当前位置: X-MOL 学术Contemporary Accounting Research › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
A Tale of Two Supervisors: Compliance with Risk Disclosure Regulation in the Banking Sector*
Contemporary Accounting Research ( IF 3.2 ) Pub Date : 2021-07-07 , DOI: 10.1111/1911-3846.12715
Jannis Bischof 1 , Holger Daske 1 , Ferdinand Elfers 2 , Luzi Hail 3
Affiliation  

We examine how the presence of multiple supervisory agencies affects firm-level compliance in form and substance with disclosure regulations. This analysis is important because coordination problems among regulators are frequently present in practice but often overlooked in academic research. We exploit that banks are subject to equivalent risk disclosure rules under securities laws (IFRS 7) and banking regulation (Pillar 3 of the Basel II Accord) but that different regulators start enforcing the rules at different points in time. We find that banks substantially increase their formal risk disclosures upon the adoption of Pillar 3 even if they already had to comply with the same requirements under IFRS 7. The effects are stronger if the central bank is responsible for bank supervision and bank regulators are equipped with more supervisory resources, but are less pronounced if the securities market regulator is an independent entity. In turn, banks facing more market pressures are more compliant with the rules. We further find persistent liquidity benefits of the increased risk disclosures but only after Pillar 3 became effective and its compliance was enforced by the banking regulator. Our results suggest that formal and material compliance with risk disclosure regulation are a function of both the resources of the supervisory agency and its incentive alignment with the regulated firms. In our setting, the banking regulator seems more effective in fulfilling this role.

中文翻译:

两位监管者的故事:银行业风险披露法规的合规性*

我们研究了多个监管机构的存在如何影响公司在形式和实质上对披露法规的遵守情况。这种分析很重要,因为监管机构之间的协调问题在实践中经常出现,但在学术研究中经常被忽视。我们利用银行受证券法(IFRS 7)和银行监管(巴塞尔协议第 3 支柱)规定的同等风险披露规则的约束,但不同的监管机构在不同的时间点开始执行这些规则。我们发现,即使银行已经不得不遵守 IFRS 7 下的相同要求,银行在采用支柱 3 后也会大幅增加其正式风险披露。如果中央银行负责银行监管并且银行监管机构拥有更多的监管资源,则效果会更强,但如果证券市场监管机构是独立实体,效果就不那么明显了。反过来,面临更大市场压力的银行也更符合规则。我们进一步发现增加风险披露的持续流动性好处,但只有在第三支柱生效并且银行监管机构强制执行其合规性之后。我们的研究结果表明,对风险披露监管的正式和实质性遵守是监管机构资源及其与受监管公司的激励一致的函数。在我们的环境中,银行监管机构似乎更有效地履行了这一职责。但如果证券市场监管机构是一个独立实体,则不那么明显。反过来,面临更大市场压力的银行也更符合规则。我们进一步发现增加风险披露的持续流动性好处,但只有在第三支柱生效并且银行监管机构强制执行其合规性之后。我们的研究结果表明,对风险披露监管的正式和实质性遵守是监管机构资源及其与受监管公司的激励一致的函数。在我们的环境中,银行监管机构似乎更有效地履行了这一职责。但如果证券市场监管机构是一个独立实体,则不那么明显。反过来,面临更大市场压力的银行也更符合规则。我们进一步发现增加风险披露的持续流动性好处,但只有在第三支柱生效并且银行监管机构强制执行其合规性之后。我们的研究结果表明,对风险披露监管的正式和实质性遵守是监管机构资源及其与受监管公司的激励一致的函数。在我们的环境中,银行监管机构似乎更有效地履行了这一职责。我们进一步发现增加风险披露的持续流动性好处,但只有在第三支柱生效并且银行监管机构强制执行其合规性之后。我们的研究结果表明,对风险披露监管的正式和实质性遵守是监管机构资源及其与受监管公司的激励一致的函数。在我们的环境中,银行监管机构似乎更有效地履行了这一职责。我们进一步发现增加风险披露的持续流动性好处,但只有在第三支柱生效并且银行监管机构强制执行其合规性之后。我们的研究结果表明,对风险披露监管的正式和实质性遵守是监管机构资源及其与受监管公司的激励一致的函数。在我们的环境中,银行监管机构似乎更有效地履行了这一职责。
更新日期:2021-07-07
down
wechat
bug