A strong reputation is a cornerstone of corporate finance theory, widely believed to relax financial constraints and lower capital costs. We challenge this view by identifying an ‘reputation paradox’: under modern risk-sensitive regulation, for firms with long-term liabilities, a better reputation may paradoxically increase capital strain. We argue that the improvement of firm’s reputation alters customer behavior , , which extends liability duration and amplifies measured risk. By using the life insurance industry as an ideal laboratory, we develop an innovative framework that integrates LLMs with actuarial cash flow models, which confirms that the improved reputation increases regulatory capital demands. A comparative analysis across major regulatory regimes—C-ROSS, Solvency II, and RBC—and two insurance products, we further demonstrate that improvements in reputation affect capital requirements unevenly across product types and regulatory frameworks. Our findings challenge the conventional view that reputation uniformly alleviates capital pressure, emphasizing the necessity for insurers to strategically align reputation management with solvency planning.

How do Held-to-Maturity (HTM) securities that limit the impacts of banks’ unrealized capital loss on the regulatory capital measures affect banks’ exposure to deposit run risks when policy rates increase? And how should regulators design policies on classifying securities as HTM jointly with bank capital regulation? To answer these questions, we develop a model of bank runs in which banks classify long-term assets as HTM or Asset-for-Sale (AFS). Banks trade off the current cost of issuing equity to meet the capital requirement when the interest rate increases against increasing future run risks when the interest rate increases further in the future. When banks underestimate interest rate risks or have limited liability to depositors in the event of default, capping held-to-maturity long-term assets and mandating more equity capital issuance may reduce the run risks of moderately capitalized banks. Using bank-quarter-level data from Call Reports, we provide empirical support for the model’s testable implications.

Reputation is widely regarded as a stabilizing factor in financial institutions, reducing capital constraints and enhancing firm resilience. However, in the insurance industry, where capital requirements are shaped by solvency regulations and policyholder behavior, the effects of reputation on capital management remain unclear. This paper examines the unintended consequences of reputation in insurance asset-liability management, focusing on its impact on capital allocation. Using a novel reputation risk measure based on large language models (LLMs) and actuarial models, we show that reputation shifts influence surrender rates, altering capital requirements. While higher reputation reduces surrender risk, it increases capital demand for investment-oriented insurance products, whereas protection products remain largely unaffected. These findings challenge the conventional wisdom that reputation always eases capital constraints, highlighting the need for insurers to integrate reputation management with capital planning to avoid unintended capital strain.

Understanding the impacts of new technology and innovations on the banking sector is important and of growing interest. However, there is limited research on the detailed channels of the impacts, and consequently, the evaluations for the aggregate welfare impacts. We contribute both empirically and quantitatively. We construct a new data set for Chinese banks. We ffnd banking innovations can improve efficiency, and mostly reduce non-interest costs but not so much on deposit rates. We show the ffnding is quite robust under a battery of checks. In a new structural, quantitative model, banks have heterogeneous capital, decide innovation investment and also risky lending, face regulations on the capital requirement and have limited liability. When aggregate new technology improves, it can reduce financial intermediation costs and social deadweight loss; however, it will also change the bank’s risk consideration and increases moral hazard when the cost is largely reduced. We also find several other new implications for R&D investment credit policy and Capital Requirement policy (CAR).

In this paper, I build a continuous-time macro-finance model in which firms can access both bond credit and bank credit. The model captures the simple idea that the presence of bond financing increases the price elasticity of demand for bank loans. I find that the optimal capital adequacy ratio is quantitatively sensitive to the presence of bond financing and that models would overstate the banking sector's recovery rate if they omit bond financing. Furthermore, the model highlights that an economy's optimal capital requirement highly depends on the efficiency of its bankruptcy procedure and the risk profile of its real sector.

We develop a portfolio-choice model to investigate how regulatory reforms influence the risk-taking behavior of financial institutions with different capital adequacy levels. The model predicts that either all firms reduce their risk-taking, or there exists a capital-adequacy threshold below which risk-taking increases as regulation becomes more stringent. The Chinese insurance solvency regulatory reform provides a unique natural experiment to test our theory. In 2015, each insurer reported two solvency ratios under the original and the new regulatory systems. The difference between them produces an exogenous and insurer-specific measure of the regulatory pressure shock. Consistent with our theoretical predictions, we find that increasing regulatory pressure induces greater risk-taking for less capital-adequate insurers, of which the regulator should want to reduce risk-taking mostly. We show that increasing the penalties of insolvency, increasing the risk sensitivity of capital requirements, and reinforcing the qualitative risk assessment are effective policy remedies for this backfiring problem.

基于保险监管视角，借鉴欧盟“偿付能力II”相关理论，对市场风险运用幂阶转换在险价值（Normal Power Approximation Value-at-Risk），并进行波动率时间序列建模；对保险风险运用精算模型；对信用风险和操作风险则借用巴塞尔新资本协议的相关标准模型，实证分析了我国财险公司的偿付能力资本需求。结果显示：偿付能力资本需求（Solvency capital requirement, SCR）是最低资本需求（Minimal capital requirement, MCR）的1.928倍，表明以风险为基础计算的资本需求远大于基于业务量大小的资本需求。

Although bank loans themselves are somewhat illiquid because of private information, most of their cashflows are not. Recent financial innovations allow commercial loans to be liquefied via credit derivatives and actual and synthetic securitizations. The loan originating bank holds the remaining illiquid tranche containing the concentrated credit risk, private information rent and the “excess spread” that incentivize the bank to continue to monitor and service the loans. Empirically, we find that the average size of the residual tranche is about 3%, which reflects the size of the “market determined capital” necessary to support the liquefaction. The liquefaction of bank loans makes possible a banking system that restricts the guaranteed accounts to be backed by 100% reserves and the non-guaranteed deposits to be backed by liquid securitized loan tranches, while retaining the deposit-lending synergy. Such a system is perfectly safe without deposit insurance and it renders banks bankruptcy-remote without sacrificing a bank’s traditional role as a financial intermediary.

Although bank loans themselves are somewhat illiquid because of private information, most of their cashflows are not. Recent financial innovations allow commercial loans to be liquefied via credit derivatives and actual and synthetic securitizations. The loan originating bank holds the remaining illiquid tranche containing the concentrated credit risk, private information rent and the “excess spread” that incentivize the bank to continue to monitor and service the loans. Empirically, we find that the average size of the residual tranche is about 3%, which reflects the size of the “market determined capital” necessary to support the liquefaction. The liquefaction of bank loans makes possible a banking system that restricts the guaranteed accounts to be backed by 100% reserves and the non-guaranteed deposits to be backed by liquid securitized loan tranches, while retaining the deposit-lending synergy. Such a system is perfectly safe without deposit insurance and it renders banks bankruptcy-remote without sacrificing a bank’s traditional role as a financial intermediary.