2020
DOI: 10.1016/j.econlet.2019.108760
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Negative interest rates policy and banks’ risk-taking: Empirical evidence

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

4
20
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

3
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 41 publications
(24 citation statements)
references
References 10 publications
4
20
0
Order By: Relevance
“…14 Although our two groups have close characteristics prior to treatment (see Figure1), we use the Propensity Score Matching in robustness to build our treatment and control groups. We obtain similar results to our baseline (see Section 4.3).15 Although previous studies on negative rates also include bank fixed effects in their estimates (e.g Boungou, 2020;Lopez et al 2020),. we re-estimate Equation (1) by including country fixed effects.…”
supporting
confidence: 77%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…14 Although our two groups have close characteristics prior to treatment (see Figure1), we use the Propensity Score Matching in robustness to build our treatment and control groups. We obtain similar results to our baseline (see Section 4.3).15 Although previous studies on negative rates also include bank fixed effects in their estimates (e.g Boungou, 2020;Lopez et al 2020),. we re-estimate Equation (1) by including country fixed effects.…”
supporting
confidence: 77%
“…15 As suggested by Bertrand et al (2004), we use robust and clustered standard errors at the bank level to control for heteroscedasticity and dependence between observations. The Difference-in-Differences method is widely used in the literature analyzing the effects of negative interest rates on bank behavior (among others, Basten and Mariathasan 2018;Heider et al 2019;Lopez et al 2020;Molyneux et al 2019;Boungou 2020). As noted by Molyneux et al (2019), the advantage of using this method is that it reduces potential endogeneity bias by controlling for omitted variable bias and reverse causality.…”
Section: Empirical Methodologymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Looking at these less granular measures that extend beyond the securities portfolio Arce et al. (2018) as well as Boungou (2020) and Reghezza et al. (2019) find a decrease in overall risk (measured as RWA or the z ‐score) after the introduction of negative rates.…”
Section: Contribution and Related Literaturementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Evidence is not unequivocal. Looking at these less granular measures that extend beyond the securities portfolio Arce et al (2018) as well as Boungou (2020) and Reghezza et al (2019) find a decrease in overall risk (measured as RWA or the zscore) after the introduction of negative rates. Basten and Mariathasan (2018) find an increase in RWA for the Swiss banks most affected by the negative interest rates policy.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…15 As suggested by Bertrand et al (2004), we use robust and clustered standard errors at the bank level to control for heteroscedasticity and dependence between observations. The Difference-in-Differences method is widely used in the literature analyzing the effects of negative interest rates on bank behavior (among others, Basten and Mariathasan 2018;Heider et al 2019;Lopez et al 2020;Molyneux et al 2019;Boungou 2020). As noted by Molyneux et al (2019), the advantage of using this method is that it reduces potential endogeneity bias by controlling for omitted variable bias and reverse causality.…”
Section: Empirical Methodologymentioning
confidence: 99%