Does Regulatory Capital Arbitrage or Asymmetric Information Drive Securitization?
Preprint
- 26 May 2004
- preprint
- Published by Elsevier in SSRN Electronic Journal
Abstract
Banks face the choice of keeping loans on their balance sheet as private debt or transforming them into public debt via asset securitization. Securitization transfers credit and interest rate risk, increases liquidity, augments fee income, and improves capital ratios. Yet many lenders still choose to retain a portion of their loans in portfolio. An open research question is whether lenders exploit asymmetric information to sell riskier loans into the public markets or retain riskier loans in response to regulatory capital incentives (regulatory capital arbitrage). We examine this question empirically using micro-level data and find that securitized mortgage loans have experienced lower ex-post defaults than those retained in portfolio, providing evidence consistent with the latter explanation for securitization.Keywords
This publication has 9 references indexed in Scilit:
- A Reconsideration of the Jumbo/Non-Jumbo Mortgage Rate DifferentialThe Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 2002
- Effects of Asset Securitization on Seller ClaimantsJournal of Financial Intermediation, 2001
- GSEs, Mortgage Rates, and the Long-Run Effects of Mortgage SecuritizationSSRN Electronic Journal, 2001
- Don't Put All Your Eggs in One Basket? Diversification and Specialization in LendingSSRN Electronic Journal, 1999
- Mortgage Choice: What's the Point?Real Estate Economics, 1998
- The Workings of Private Mortgage Bankers and Securitization ConduitsPublished by MIT Press ,1996
- The Origins of Securitization, Sources of Its Growth, and Its Future PotentialPublished by MIT Press ,1996
- Putting the squeeze on a market for lemons: Government-sponsored mortgage securitizationThe Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 1996
- Determinants of corporate borrowingJournal of Financial Economics, 1977