The Incentive Effect of Regulatory Capitals Requirement: Empirical Evidence from Nigeria
|Author(s)||by Baba N. Yaaba, Lawal A. Dalhatu, Isa E. Adamu|
|Keywords||Regulatory capital, ARDL, risk, loan growth rate|
|Open Access||Access PDF Open in New Tab|
The divergence of opinion between policy makers and academic researchers, as to which of the first two capital requirements (Tier 1 and 2 capitals)exerts more influence on the attitude of banks towards risk, has led to an unending debate. Policy maker‟s opinethat Tier 2 capital does not satisfy the purpose with which it was introduced as compared to Tier 1capital. They are of the view that Tier 2 capital is inferior to Tier 1, both in terms of „going-concern‟ and „gone-concern‟. This group suggests that Tier 2 should in its entirety be scrapped. The academic literature, on the other hand, highlights the benefits of Tier 2 to include a device of market discipline and a signal of banks creditworthiness, thus strongly advocatesits enforcement. This study contributes to this debate by examining empirically, the relationship between these two regulatory capital requirement and banks behaviour in Nigeria. The study applies Autoregressive Distributed Lag Approach otherwise known as “Bound Testing Approach” to determine both short and long-run relationships among regulatory capitals and variables surrogating risk taking behaviour of banks. The result demonstrates the critical position of Tier 1 capital in key decision making process, in relation to credit creation and loan loss provisioning. Without assigning any role to Tier 2 capital, the result further suggests that, besides Tier 1 capital, monetary policy rate plays a striking role in the determination of loan growth. This, therefore, support the submission that Tier 1 is superior to Tier 2 at-least in terms of going-concern.
ARTICLE PROCESSING CHARGE
Online Publication & Two Hard Copies
|International Journal of Empirical Finance||$ 100||$ 170|
|International Journal of Financial Economics||$ 80||$ 150|
|International Journal of Management Sciences||$ 100||$ 170|
|Journal of Empirical Economics||$ 80||$ 150|
|Journal of Education and Literature||$ 60||$ 130|
|Quarterly Journal of Business Studies||$ 50||$ 120|
|Journal of Language and Communication||$ 30||$ 100|
|Studies in Social Sciences and Humanities||$ 80||$ 150|
|Journal of Social Economics||$ 30||$ 100|
|International Journal of Financial Markets||$ 30||$ 100|
|Journal of Public Policy & Governance||$ 30||$ 100|
For a peer-reviewed journal, the publication of articles plays an essential role in the development of a coherent network of knowledge. It is, therefore, essential that all publishers, editors, authors, and reviewers, in the process of publishing the journals, conduct themselves in accordance with the highest level of professional ethics and standards. The publisher is dedicated to supporting the vast efforts of the editors, the academic contributions of authors, and the respected volunteer work undertaken by reviewers. The publisher is also responsible for ensuring that the publication system works smoothly, and that ethical guidelines are applied to assist the editor, author, and reviewer in performing their ethical duties.
The editor has the following responsibilities:
1.The editor should acknowledge receipt of submitted manuscripts within two working days of receipt and ensure an efficient, fair, and timely review process.
2.The editor should ensure that submitted manuscripts are processed in a confidential manner, and that no content of the manuscripts will be disclosed to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
3.The editor should recuse himself or herself from processing manuscripts if he or she has any conflict of interest with any of the authors or institutions related to the manuscripts.
4.The editor should not disclose the names and other details of the reviewers to a third party without the permission of the reviewers.
5.The editor has the right to make the final decision on whether to accept or reject a manuscript with reference to the significance, originality, and clarity of the manuscript and its relevance to the journal.
6.The editor should by no means make any effort to oblige the authors to cite his or her journal either as an implied or explicit condition of accepting their manuscripts for publication.
7.The editor should not use for his or her own research any part of any data or work reported in submitted and as yet unpublished articles.
8.The editor should respond promptly and take reasonable measures when an ethical complaint occurs concerning a submitted manuscript or a published paper, and the editor should immediately contact and consult with the author. In this case, a written formal retraction or correction may also be required.