EconPapers    
Economics at your fingertips  
 

Bad Bank(s) and Recapitalization of the Banking Sector

Dorothea Schäfer () and Klaus Zimmermann ()

No 897, Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin from DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research

Abstract: With banking sectors worldwide still suffering from the effects of the financial crisis, public discussion of plans to place toxic assets in one or more bad banks has gained steam in recent weeks. The following paper presents a plan how governments can efficiently relieve ailing banks from toxic assets by transferring these assets into a publicly sponsored work-out unit, a so-called bad bank. The key element of the plan is the valuation of troubled assets at their current market value - assets with no market would thus be valued at zero. The current shareholders will cover the losses arising from the depreciation reserve in the amount of the difference of the toxic assets' current book value and their market value. Under the plan, the government would bear responsibility for the management and future resale of toxic assets at its own cost and recapitalize the good bank by taking an equity stake in it. In extreme cases, this would mean a takeover of the bank by the government. The risk to taxpayers from this investment would be acceptable, however, once the banks are freed from toxic assets. A clear emphasis that the government stake is temporary would also be necessary. The government would cover the bad bank's losses, while profits would be distributed to the distressed bank's current shareholders. The plan is viable independent of whether the government decides to have one centralized bad bank or to establish a separate bad bank for each systemically relevant banking institute. Under the terms of the plan, bad banks and nationalization are not alternatives but rather two sides of the same coin. This plan effectively addresses three key challenges. It provides for the transparent removal of toxic assets and gives the banks a fresh start. At the same time, it offers the chance to keep the cost to taxpayers low. In addition, the risk of moral hazard is curtailed. The comparison of the proposed design with the bad bank plan of the German government reveals some shortcomings of the latter plan that may threaten the achievement of these key issues.

Keywords: Financial crisis; financial regulation; toxic assets; Bad Bank (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: G20 G24 G28 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Pages: 29 p.
Date: 2009
New Economics Papers: this item is included in nep-ban, nep-cfn, nep-fmk and nep-reg
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (4) Track citations by RSS feed

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.diw.de/documents/publikationen/73/diw_01.c.99166.de/dp897.pdf (application/pdf)

Related works:
Journal Article: Bad bank(s) and the recapitalisation of the banking sector (2009) Downloads
Working Paper: Bad Bank(s) and Recapitalization of the Banking Sector (2009) Downloads
Working Paper: Bad Bank(s) and Recapitalization of the Banking Sector (2009) Downloads
Working Paper: Bad Bank(s) and Recapitalization of the Banking Sector (2009) Downloads
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:diw:diwwpp:dp897

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin from DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Bibliothek ().

 
Page updated 2020-08-07
Handle: RePEc:diw:diwwpp:dp897