Bank loan terms and conditions: is there a macro effect?

We examine whether macroeconomic factors contain significant information for bank loan contracting terms and conditions (T&Cs), over and above that of standard firm-specific or country-level institutional factors. Our estimation is based on a seemingly unrelated mixed-processes methodology that accommodates two salient data properties: (i) the fact that loan contract terms are determined jointly as a single lending contract, and (ii) the fact that the elements of loan T&Cs are generated by different distributional formats. Our findings indicate that cross-country variation accounts for a significant portion of observed variation in loan T&Cs. In addition, macroeconomic fundamentals significantly explain the “package” of loan T&Cs offered to corporate borrowers, with this effect being distinct from any influence that T&Cs receive from firm-specific factors, and also from country-specific institutional factors.

Post-crisis regulatory reforms and bank performance: lessons from Asia

Based on a large dataset from eight Asian economies, we test the impact of post-crisis regulatory reforms on the performance of depository institutions in countries at different levels of financial development. We allow for technological heterogeneity and estimate a set of country-level stochastic cost frontiers followed by a deterministic bootstrapped meta-frontier to evaluate cost efficiency and cost technology. Our results support the view that liberalization policies have a positive impact on bank performance, while the reverse is true for prudential regulation policies. The removal of activities restrictions, bank privatization and foreign bank entry have a positive and significant impact on technological progress and cost efficiency. In contrast, prudential policies, which aim to protect the banking sector from excessive risk-taking, tend to adversely affect banks cost efficiency but not cost technology.

Resilience in crisis reconsidered: the need for values against relativist ethics

The need for a reconsideration of resilience from both a positive and a normative point of view can be discussed using some of the lessons and conclusions drawn from individual resilience studied by psychologists in an educational context. The main point made in this article is that unless we want to approach resilience as a feature which is exogenously given in each population and society and whose dynamics, if any, are not subject to deliberate actions and policies, we need a framework for the evaluation of resilience as a social good. Relying on the hope that resilience is necessarily built in our societies as a force guaranteeing convergence to a socially desirable point of social evolution may be too optimistic and even counterproductive, because it may lead us to an inefficient or biased political and regulatory decision making. When the effect of policies and actions at a national or international level take into account the dynamic effect of such actions on resilience itself, one cannot blindly rely on the goodness of the process any more. This is mainly because resilience is not uniformly embodied in all societies and it does not have a globally positive social value by itself. The issue of socially valuing the options available beyond market-price valuations becomes fundamental in this context.