Implications Of The Risk-Based Capital Requirements Of Implicit Recourse In Asset Securitizations In The Banking Industry

Abstract

We consider implications of the risk-based capital requirements of implicit recourse in asset securitizations. These implications include issues in finance such as risk management and contracting between counterparties. The first part of our analysis deals with asset securitizations where originating institutions provide investors with implicit recourse. We show that the risk-based capital requirements associated with the new regulatory definition of implicit recourse may discourage some banks from offering implicit recourse in their asset securitizations. This suggests that the new regulatory definition of implicit recourse may be a workable compromise between supervisory regulators and originating institutions. We then consider a scenario where banks enter into reinsurance contracting with banks in other regions to mitigate some regional economic risks. These reinsurance contracts may enable banks to improve the performance of their balance sheet assets. Although we find weak correlation among equity returns for regional banks, future high correlation among bank portfolios could pose a problem to regulators because when a bank gets into financial distress this may spill over to other network banks. Widening yield spreads in asset securitizations might serve as an early warning signal of financial distress. Thus, regulators might devote more supervisory resources on originating institutions when their asset securitization yield spreads widen.