Journal Press India^®

Author Details ( * ) denotes Corresponding author

This study focuses on checking for the existence and strength of the market discipline based on different ownership structures of the banks. First, this article determines if depositors react rationally to risk levels depending on the bank's ownership type, and second, if the strength of this responsiveness differs depending on the bank's ownership type. This study is based on 38 banks in the Indian banking sector. Empirical testing is carried out using panel data analysis and various proxies to assess the riskiness of the banks. The analysis shows that market discipline exists regardless of the kind of ownership. However, its strength varies across different ownership structures of the banks. These findings are crucial for the orderly functioning of the banking system so that the bank managers do not take advantage of the market perception based on their state ownership.

Keywords

Market discipline; Riskiness of the banks; Indian banking system; Ownership type of the banks; Deposit growth

1. Acharya, V. V., & Kulkarni, N. (2012). What saved the Indian banking system: State ownership or state guarantees? The World Economy, 35(1), 19-31.
2. Aharony, J., & Swary, I. (1983). Contagion effects of bank failures: Evidence from capital markets. Journal of Business, 56(3), 305-322.
3. Bologna, P. (2015). Structural funding and bank failures. Journal of Financial Services Research, 47(1), 81–113.
4. Boubakri, N., El Ghoul, S., Guedhami, O., & Hossain, M. (2020). Post-privatization state ownership and bank risk-taking: Cross-country evidence. Journal of Corporate Finance, 64(C), 101625.
5. Cornett, M., Guo, L., Khaksari, S. H., & Tehranian, H. (2010). The impact of state ownership on performance differences in privately-owned versus state-owned banks: An international comparison. Journal of Financial Intermediation, 19(1), 74–94.
6. Cutura, J. A. (2021). Debt holder monitoring and implicit guarantees: Did the BRRD improve market discipline? Journal of Financial Stability, 54(C), 100879.
7. Flannery, M. J. (2001). The faces of “market discipline”. Journal of Financial Services Research, 20(2), 107-119.
8. Iren, P., Reichert, A. K., & Gramlich, D. (2014). Information disclosure, bank performance and bank stability. International Journal of. Banking, Accounting and Finance, 5(4), 1-38.
9. Sironi, A. (2003). Testing for market discipline in the European banking industry: evidence from subordinated debt issues. Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, 35(3), 443-472.
10. Giannetti, M., & Ongena, S. (2009). Financial integration and firm performance: Evidence of foreign bank entry in emerging markets. Review of Finance: Journal of the European Finance Association, 13(2), 181–223.
11. Haw, I. M., Ho, S. S., Hu, B., & Wu, D. (2010). Concentrated control, institutions and banking sector: An international study. Journal of Banking & Finance, 34(3), 485-497.
12. Imbierowicz, B., & Rauch, C. H. (2014). The relationship between liquidity risk and credit risk in banks. Journal of Banking & Finance, 40(C), 242–256.
13. Laeven, L., & Levin, R. (2009). Bank governance, regulation and risk-taking. Journal of Financial Economics, 93(2), 259–275.
14. Mondschean, T. S., & Opiela, T. P. (1999). Bank time deposit rates and market discipline in Poland: the impact of state ownership and deposit insurance reform. Journal of Financial Services Research, 15(3), 179-196.
15. Rajaraman, I., Bhaumik, S., & Bhatia, N. (1999). NPA variations across Indian commercial banks: Some findings. Economic and Political Weekly, 34(3/4)161-168.
16. Ramirez, C. D., & Shively, P. A. (2012). The effect of bank failures on economic activity: evidence from U.S. States in the early 20th century. Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, 44(2/3), 433–455.
17. Rawlin, R., Sharan, S. M., & Lakshmipathy, P. B. (2012). Modeling the NPA of a midsized Indian nationalized bank as a function of advances. European Journal of Business and Management, 4(5), 78-89.
18. Saghi-Zedek, N. (2016). Product diversification and bank performance: Does ownership structure matter? Journal of Banking & Finance, 71(C), 154–167.
19. Saunders, A., Strock, E., & Travlos, N. G. (1990). Ownership structure, deregulation, and bank risk taking. The Journal of Finance, 45(2), 643-654.
20. Schoors, K., Semenova, M., & Zubanov, A. (2019). Depositor discipline during crisis: Flight to familiarity or trust in local authorities? Journal of Financial Stability, 43, 25-39. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfs.2019.05.002.
21. Shehzad, C. T., De Haan, J., & Scholtens, B. (2010). The impact of bank ownership concentration on impaired loans and capital adequacy. Journal of Banking & Finance, 34(2), 399-408.
22. Trinugroho, I., Pamungkas, P., Ariefianto, M. D., & Tarazi, A. (2020). Deposit structure, market discipline, and ownership type: Evidence from Indonesia. Economic Systems, 44(2), 100758.
23. Tussing, A. D. (1967). The case for bank failure. The Journal of Law and Economics, 10(1), 129-147.
24. Zhu, W., & Yang, J. (2016). State ownership, cross-border acquisition, and risk-taking: Evidence from China’s banking industry. Journal of Banking & Finance, 71, 133–153. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2533833.