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.

Arshile Gorky: An Armenian in New York

Born in Armenia, the oldest Christian country in the world but nevertheless one of the youngest reinstated republics (1991) after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Arshile Gorky flew to the United States in 1920, where he chose to reinvent himself in the struggle to become an artist. This reinvention meant the creation of a persona with, or behind, which Gorky kept alive the artistic flame inside himself. Gorky became one of the most learned voices lecturing on contemporary European modernist artists and movements of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries in the United States (New York) without ever visiting Europe. Moreover, he was able to survive the traumatic events he underwent during the Armenian Genocide (1915-1919) to adapt to his new country and identity, to live through the years of the Depression and, eventually, to become the protagonistof a major artistic breakthrough. This paper proposes an insight into the experience of life and frame of work of this Armenian-American artist, whose simultaneously rich, traumatic, dislocated and reenacted life and work established one of the most fertile links between his middle‑eastern origins, his dreamed of Europe and the particular transit of his American artistic creation.