l+subsidy),_ where _subsidy_ is the gross safety net subsidy in basis points of total debt calculated using the Ronn and Verma (1986) method. With _Isubsidy_ as the dependent variable we estimate a series of OLS regression models. Our results will be presented with White's (1980) heteroskedasticity-consistent standard errors.

# **5.1 Ownership, Size and Credit Growth**

First, we regress the level of the gross safety net subsidies on a dispersed ownership dummy, country dummies and year dummies. The dispersed ownership dummy takes value one if no shareholder owns more than 5% of shares in the bank, and zero otherwise. The country dummies will control for differences in institutional environments across countries. We take the US and year 1991 as benchmark variables to prevent nulticollinearity. Table 4.a in the Appendix presents the results. We find that for the 14
period 1991-98 gross safety net subsidies to banks in France, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Taiwan, Thailand and UK were higher on average than to banks in the US. Notably, it are the banks in the crisis countries Indonesia (9.3 bp higher than US), Thailand (5.6 bp higher), Korea (4.4 bp higher), Malaysia (1.9 bp higher) and Hong Kong (1.9 bp higher) that received the highest gross subsidies, compared to the US (on average across all banks in the country and over all years). We also find that for the period 1991-98 gross safety net subsidies were high in 1992 (0.5 bp higher than 1991), and especially in 1997 (4.1 bp higher) and 1998 (15.7 bp higher), compared to 1991 (on average across all banks). This result is expected because 1997 and 1998 are the East Asian crisis years. Controlling for country and time effects, we find that widely held banks are less risky (received 0.2 bp less gross subsidy than banks with concentrated ownership). We find similar results if we use a dispersed ownership dummy that takes value one if no shareholder owns more than 20% of shares in the bank (instead of 5%), and zero otherwise.

To control for bank-specific size effects we add the amount of net loans outstanding as of year-end as a variable to the above model. The results are presented in Table 4.b of the Appendix, and are similar to the previous model. In addition we find that gross safety net subsidies are higher for small banks (in terms of loan size). Since it follows from the above that gross safety net subsidies were highest for the crisis-ridden East Asian countries, we also estimate the model with country dummies for Indonesia, Korea, Malaysia and Thailand only. We find that gross safety net subsidies are significantly higher for these four countries than for the other eight countries in the sample (see Appendix, Table 4.c).

For robustness we repeat the previous analysis while excluding the crisis years 1997-98 from the analysis. The results are quite similar, and can be found in Table 4.d-e of the Appendix. Again, we find that widely held and large banks received a significantly lower amount of gross safety net subsidies, i.e. are less risky, and that the banks in Indonesia, Thailand, Korea and Malaysia received significantly more gross subsidies than other countries. In addition, we find that gross subsidies were lower in 1996 than in 1991.

We also estimate a model that controls for another bank-specific effect, namely loan growth. The results can be found in Table 4.f of the Appendix. In addition to the above results, we find that banks with high loan growth received large gross subsidies.

_15_
This finding is as expected since<sup>credit growth has been excessive in a number of</sup> countries, in particular in the East<sup>Asian countries, where it has often been the result of</sup> excessive risk-taking.

Secondly, we regress the level<sup>of gross subsidy on the different concentrated</sup> ownership categories to see if<sup>there is a difference between them. We include the</sup> ownership dummy variables<sup>with absolute majority shareholdings, i.e. larger than 50%</sup> and the ownership variables with<sup>major shareholdings, i.e. between 20 and 50%. For the</sup> whole sample period, 1991-98,<sup>we find that the gross safety net subsidies to banks with</sup> majority shareholdings by companies<sup>and other financial institutions are higher. These</sup> banks might have more access to<sup>the safety net not only because they are more risky, but</sup> also because they might have better<sup>connections. In addition, we find that small banks</sup> receive more subsidy from the<sup>safety net. (see Table 5.a-b of the Appendix). For</sup> robustness check, we also exclude<sup>the crisis years. For the years 1991-96 we again find</sup> that majority shareholdings by companies<sup>and other financial institutions increases risk,</sup> and that small banks are less risky.<sup>In addition, we find that majority shareholdings by</sup> families increases risk, although<sup>to a smaller extent than for companies or other financial</sup> institutions (see Table 5.c-d of the<sup>Appendix). In all of the above models we do not find a</sup> significant difference in gross<sup>subsidies between dispersed ownership and state</sup> ownership of banks. For robustness,<sup>we have carried out the same regressions without the</sup> dummy variables that indicate<sup>absolute majority shareholdings, hence only with the</sup> majority shareholdings dummy variables.<sup>The results obtained are similar. Majority</sup> ownership by companies and other<sup>financial institutions, and to a lesser degree by</sup> families, increases the risks of banks<sup>compared to widely held/dispersed ownership.</sup> To check whether gross safety net<sup>subsidies extended to banks in 1996 indicated</sup> which countries were at risk of a banking<sup>crisis in 1997 we carry out two regressions for</sup> 1996 observations only - one regression<sup>excluding loan size and one regression including</sup> loan size. Both regressions include<sup>country and ownership dummies. We find for both</sup> regressions that gross subsidies were<sup>expected to be higher in 1997 than in 1996 for the</sup> following three countries: Indonesia,<sup>Korea and Thailand (see Table 5.e-f of the</sup> Appendix). Except for Malaysia, these<sup>are indeed the East Asian countries that</sup> experienced banking crisis one year later,<sup>i.e. in 1997. Hence, we find that implicit gross</sup> safety net subsidies had some forecasting<sup>power with respect to the East Asian banking</sup> 16
crisis. The calculated gross subsidies for the year 1996 indicate relatively excessive risks in the Indonesian, Thai and Korean banking systems, while we fail to find such an indication for the Malaysian banking system. Again, we find that concentrated ownership by companies, other financial institutions and families/individuals increases risk.

We also compare gross safety net subsidies of banks that are affiliated to a business group and of banks that are not. Since a bank that is affiliated to a business group might be prepared to support a group member that faces financial distress to a larger degree and for a longer period, we expect that the gross safety net subsidies to group affiliated banks is higher than to banks that are not linked to a business group. We classify a bank to be group affiliated if the bank is either a subsidiary of a diversified business group, or if a non-financial company holds more than 50% of the bank's shares. We regress the level of gross safety net subsidies on loan size and on a dumnmy variable that takes value one if the bank is group-affiliated and zero otherwise. We also include country and year dummies. We estimate this regression model both for the whole sample period and for the pre-crisis period 1991-96. For both periods we find that group-affiliated banks received significantly larger gross safety net subsidies, which suggests that those banks might have supported some member companies of their group (see Table 6.a-b of the Appendix for the results).

# **_5.2_ Macroeconomic Fundamentals, Legal System, Deposit Insurance, and Market Structure**

Thus far we have used country dunmmies to control for differences across countries. In this section we expand our model with country-specific variables. Firstly, we control for differences in two macroeconomic fundamentals: the level of GDP per capita and the level of inflation. It is expected that banking systems are less risky in countries with high GDP per capita and low rates of inflation. We indeed find this to be the case for our sample when we regress the level of extended gross safety net subsidies on a constant, year dummies, a dispersed ownership dummy, the size of extended credit, GDP per capita and inflation. We also find again that widely held banks are less risky (see Table 7.a of the Appendix).

17
Secondly, we control for differences<sup>in the quality and enforcement of laws across</sup> countries. It is expected that<sup>banking systems are riskier in countries with poor legal</sup> systems. We indeed find this<sup>to be the case for our sample when we regress the level of</sup> gross safety net subsidies on<sup>a constant, year dummies, a dispersed ownership dummy,</sup> the size of extended credit,<sup>and a law and order index. We also find again that widely</sup> held and large banks are less risky<sup>(see Table 7.b of the Appendix).</sup> Thirdly, we compare the<sup>impact of explicit versus implicit deposit insurance</sup> schemes. Seven countries of<sup>our sample of 12 countries have an explicit deposit</sup> insurance scheme in place.<sup>The other five countries have implicit insurance schemes. To</sup> assess the difference between explicit<sup>and implicit insurance we regress the level of gross</sup> safety net subsidies on a constant,<sup>year dummies, a dispersed ownership dummy, the size</sup> of extended credit, and a dummy<sup>variable that takes value one if the country has an</sup> explicit deposit insurance scheme,<sup>and find that banks are less risky if they operate in a</sup> country that has an explicit deposit<sup>insurance scheme. We also find again that widely</sup> held and large banks are less risky<sup>(see Table 7.c of the Appendix).</sup> For the countries with explicit<sup>schemes, deposit insurance premiums range from</sup> 0.015% to 0.3 % of insured deposits.<sup>The actually charged deposit insurance premiums</sup> and calculated gross subsidies<sup>can be found in Table 8 of the Appendix. For two out of</sup> seven countries with explicit deposit<sup>insurance schemes (namely Japan and Korea) we</sup> fmd that the actually charged<sup>deposit insurance premiums are lower than the average</sup> gross subsidies over the period<sup>1991-98. The net subsidies, however, do not differ</sup> statistically from zero at any<sup>reasonable level of significance. We can therefore not</sup> conclude for countries in our sample<sup>with explicit deposit insurance schemes that the</sup> actually charged deposit insurance<sup>premiums were inadequate, although many banks in</sup> our sample could have been<sup>charged higher premiums to reflect their risks.</sup> We also look at the combined<sup>effect of the type of deposit insurance scheme and</sup> the quality of the legal system.<sup>Also when we add both variables we find that banks are</sup> less risky if they operate in a<sup>country with an explicit deposit insurance scheme and/or a</sup> sound legal system (see Table 7.d<sup>of the Appendix).</sup> In our sample, countries with<sup>explicit insurance are mostly highly developed. Since</sup> the existence of explicit insurance<sup>and the existence of a good institutional enviromment</sup> are highly correlated in our sample,<sup>our finding might as well indicate that the existence</sup> 18
of a good institutional environment reduces the risk of a banking system. We therefore cannot conclude that the existence of an explicit deposit insurance scheme reduces the risk of a banking system. This would not contradict Demirgu,c-Kunt and Detragiache (1999) who provide empirical evidence that explicit deposit insurance increases banking system vulnerability in countries with weak institutional environments.

Finally we look at the effect of the market structure of a country's banking sector on the level of the safety net subsidy. In particular we look at the concentration of the banking market and the foreign bank penetration. We measure concentration by the share of the three largest banks' assets in total banking sector assets, and foreign bank penetration by the share of foreign bank assets in total banking sector assets. When we add these two variables to the model that controls for differences in the quality and enforcement of laws across countries we find that the gross safety net subsidy is higher for banks in countries with low bank concentration and/or low foreign bank penetration (see Table 7.e-f of the Appendix).

# 5.3 **Forecasting Bank Distress**

In section 5.1 we found that implicit gross safety net subsidies rightly indicated banking problems in three out of the four East Asian countries that experienced a banking crisis in 1997. In this section we will explore the _ex ante_ power of implicit gross safety net subsidies to forecast bank distress. The year 1998 was characterized by government intervention in banks across the East Asian region (see Table 9 of the Appendix). We will analyze the link between bank intervention and the level of gross safety net subsidies before 1998 for our sample of banks to assess the forecasting power of the our method to forecast bank problems.

Firstly, we analyze whether gross safety net subsidies are indeed higher for banks that are intervened. We regress the level of gross subsidies in 1998 on the level of gross subsidies in 1997 and add a dummy variable that indicates whether the bank was intervened. As a second regression we add a country dummy for Indonesia which experienced a dramatic increase in gross subsidies between 1997 and 1998 due to the severity of the crisis. As expected, in both cases we find that gross safety net premiums are higher for intervened banks (see Table 10 of the Appendix).

19
We expect that banks that receive high<sup>gross safety net subsidies have a higher</sup> chance to fail, because they take higher risks.<sup>To assess the power to forecast bank failure</sup> we regress estimate a Probit model with<sup>a dummy variable taking value one of the bank is</sup> intervened in 1998 as dependent variable<sup>and the level of gross safety net subsidy in</sup> either 1996 or 1997 as dependent variable.<sup>Governments of some East Asian countries</sup> intervened more heavily into their banking<sup>sectors than others in 1998. Malaysia, for</sup> example, allowed banks to continue<sup>to operate even though many banks were</sup> undercapitalized. On the other hand,<sup>all Thai banks have been intervened in 1998. To</sup> control for differences in the level of<sup>intervention we add country dummies to the Probit</sup> model. We do not include a country dummy<sup>for Thailand, since all Thai banks have been</sup> intervened, and for countries were no banks<sup>have been intervened during 1998. We find</sup> that banks with high levels of gross safety<sup>net subsidies in either 1996 or 1997 had a</sup> higher chance to fail and/or be intervened<sup>in 1998 than banks with low levels of</sup> subsidies. In addition to Thailand, we also<sup>find that Indonesia and Korea intervened more</sup> heavily in banks than other countries (see Table<sup>11 of the Appendix). These results are</sup> supportive of our claim that our method of<sup>calculating implicit gross safety net subsidies</sup> has some power in assessing the risks of banks<sup>and in forecasting bank distress.</sup>

# **6. Conclusions**

We have applied Ronn and Verma's (1986)<sup>technique to calculate gross safety net</sup> subsidies for a large number of banks in<sup>different countries, in particular in South-East</sup> Asia. We have argued that a relatively high<sup>gross safety net subsidy is an indication that</sup> the bank takes excessive risks. We can, therefore,<sup>use gross safety net subsidies to assess</sup> the relationship between risk taking behavior<sup>of banks and their governance structure. For</sup> many banks, we find that deposit insurance<sup>has been subsidized by governments during</sup> the 90s, especially for East Asian banks.<sup>The subsidy is largest for banks with</sup> concentrated private ownership, especially<sup>for banks that are predominantly owned by</sup> either a single company or another financial<sup>institution, and to a lesser extent by a single</sup> family or individual. Banks with dispersed<sup>ownership, on the other hand, are found to</sup> engage into a relatively low degree of risk-taking,<sup>while state-owned banks are average</sup> performers. Banks with concentrated private<sup>ownership might have more access to the</sup> 20
safety net not only because they are more risky, but also because they might have better connections. We also find that gross safety net subsidies are higher for banks that are affiliated to a business group, that are small and/or have high credit growth, and for banks in countries with low levels of GDP per capita, high inflation rates, poor quality and enforcement of laws, low bank concentration, and/or low foreign bank penetration. Our findings support the view that existing governmental deposit insurance schemes do not work properly, because they create moral hazard for banks, and suggests that these incentive problems differ in magnitude between different types of banks, in particular between banks that differ in govemance structure. Finally, we find that measuring bank risk taking by calculating gross safety net subsidies has some power in predicting bank failures.

Our findings suggest that a bank's risk-taking depends to a large extent on its institutional environment and its corporate govemance structure. Banks that operate in an environment with weak institutions and are characterized by concentrated private ownership tend to take high risks. An important finding is that government-owned banks take fewer risks than banks with concentrated private ownership. Although many authors favor private ownership of banks for reasons of economic efficiency (see, for example, La Porta et al., 2000), this result suggests that government-ownership of banks may be less detrimental to the stability of the financial system in countries with an underdeveloped financial system. The ultimate goal, however, should be a financial system with dispersed private ownership of banks where both shareholders and depositors are protected by proper enforcement of prudent regulation.

21
# **Literature**

Bhattacharya, S, A. Boot, and A. Thakor (1998), "The Economics of Bank Regulation", _Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking_ 30(4): 745-770.

- Black, F. and M. Scholes (1973), "The Pricing of Options and Corporate Liabilities", _Journal of Political Economy_ 81: 637-659.

- Chan, Y.-S., S. Greenbaum, and A. Thakor (1992), "Is Fairly Priced Deposit Insurance Possible?", _Journal of Finance_ 47: 227-246.

- Demirgbi9-Kunt, A. and H. Huizinga (1999), "Market Discipline and Financial Safety Net Design", Policy Research Working Paper No. 2183, World Bank.

- Demirgfc-Kunt, A. and E. Detragiache (1999), "Does Deposit Insurance Increase Banking System Stability? An Empirical Investigation", Policy Research Working Paper No. 2247, World Bank.

- Duan, J.-C. (1994), "Maximum Likelihood Estimation Using Price Data of the Derivative Contract", _Mathematical Finance,_ 4(2): 155-167.

- Duan, J.-C. and M.-T. Yu (1994), "Assessing the Cost of Taiwan's Deposit Insurance", _Pacific-Basin Finance Journal_ 2: 73-90.

- Duan, J.-C. and M.-T. Yu (1999), "Capital Standard, Forbearance and Deposit Insurance Pricing under GARCH", _Journal of Banking and Finance_ 23: 1691-1706.

- Fries, S., R. Mason, and W. Perraudin (1993), "Evaluating Deposit Insurance for Japanese Banks", _Journal of the Japanese and International Economy 7:_ 356-386.

22
- Kaplan, 1. (1998), "The Put Option Approach to Banking Crises in Emerging Markets: Valuing Implicit Deposit Insurance in Thailand", Mimeo, University of Washington.

- La Porta, R., F. Lopez-de Silanes, and A. Shleifer (2000), "Governnent Ownership of Banks", Mimeo, Harvard University.

- Marcus, A. and I. Shaked (1984), "The Valuation of FDIC Deposit Insurance Using Option-Pricing Estimates", _Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking_ 16(4): 446-460.

- Merton, R. (1977), "An Analytical Derivation of the Cost of Deposit Insurance and Loan Guarantees", _Journal of Banking and Finance, 1:_ 3-11.

- Pennacchi, G. (1987), "A Reexamination of the Over- (or Under-) Pricing of Deposit Insurance", _Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking,_ 19(3): 340-360.

- Ronn, E. and A. Verma (1986), "Pricing Risk-Adjusted Deposit Insurance: An OptionBased Model", _Journal of Finance,_ 41(4): 871-895.

- White, H. (1980), "A Heteroskedasticity-Consistent Covariance Matrix Estimator and a Direct Test for Heteroskedasticity", _Econometrica_ 48: 817-838.

23