Journal of Banking Regulation

, Volume 20, Issue 2, pp 174–196 | Cite as

The golden rule of banking: funding cost risks of bank business models

  • David GrossmannEmail author
  • Peter Scholz
Original Article


The liquidity regulation of banks in Pillar 1 of the Basel framework does not consider longer-term funding cost risks of different bank business models. Therefore, we assemble a data set of balance sheet positions including maturities and use the method of Value-Liquidity-at-Risk to explore 118 European retail, wholesale, and trading banks. When examining liquidity-induced equity risks, trigged by exemplary rating shifts, we find that retail banks bear significantly lower funding cost risks than wholesale and trading banks. Consequently, a prudential regulation, which simultaneously considers the funding cost risk and the diversification of the banking system, is recommended.


Bank business models Funding cost risk Liquidity requirements Value-Liquidity-at-Risk Value Liquidity Expected Shortfall 

JEL Classification

G21 G28 



We are grateful to Klaus Beckmann, Robert Fiedler, Lars Grosstueck, Sven Klinner, Jan-Hendrik Meier, Stefan Okruch, Stefan Prigge, Christian Schaeffler, Stefan Schoenherr, Aline Taenzer, Christoph Weldam, and participants of the Claussen-Simon Graduate Centre at HSBA for helpful comments and discussions. We would particularly like to thank the University of Applied Sciences Kiel for the cooperation and the provided market data. The paper benefited from the comments and remarks of two anonymous referees. We also like to thank Goetz Greve, the Claussen-Simon Foundation, and the Association of Friends and Sponsors of the HSBA.


  1. 1.
    European Banking Authority (EBA). 2015. EBA Report on the Net Stable Funding Requirements Under Article 510 of the CRR, EBA/Op/2015/22, December, London.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Deutsche Bundesbank. 2008. Liquidity Risk Management at Credit Institutions. Deutsche Bundesbank Monthly Report 60 (9): 57–71.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS). 2014. Basel III: The Net Stable Funding Ratio. Basel: Bank for International Settlements.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    European Banking Authority (EBA). 2014. Guidelines on Common Procedures and Methodologies for the Supervisory Review and Evaluation Process (SREP), EBA/GL/2014/13, December, London.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Altunbas, Y., S. Manganelli, and D. Marques-Ibanez. 2011 Bank Risk During the Financial Crisis—Do Business Models Matter? ECB Working Paper Series No. 1394.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ayadi, R., W.P. De Groen, I. Sassi, W. Mathlouthi, H. Rey, and O. Aubry. 2016. Banking Business Models Monitor 2015 Europe. Montreal: Alphonse and Doriméne Desjardins International Institute for Cooperatives and International Research Centre on Cooperative Finance.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Van Oordt, M., and Zhou, C. 2014. Systemic Risk and Bank Business Models. De Nederlandsche Bank Working Papers No. 442.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Koehler, M. 2015. Which Banks Are More Risky? The Impact of business Models on Bank Stability. Journal of Financial Stability 16: 195–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Roengpitya, R., N. Tarashev, and K. Tsatsaronis. 2014. Bank Business Models. BIS Quarterly Review, 55–65. Basel: Bank for International Settlement.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mergaerts, F., and R. Vander Vennet. 2016. Business Models and Bank Performance: A Long-Term Perspective. Journal of Financial Stability 22: 57–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Grossmann, D., and P. Scholz. 2017. Bank Regulation: One Size Does Not Fit All. Journal of Applied Finance and Banking 7 (5): 1–27.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hryckiewicz, A., and L. Kozlowski. 2017. Banking Business Models and the Nature of Financial Crisis. Journal of International Money and Finance 71: 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Grossmann, D. 2017. Leverage Ratios for Different Bank Business Models. Credit and Capital Markets 50 (4): 545–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS). 2008. Principles for Sound Liquidity Risk Management and Supervision. Basel: Bank for International Settlements.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Adalsteinsson, G. 2014. The Liquidity Risk Management Guide: From Policy to Pitfalls. Chichester: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Drehmann, M., and K. Nikolaou. 2013. Funding Liquidity Risk: Definition and Measurement. Journal of Banking and Finance 37 (7): 2173–2182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Soprano, A. 2015. Liquidity Management: A Funding Risk Handbook. Chichester: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Aikman, D., P. Alessandri, B. Eklund, P. Gai, S. Kapadia, E. Martin, N. Mora, G. Sterne, and M. Willison. 2009. Funding Liquidity Risk in a Quantitative Model of Systemic Stability. Bank of England Working Paper No. 372.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Based on Goodhart, C. .2009. The Regulatory Response to the Financial Crisis. Cheltenham Glos: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS). 2011. Basel III: A Global Regulatory Framework for More Resilient Banks and Banking Systems. Basel: Bank for International Settlements.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nagel, J. 2013. The Consequences of an Ineffective Money Market. Revue d’économie financière 111: 199–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Diamond, D.W., and P.H. Dybvig. 1985. Bank Runs, Deposit Insurance, and Liquidity. The Journal of Political Economy 91 (3): 401–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Vazquez, F., and P. Federico. 2015. Bank funding structures and risk: Evidence from the global financial crisis. Journal of Banking and Finance 61 (12): 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Handorf, W.C. 2014. The Cost of Bank Liquidity. Journal of Banking Regulation 15 (1): 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Khan, M.S., H. Scheule, and E. Wu. 2016. Funding Liquidity and Bank Risk Taking. Journal of Banking and Finance 82 (9): 203–216.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Aymanns, C., C. Caceres, C. Daniel, and L. Schumacher. 2016. Bank Solvency and Funding Cost. IMF Working Paper No. 64.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    King, M.R. 2013. The Basel III Net Stable Funding Ratio and Bank Net Interest Margins. Journal of Banking and Finance 37 (11): 4144–4156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Institute of International Finance (IIF), International Capital Market Association, International Swaps and Derivatives Association, Global Financial Market Association and The Clearing House. 2014. Joint Associations’ Submission re.: Consultative Document: Basel III, the Net Stable Funding Ratio. Accessed 28 June 2017.
  29. 29.
    Global Financial Market Association (GFMA) and Institute of International Finance (IIF). 2014 Comment on the Net Stable Funding Ratio consultative document—Additional Information on the Treatment of Equities, Accessed 28 June 2017.
  30. 30.
    International Capital Market Association (ICMA)-European Repo and Collateral Council. 2016. Impacts of the Net Stable Funding Ratio on Repo and Collateral Markets. Accessed 28 June 2017.
  31. 31.
    Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria (BBVA). 2016. EBA report on NSFR, Financial Regulation Outlook March 2016. Accessed 15 June 2017.
  32. 32.
    Gobat, J., M. Yanase, and J. Maloney. 2014. The Net Stable Funding Ratio: Impact and Issue for Consideration. IMF Working Paper No. 106.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Bologna, P. 2015. Structural Funding and Bank Failures. Journal of Financial Services Research 47 (1): 81–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Lallour, A., and H. Mio. 2016. Do We Need a Stable Funding Ratio? Bank’s Funding in the Global Financial Crisis. Bank of England Staff Working Paper No. 602.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Schmitt, M., and C. Schmaltz. 2016. Potential Implications of a NSFR on German Banks’ Credit Supply and Profitability. Deutsche Bank Discussion Paper No. 37.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Schupp, F., and L. Silbermann. 2017. The Role of Structural Funding for Stability in the German Banking Sector. Deutsche Bank Discussion Paper No. 3.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Schmitz, S., M. Sigmund, and L. Valderrama. 2017. Bank Solvency and Funding Cost: New Data and New Results. IMF Working Paper No. 116.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Bank of England. 2014. Bank Funding Costs: What Are They, What Determines Them and Why Do They Matter? Bank of England Quarterly Bulletin 54 (4): 370–384.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Bankscope-Database, Bureau van Dijk Electronic Publishing. 2015. Hanauer Landstraße 175–179, 60314, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    European Central Bank (ECB). 2015. Report on Financial Structures. Frankfurt am Main: European Central Bank.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Markit Group Limited. 2012. Markit iBoxx Rating Methodology. Frankfurt am Main: Markit Indices Limited.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Ueda, K., and B. Weder di Mauro. 2013. Quantifying Structural Subsidy Values for Systemically Important Financial Institutions. Journal of Banking and Finance 37 (10): 3820–3842.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    For strategic groups see Porter, M.E. 1979. The Structure within Industries and Companies‘Performance. The Review of Economics and Statistics 61(2): 214–227.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Hull, J. 2015. Risk Management and Financial Institutions, 4th ed. New Jersey: Wiley.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Deutsche Bundesbank. 2017. Banking statistics January 2000 to December 2013, Statistical Supplements to the Monthly Reports—Banks and other financial institutions. Accessed 19 Jan 2017.
  46. 46.
    Deutsche Bundesbank. 2017b. Verzeichnis der Banken (MFI) in Deutschland nach Bankengruppen. Accessed 18 Aug 2017.
  47. 47.
    Deutsche Bundesbank. 2017c. Banking statistics January 2000 to December 2013, Statistical Supplements to the Monthly Reports-Money and capital markets. Accessed 24 May 2017.
  48. 48.
    Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS). 2016. Interest Rate Risk in the Banking Book. Basel: Bank for International Settlements.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Hu, J., and R. Cantor. 2006. The Relationship Between Issuance Spreads and Credit Performance of Structured Finance Securities. The Journal of Fixed Income 16 (1): 5–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Remolona, E., and P. Wooldridge. 2003. The Euro Interest Rate Swap Market. BIS Quarterly Review, 47–56. Basel: Bank for International Settlement.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Fiedler, R. 2007. A Concept for Cash Flow and Funding Liquidity Risk. In Liquidity Risk Measurement and Management—A practitioner’s Guide to Global Best Practice, ed. L. Matz and P. Neu, 173–203. Singapore: Wiley.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Fiedler, R. 2012. Liquidity Modelling. London: Risk Books.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Yamai, Y., and T. Yoshiba. 2002. Comparative Analyses of Expected Shortfall and Value-at-Risk: Their Estimation Error, Decomposition, and Optimization. Monetary and Economic Studies 20 (1): 87–122.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Bessis, J. 2015. Risk Management in Banking, 4th ed. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS). 2013. Liquidity Stress Testing: A Survey of Theory, Empirics and Current Industry and Supervisory Practices. Bank for International Settlements Working Paper No. 24.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht (BaFin). 2018. Rundschreiben 7/2018 (BA)—Zinsänderungsrisiken im Anlagebuch. Frankfurt am Main: Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungs-aufsicht.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS). 2016. Minimum Capital Requirements for Market Risk. Basel: Bank for International Settlements.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Zangari, P. 1996. A VaR Methodology for Portfolios That Include Options. RiskMetrics™ Monitor, JP Morgan, First Quarter, pp. 4–12.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Jorion, P. 2007. Value at Risk: The New Benchmark for Managing Financial Risk, 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Boudt, K., B. Peterson, and C. Croux. 2008. Estimation and Decomposition of Downside Risk for Portfolios with Non-normal Returns. The Journal of Risk 11 (2): 79–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Standard and Poor’s. 2016. Default, Transition, and Recovery: 2015 Annual Global Corporate Default Study And Rating Transitions. Accessed 05 July 2017.
  62. 62.
    European Central Bank (ECB). 2017. Sensitivity Analysis of IRRBB—Stress Test 2017. Accessed 16 Nov 2017.
  63. 63.
    Grossmann, D. 2016. Bankenregulierung nach Maß - Welches Geschäftsmodell darf es denn sein?. die Bank. Zeitschrift für Bankpolitik und Praxis 12: 28–30.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Limited 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Andrássy University BudapestBudapestHungary
  2. 2.Claussen-Simon Graduate Centre at HSBAHamburgGermany
  3. 3.HSBA Hamburg School of Business AdministrationHamburgGermany

Personalised recommendations