Comparing Market and Supervisory Assessments of Bank Performance: Who Knows What When?
Allen Berger (),
Sally M Davies and
Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, 2000, vol. 32, issue 3, 641-67
This paper compares the timeliness and accuracy of (confidential) government assessments of bank condition against market evaluations of large U.S. bank holding companies. We find that supervisors and bond rating agencies both acquire some information that would help the other group forecast changes in bank condition. In contrast, supervisory assessments and equity market indicators are not strongly interrelated. Furthermore, supervisory assessments are generally less accurate than either stock or bond market indicators in predicting future changes in performance, except when those assessments derive from a recent on-site inspection visit. To some extent, these findings seem consistent with the various parties' differing incentives.
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (120) Track citations by RSS feed
There are no downloads for this item, see the EconPapers FAQ for hints about obtaining it.
Journal Article: Comparing market and supervisory assessments of bank performance: who knows what when? (2000)
Working Paper: Comparing market and supervisory assessments of bank performance: who knows what when? (1998)
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.
Export reference: BibTeX
RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan)
Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:mcb:jmoncb:v:32:y:2000:i:3:p:641-67
Access Statistics for this article
Journal of Money, Credit and Banking is currently edited by Robert deYoung, Paul Evans, Pok-Sang Lam and Kenneth D. West
More articles in Journal of Money, Credit and Banking from Blackwell Publishing
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Wiley-Blackwell Digital Licensing ().