Basel III new capital requirements, impacts and bank behavior

For some years, researchers could not find a clear effect of capital adequacy on the risk profile of banks, as shareholders could increase the riskiness of the assets (qualitative effect), crowding-out the effect of reduced leverage (volume effect). Some shareholders might have the will to increase the riskiness of the assets, but they may lack the power to do so. Considering only ”powerful” shareholders, definitive conclusions were drawn but with constant ownership profile. In this paper I investigate whether there is a significant change in the type of shareholders in response to regulatory capital shocks and, if so, will the banking system be in the hands of more “desired” shareholders. I find that ownership profile responds to a regulatory shock, changing the risk appetite of the ruling power at the bank. I find more banks and the government in the ownership of undercapitalised banks and much less institutional shareholders and free float. I claim that these new shareholders may not the desired ones, given the objective of the regulatory change, as they are associated with a preference for more leverage. One possible explanation for this crowding-out effect is that regulators are trying to contain idiosyncratic risk (more linked to the riskiness of the assets) with a rule that contains systematic risk (capital adequacy). This has a distorting effect on ownership. Another insight can be drawn from the tests: supervisors should be aware of significant ownership movements that cause the crowding-out.

The antecedents of post-initial adoption behavior in a S-D logic context

Repercussions of innovation adoption and diffusion studies have long been imperative to the success of novel introductions. However, perceptions and deductions of current innovation understandings have been changing over time. The paradigm shift from the goods-dominant (G-D) logic to the service-dominant (S-D) logic potentially makes the distinction between product (goods) innovation and service innovation redundant as the S-D logic lens views all innovations as service innovations (Vargo and Lusch, 2004; 2008; Lusch and Nambisan, 2015). From this perspective, product innovations are in essence service innovations, as goods serve as mere distribution mechanisms to deliver service. Nonetheless, the transition to such a broadened and transcending view of service innovation necessitates concurrently a change in the underlying models used to investigate innovation and its subsequent adoption. The present research addresses this gap by engendering a novel model for the most crucial period of service diffusion within the S-D logic context – the post-initial adoption phase, which demarcates an individual’s behavior after the initial adoption decision of a service. As a wellfounded understanding of service diffusion and the complementary innovation adoption still lingers in its infancy, the current study develops a model based on interdisciplinary domains mapping. Here fore, knowledge of the relatively established viral source domain is mapped to the comparatively undetermined target domain of service innovation adoption. To assess the model and test the importance of the explanatory variables, survey data from 750 respondents of a bank in Northern Germany is scrutinized by means of Structural Equation Modeling (SEM). The findings reveal that the continuance intention of a customer, actual usage of the service and the customer influencer value all constitute important postinitial adoption behavior that have meaningful implications for a successful service adoption. Second, the four constructs customer influencer value, organizational commitment, perceived usefulness and service customization are evidenced to have a differential impact on a iv customer’s post-initial adoption behavior. Third, this study indicates that post-initial adoption behavior further underlies the influence of a user’s age and besides that is also provoked by the internal and external environments of service adoption. Finally, this research amalgamates the broad view of service innovation by Nambisan and Lusch (2015) with the findings ensuing this enquiry’s model to arrive at a framework that it both, generalizable and practically applicable. Implications for academia and practitioners are captured along with avenues for future research.