Search

Following the global financial crisis, policy makers considered regulations that restrict banks’ activities which were motivated by concerns that banks use central bank borrowing, government guarantees, or subsidies to fund securities trading instead of lending to the real economy. Using a global sample of 132 major banks from 2003 to 2016, we find that banks’ securities trading is indeed associated with decreased loan supply. Effects are stronger for domestic lending markets, during crisis periods, and in countries with deeper financial markets. However, corporate capital expenditures and employment growth are unaffected, suggesting that policy makers’ concerns are only partly justified.

Following the global financial crisis, policy makers considered regulations that restrict banks’ activities which were motivated by concerns that banks use central bank borrowing, government guarantees, or subsidies to fund securities trading instead of lending to the real economy. Using a global sample of 132 major banks from 2003 to 2016, we find that banks’ securities trading is indeed associated with decreased loan supply. Effects are stronger for domestic lending markets, during crisis periods, and in countries with deeper financial markets. However, corporate capital expenditures and employment growth are unaffected, suggesting thatpolicy makers’ concerns are only partly justified.

Following the global financial crisis, policy makers considered regulations that restrict banks’ activities which were motivated by concerns that banks use central bank borrowing, government guarantees, or subsidies to fund securities trading instead of lending to the real economy. Using a global sample of 132 major banks from 2003 to 2016, we find that banks’ securities trading is indeed associated with decreased loan supply. Effects are stronger for domestic lending markets, during crisis periods, and in countries with deeper financial markets. However, corporate capital expenditures and employment growth are unaffected, suggesting that policy makers’ concerns are only partly justified.

Do banks that heavily engage in proprietary trading reduce credit supply relative to their non-trading peers? We answer this question by looking at credit provided by the 135 leading banks in the global corporate loan market between 2003 and 2016. We find that banks with greater trading expertise supply less credit during economically stable times than their non-trading peers and even less during crisis times. This double effect can be attributed to US banks. International banks only reduce their credit supply during crises. We show that these spillovers from trading to credit supply have adverse consequences for the real economy as firms’ ability to invest in capital and expand their workforce is reduced. During a crisis, firms that rely on banks with high trading expertise are most severely affected. Overall, our results suggest that the mandates by global regulators to separate trading from commercial banking are well advised.

Do banks that heavily engage in proprietary trading reduce credit supply relative to their non-trading peers? We answer this question by looking at credit provided by the 135 leading banks in the global corporate loan market between 2003 and 2016. We find that banks with greater trading expertise supply less credit during economically stable times than their non-trading peers and even less during crisis times. This double effect can be attributed to US banks. International banks only reduce their credit supply during crises. We show that these spillovers from trading to credit supply have adverse consequences for the real economy as firms’ ability to invest in capital and expand their workforce is reduced. During a crisis, firms that rely on banks with high trading expertise are most severely affected. Overall, our results suggest that the mandates by global regulators to separate trading from commercial banking are well advised.

Do banks that heavily engage in proprietary trading reduce credit supply relative to their non-trading peers? We answer this question by looking at credit provided by the 135 leading banks in the global corporate loan market between 2003 and 2016. We find that banks with greater trading expertise supply less credit during economically stable times than their non-trading peers and even less during crisis times. This double effect can be attributed to US banks. International banks only reduce their credit supply during crises. We show that these spillovers from trading to credit supply have adverse consequences for the real economy as firms’ ability to invest in capital and expand their workforce is reduced. During a crisis, firms that rely on banks with high trading expertise are most severely affected. Overall, our results suggest that the mandates by global regulators to separate trading from commercial banking are well advised.