1988
DOI: 10.1007/bf00114851
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Change in market assessments of deposit-institution riskiness

Abstract: Using the Goldfeld and Quandt switching regression method, this article investigates variability over 1975-1985 in the risk components of bank and saving and loan stock. We develop evidence that the market-beta, interest-sensitivity, and residual risk of deposit-institution stock vary significantly during this period. Reassessing previous event studies in light of these findings suggests that event-study methods tend to overreach their data.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

7
85
0
3

Year Published

1991
1991
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 145 publications
(95 citation statements)
references
References 28 publications
7
85
0
3
Order By: Relevance
“…Most of the literature uses long-term interest rates because they incorporate the future expectations of economic agents and they determine the corporate borrowing cost, so they have a lot of influence on the investment decisions of firms and, finally, they affect the value of companies. Besides, I have used the total variations in long-term interest rates to capture unanticipated changes in interest rates (Sweeney and Warga, 1986, Kane and Unal, 1988, Bartram, 2002and Oertmann et al, 2000.…”
Section: Unexpected Changes In Nominal Interest Ratesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Most of the literature uses long-term interest rates because they incorporate the future expectations of economic agents and they determine the corporate borrowing cost, so they have a lot of influence on the investment decisions of firms and, finally, they affect the value of companies. Besides, I have used the total variations in long-term interest rates to capture unanticipated changes in interest rates (Sweeney and Warga, 1986, Kane and Unal, 1988, Bartram, 2002and Oertmann et al, 2000.…”
Section: Unexpected Changes In Nominal Interest Ratesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…While other studies have used an orthogonalized framework [e.g. Flannery and James (1984)], these procedures have been shown to produce biased standard error estimates [Giliberto (1985), Kane and Unal (1988)]. …”
Section: Event Study Methodologymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This literature, however, considers only the drivers of equity risk measures, i.e. systematic risk proxied by beta coefficient; idiosyncratic risk; total risk (bank equity return standard deviation); interest rate risk (interest rate beta) -see: Kane and Unal [1988], Flannery and James [1984] and Haq and Heaney [2012]) -and credit risk (measured as loan loss provisions divided by total assets), and is not interested in analysing the differences in the levels of leverage. In the same vein, Haq and Heaney [2012] find mixed evidence on the relation between bank specific factors and bank risk measures in 15 European countries.…”
Section: Related Literaturementioning
confidence: 99%