IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eme/jfrcpp/v22y2014i2p159-172.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Distance-to-default measures and determinants for systemically important financial institutions

Author

Listed:
  • Natalya A. Schenck

Abstract

Purpose - – This study aims to compare two distance-to-default methods, data-transformed maximum likelihood estimation and “naïve”, that are suitable for financial institutions. The links between these measures and asset size, Tier 1 and Tier 2 capital ratios, non-performing assets and operating efficiency have been examined and an alternative default risk measure has been introduced. Most of the market-based distance-to-default measures are not appropriate for banks due to their unique debt structure. Design/methodology/approach - – The author has compared two distance-to-default measures and has identified their accounting determinants using Pearson’s correlation and regressions with clustered standard errors. The sample of the US-based systemically important financial institutions covers the period from 2000 to 2010. Findings - – Non-performing assets and operating efficiency are found to be statistically and economically significant determinants of both distance-to-default measures. Tier 1 capital ratio is not a significant indicator of default risk. Practical implications - – The results emphasize the importance of using a combination of market-based default risk measures and accounting ratios in default prediction models for the financial institutions. Originality/value - – This paper identifies accounting determinants of two distance-to-default measures for large financial institutions, before and during the 2008 financial crisis. It introduces a spread between two measures as an alternative default risk indicator.

Suggested Citation

  • Natalya A. Schenck, 2014. "Distance-to-default measures and determinants for systemically important financial institutions," Journal of Financial Regulation and Compliance, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 22(2), pages 159-172, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:eme:jfrcpp:v:22:y:2014:i:2:p:159-172
    DOI: 10.1108/JFRC-02-2013-0004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/JFRC-02-2013-0004/full/html?utm_source=repec&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=repec
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers
    File URL: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/JFRC-02-2013-0004/full/pdf?utm_source=repec&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=repec
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1108/JFRC-02-2013-0004?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Risfandy, Tastaftiyan & Tarazi, Amine & Trinugroho, Irwan, 2022. "Competition in dual markets: Implications for banking system stability," Global Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 52(C).
    2. Dinh, Dung V. & Powell, Robert J. & Vo, Duc H., 2021. "Forecasting corporate financial distress in the Southeast Asian countries: A market-based approach," Journal of Asian Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Financial crisis; Banks; Distance-to-default; Default risk; G21; G28; G32;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • G21 - Financial Economics - - Financial Institutions and Services - - - Banks; Other Depository Institutions; Micro Finance Institutions; Mortgages
    • G28 - Financial Economics - - Financial Institutions and Services - - - Government Policy and Regulation
    • G32 - Financial Economics - - Corporate Finance and Governance - - - Financing Policy; Financial Risk and Risk Management; Capital and Ownership Structure; Value of Firms; Goodwill

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eme:jfrcpp:v:22:y:2014:i:2:p:159-172. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Emerald Support (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.