2012
DOI: 10.1016/j.jfi.2012.01.004
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Opaque banks, price discovery, and financial instability

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

4
48
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 87 publications
(52 citation statements)
references
References 38 publications
4
48
0
Order By: Relevance
“…First, more equity is associated with lower analyst influence. The effect is both statistically and economically significant and consistent with the findings of Morgan (2002) and Jones et al (2012). The marginal effect is -0.60%, which is large in comparison with the unconditional probability of 8.6%.…”
Section: Cash Holdings and Stockholder Uncertaintysupporting
confidence: 82%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…First, more equity is associated with lower analyst influence. The effect is both statistically and economically significant and consistent with the findings of Morgan (2002) and Jones et al (2012). The marginal effect is -0.60%, which is large in comparison with the unconditional probability of 8.6%.…”
Section: Cash Holdings and Stockholder Uncertaintysupporting
confidence: 82%
“…When a crisis does arise, more opaque assets may reduce investors' ability to distinguish between solvent and insolvent banks. This may cause distrust to gain hold and exacerbate systemic risk, with potential adverse consequences for the economy (Jones et al, 2012(Jones et al, , 2013. In contrast with more opaque assets, other assets such as treasury bonds, repurchase agreements, and fixed assets are presumed in the banking literature to reduce investor uncertainty.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, after the financial crisis, the issue of both capital adequacy in the banking sector and regulation have been relevant. Some hypotheses have been developed by which the market reaction to the announcement of a capital increase is less favorable to banking institutions because of their complex activity and the opacity of their financial assets (Haggard & Howe, 2012;Jones et al, 2012). According to Krishnan et al (2010), the level of opacity causes an increased difficulty in the estimation of the banking capital increases, which leads to a higher perception of the overvaluation of the company when the capital increases are announced.…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Our choice of industry is justified on the grounds that the assets held by financial institutions (such as banks, insurers, and asset management companies) are often opaque and difficult to value (Morgan, 2002;Jones et al, 2012;Flannery et al 2013). The use of earnout contracts in mergers involving financial institutions may lessen the likelihood of mis-valuation.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%