Skip to main content
Log in

The bail-in credibility: barking dogs seldom bite

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Banking Regulation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper studies the senior unsecured bondholders’ bail-in expectations and market monitoring following bail-in legislative events aimed at introducing new tools for subordination. We measure bail-in expectations using a difference in differences approach that compares the reaction to bail-in events of senior unsecured bonds to the reaction of non-bailinable bonds. Similarly, we measure senior unsecured bondholders’ monitoring activity by using a triple differencing analysis that compares the yield-risk sensitivity reaction of senior unsecured bonds with respect to that of non-bailinable bonds. Our results indicate unaffected bail-in expectations by senior unsecured bondholders who, accordingly, do not enhance their pricing of banks’ risk.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Acharya, V.V., D. Anginer, A. J. Warburton. 2016. The end of market discipline? investor expectations of implicit government guarantees. Retrieved from: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1961656

  2. Bessembinder, Hendrik, Kahle M. Kathleen, Maxwell F. William, and Danielle Xu. 2009. Measuring abnormal bond performance. The Review of Financial Studies 22 (10): 4219–4258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Binder, J.-H. 2020. Bank bail-in and disputed claims: Can it cope? The case for and against a vis attractiva resolutionis. Journal of Banking Regulation 21: 54–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bolton, P., and M. Oehmke. 2018. Bank resolution and the structure of global banks. The Review of Financial Studies 32 (6): 2384–2421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Chan-Lau, A. Jorge, and H. Oura. 2016. Bail-In Power, Depositor Preference, and Asset Encumbrance: The End of Cheap Senior Unsecured Debt? A Structural Pricing Perspective. Retrieved from: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2785992

  6. Colliard, J., and D. Gromb. 2017. Financial restructuring and resolution of banks. Retrieved from: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3183777.

  7. Crespi, F., E. Giacomini, and D.V. Mascia. 2018. Bail-In Rules and the Pricing of Italian Bank Bonds. European Financial Management 25 (5): 1321–1347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Cucinelli, D., L. Gai, and F. Ielasi. 2020. Do bond yields follow the hierarchy of risk post BRRD? European Financial Management 27 (1): 460–489.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Ederington, L., W. Guan, and L. Yang. 2015. Bond market event study methods. Journal of Banking & Finance 58: 281–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Erzegovesi, L. 2017. La valutazione delle azioni bancarie nell'era del bail-in. Prima parte - Requisiti prudenziali e modelli per i casi di ricapitalizzazione sul mercato. Retrieved from: http://pane-e-finanza.it/pdf/Azioni0_master.pdf.

  11. García, J. and M. Rocamora. 2019. European banks and the challenge of MREL. Retrieved from: https://www.bbvaresearch.com/en/publicaciones/european-banks-and-the-challenge-of-mrel/

  12. Gai, L., F. Ielasi, and M. Mainini. 2020. The Impact of Bail-in Risk on Bank Bondholders. International Journal of Business and Management 15 (9): 105–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Giuliana, R. 2022. Fluctuating bail-in expectations and effects on market discipline, risk-taking and cost of capital. Retrieved from: https://www.esrb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/wp/esrb.wp133~3498ce105b.en.pdf.

  14. Gleeson, S. 2012. Legal Aspects of Bank Bail-Ins. Retrieved from: https://privpapers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3730912.

  15. Goodhart, C. and Avgouleas, E. (2014). A Critical Evaluation of Bail-Ins as Bank Recapitalisation Mechanisms. Retrieved from: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2478647.

  16. Hadjiemmanuil, C. 2015. Bank Resolution Financing in the Banking Union. Retrieved from: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2575372

  17. International Capital Markets Association (ICMA). 2017. Bail-in Workshop: joining the dots. Retrieved from: https://www.icmagroup.org/assets/documents/Regulatory/Bank_Capital/Bail-in-summary-May-2017-KTK-v4-020517.pdf.

  18. Keister, T. and Mitkov, Y. 2017. Bailouts, bails-in and banking crises. Retrieved from. https://www.wiwi.uni-bonn.de/bgsepapers/boncrc/CRCTR224_2019_091.pdf.

  19. Laitin, D.D., E. Miguel, A. Alrababa’h, A. Bogdanoski, S. Grant, K. Hoeberling, C. Cecilia Hyunjung Mo, D.A. Moore, S. Vazire, J. Weinstein, and S. Williamson. 2021. Reporting all results efficiently: A RARE proposal to open up the file drawer. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118 (52). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2106178118

  20. Lewrick, U., J.M. Serena, G. Turner. 2019. Believing in bail-in? Market discipline and the pricing of bail-in bonds. Retrieved from: https://www.bis.org/publ/work831.htm.

  21. Legge di Bilancio. 2018. Bilancio di previsione dello Stato per l'anno finanziario 2018 e bilancio pluriennale per il triennio 2018-2020. Retrieved from: https://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/eli/id/2017/12/29/17G00222/sg

  22. Pablos, I. 2019. Has the New Bail-In Framework Increased the Yield Spread Between Subordinated and Senior Bonds?. Retrieved from: https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/scpwps/ecb.wp2317~3a5259cba1.en.pdf.

  23. Pischke, J. S. 2005. Empirical Methods in Applied Economics Lecture Notes. Retrieved from: https://econ.lse.ac.uk/staff/spischke/ec524/evaluation3.pdf

  24. Philippon, T., and A. Salord. 2017. Bail-ins and Bank Resolution in Europe: A Progress Report. Retrieved from: https://cepr.org/sites/default/files/news/GenevaSpecialReport4.pdf.

  25. Resti, A. 2016. Bank subordinated debt: a source of capital for lenders or a source of concern for retail investors?. Banca Impresa Società, (1): 21–37.

  26. Schäfer, A., and I. Schnabel. 2016. Bail-in expectations for European banks: Actions speak louder than words. Retrieved from: https://www.esrb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/wp/esrbwp7.en.pdf.

  27. Skeet, T. 2017. Letter from T. Skeet to T. Jorgenson. Retrieved from: Retrieved from: https://www.icmagroup.org/assets/documents/Regulatory/Bank_Capital/Bail-in-summary-May-2017-KTK-v4-020517.pdf.

  28. Tölö, E., E. Jokivuolle, and M. Viren. 2021. Have Too-Big-to-Fail Expectations Diminished? Evidence from the European Overnight Interbank Market. Journal of Financial Services Research 60 (1): 25–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Tröger, Tobias H. 2018. Too Complex to Work: A Critical Assessment of the Bail-in Tool under the European Bank Recovery and Resolution Regime. Journal of Financial Regulation 4 (1): 35–72.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  30. Tröger, Tobias H. 2020. Why MREL won’t help much: Minimum requirements for bail-in capital as insufficient remedy for defunct private sector involvement under the European bank resolution framework. Journal of Banking Regulation 21: 64–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Walther, A., and L. White. 2020. Rules versus Discretion in Bank Resolution. The Review of Financial Studies 33 (12): 5594–5629.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Giulio Velliscig.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix 1

Appendix 1

The triple differencing empirical model is:

$${yld}_{ijt}=\alpha +{\alpha }_{i}+{\beta }_{3}\times {risk}_{jt}\times {uns}_{i}\times {post}_{t}+{\gamma }_{1}\times {risk}_{jt}\times {uns}_{i}+ {\gamma }_{2}\times {risk}_{jt}\times {post}_{t}+{\gamma }_{3}\times {uns}_{i}\times {post}_{t}+ {\delta }_{5}\times {risk}_{jt}+{\delta }_{6}\times {uns}_{i}+{\delta }_{7}\times {ttm}_{ijt}+{day}_{t}+{\mu }_{ijt}$$

We can assume that bank risk can take only two values (risk = s = safe or rsk = r = risky), that post can take two values (post = pre = before treatment or post = post = after treatment), that uns can take two values (uns = u = senior unsecured or uns = n = non-bailinable) and that E(u|uns, post, risk, X) = 0 (where X is the set of control variables in the DDD regression model). It can be shown (by calculating the expectations relative to the triple differencing empirical model) that the \({\beta }_{3}\) is the difference between two time-series changes in sensitivities:

$${\beta }_{1}=\left[\left({yield}_{|r u post}-{yield}_{|s u post}\right)+\left({yield}_{|r u pre}-{yield}_{|s u pre}\right)\right]-\left[\left({yield}_{|r n post}-{yield}_{|s n post}\right)+\left({yield}_{|r n pre}-{yield}_{|s n pre}\right)\right]$$

where (yld|r u post − yld|s u post) is a difference in expected values describing the sensitivity of the yield of a senior unsecured bond to an increase in risk from s to r, after the bail-in event. (yld|r u pre − yld|s u pre) is a difference in expected values describing the sensitivity of the yield of a senior unsecured bond to an increase in risk from s to r, before the bail-in event. (yld|r n post − yld|s n post) is a difference in expected values describing the sensitivity of the yield of a non-bailinable bond to an increase in risk from s to r, after the bail-in event. (yld|r n pre − yld|s n pre) is a difference in expected values describing the sensitivity of the yield of a non-bailinable bond to an increase in risk from s to r, before the bail-in event.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Velliscig, G., Polato, M., Floreani, J. et al. The bail-in credibility: barking dogs seldom bite. J Bank Regul 25, 1–19 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41261-022-00210-7

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41261-022-00210-7

Keywords

Navigation