Optimal Bank Liability Structure

Suresh Sundaresan,Zhenyu Wang

2014-01-01

Abstract:We develop a model of capital/liability structure of value-maximizing banks that optimally respond to changes of regulatory environment. Since it nests the standard model of capital structure for non-financial firms as a special case, our model o↵ers insights into the distinctive properties of banks. By analytically solving the optimal liability structures of unregulated banks and FDIC-insured banks as well as banks that are subject to regulatory equity requirement, we produce the following results. In the absence of regulation, banks take high leverage, both in the form of deposits and subordinated debt. The special driving forces of high leverage are the banks’ low asset volatility and the income from serving deposit accounts. The subordinated debt is found to be important in banks’ liability structure—holding zero subordinated debt is never optimal for a bank. However, a bank that optimizes its liability structure should not have too much subordinated debt; the optimal level is to set the endogenous default of debt to coincide with the point at which depositors choose to run. In this optimal choice of liability structure, subordinated debt does not protect deposits from bankruptcy. The introduction of FDIC raises the market value of banks, even when banks are charged a fair insurance premium. With deposit insurance, a bank issues more deposits but reduces subordinated debt to ensure that endogenous default still coincides with bank closure. In the optimal liability structure, subordinated debt does not protect FDIC from losses in covering deposit insurance obligation when the bank is closed. After cutting back subordinated debt in response to the introduction of FDIC, the deposit expansion still results in a higher leverage. This optimal response dampens the reduction of expected bankruptcy loss that could be potentially brought by the FDIC insurance program. Although the tax benefit of leverage is not a reason for banks to be di↵erent from other companies, corporate tax is more important for banks liability structure because banks take much higher leverage than non-financial firms. Our model o↵ers a coherent framework to link bank optimal leverage to corporate tax rate. Based on our model, the optimal leverage of banks is lower in an economy with lower corporate tax rate. Moreover, the e↵ects of corporate tax rate on bank leverage are almost the same for unregulated banks and FDIC-insured banks. The link lays a stepping stone for further welfare analysis of the benefit and cost of tax policy reforms. The optimal response of banks to regulatory capital requirement is more complicated. Obviously, there should be no response if a bank’s optimal liability structure automatically satisfies the requirement. For a set of parameters for a typical bank, the optimal structure meets the 4% equity requirement of Basel II, but not the 7% equity requirement of Basel III. In order to meet a regulatory equity requirement of 7 percent or higher, the typical bank must trim both deposits and subordinated debt. However, the optimal reduction of leverage in response to equity requirement still ensures that subordinated debt does not protect deposits. 2