Navigating the Complexities of Bank Regulation and Accounting Discretion

Kinda Hachem highlights significant challenges in the banking sector's regulatory framework, particularly examining how accounting discretion complicates the alignment of bank interests with societal welfare. Despite robust regulations, the potential for financial disruptions persists, prompting questions about whether the existing regulatory measures need adjustments or a complete overhaul.

The Need for Bank Regulation

At the core of banking operations lie two types of assets—cash and loans—paired with two primary funding sources: deposits and capital. While cash remains entirely liquid, yielding no return, loans represent illiquid assets that promise returns when held to maturity. Deposits refer to short-term liabilities that require immediate payment availability, contrasting with capital, which serves as equity that absorbs losses and profits only when loan returns exceed expectations.

Banks contribute societal value primarily by providing loans to productive firms that lack access to capital due to information asymmetries. Additionally, they transform the illiquid nature of loans into liquid deposit options for risk-averse investors. This liquidity service creates a delicate balance; a bank's funding structure must not rely solely on equity to operate effectively, yet being fully deposit-funded poses substantial risks.

Deciding on an optimal capital structure involves trade-offs. Insufficient capital heightens insolvency risk, while excessive capital can undermine liquidity provisions. Thus, regulatory frameworks are necessary to counterbalance the bank's risk assessment with a broader social perspective on welfare. Individual banks often undervalue their loss-absorbing capacity compared to a social planner or regulator. Furthermore, when a bank fails, it can initiate a systemic crisis, threatening multiple financial institutions, as seen in historic banking runs.

Current empirical studies reveal a troubling trend: banks frequently find ways to circumvent established regulatory constraints. The underlying theory suggests that due to the high stakes associated with externalities in banking, banks tend to find profitable methods to sidestep the very regulations intended to safeguard financial stability.

Importantly, circumvention does not always imply outright regulatory violations. Many instances involve banks structuring their operations to meet regulatory criteria while deviating from their intent. This presents a fundamental issue where adherence to regulation as written can diverge significantly from the original spirit of the rules, opening avenues for regulatory evasion without technically breaking any laws.

Accounting standards play a pivotal role in this dynamic, facilitating or constraining a bank's ability to navigate regulatory frameworks. When accounting practices allow greater flexibility, they inadvertently lower circumvention costs, making it easier for institutions to operate in ways that may undermine regulatory intentions. For example, during various financial crises, including the 1980s savings and loan crisis and the 2008 financial turmoil, banks managed to use discretion in reporting practices to avoid capital charges or recognize losses.

Weighing Discretion Against Regulation

Reducing discretion in accounting may theoretically increase the costs associated with regulatory circumvention, yet it must be carefully balanced against the benefits that discretionary practices can offer. Proponents of discretion argue that permitting some leeway in financial reporting enables firms to communicate private information more effectively, aiding stakeholder decision-making and performance evaluations.

Yet, there lies a contradiction: increased discretion can undercut regulatory efforts aimed at enhancing financial stability. A comprehensive regulatory framework should consider this intricate balance, recognizing that while some degree of discretion promotes operational flexibility and adaptability, it can also trigger behaviors that lead to regulatory avoidance.

Future Directions for Research

Hachem's examination points toward the need for a more unified analysis of bank regulation and accounting standards. A framework that acknowledges their interplay could lead to enhancements in regulatory design. For effective policy development, it's crucial to model discretion and regulation as multifaceted constructs, recognizing that not all aspects of a bank's operations warrant the same level of regulatory scrutiny.

This approach could steer researchers and policymakers towards combinations of discretion and regulation that mitigate the risk of circumvention while maximizing the value that discretion brings to financial disclosures. An area ripe for exploration includes identifying which elements of regulation and accounting practices can coexist without forcing unfavorable trade-offs that diminish financial stability.

Ultimately, the interaction between accounting discretion and bank regulation is not merely an academic debate; it has profound implications for financial system integrity and risk management. Understanding and refining this relationship remains a crucial endeavor for regulators looking to construct frameworks that accommodate both accountability and flexibility.

Kinda Hachem serves as a financial research advisor at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s Research and Statistics Group.

How to cite this post:
Kinda Hachem, “Designing Bank Regulation with Accounting Discretion,” Federal Reserve Bank of New York Liberty Street Economics, December 15, 2025, https://doi.org/10.59576/lse.20251215

You may also be interested in:

The Theory of Financial Stability Meets Reality

How Shadow Banking Reshapes the Optimal Mix of Regulation

Tailoring Regulations

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this post are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the position of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York or the Federal Reserve System. Any errors or omissions are the responsibility of the author(s).