ArticleJournal of financial stability2021
Banking research in the time of COVID-19.
Article in Journal of financial stability, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Countercyclical capital buffers and credit supply: Evidence from the COVID-19 crisis.Journal of banking & finance · 2023Article
- Stress relief? Funding structures and resilience to the covid shock.Journal of monetary economics · 2023Article
- Regulatory capital and bank risk-resilience amid the Covid-19 pandemic: How are the Basel reforms faring?Finance research letters · 2023Article
- Pandemic effect on corporate financial asset holdings: Precautionary or return-chasing?Research in international business and finance · 2022Article
- COVID-19, bank deposits, and lending.Journal of empirical finance · 2022Article
- COVID-19 as a stress test: Assessing the bank regulatory framework.Journal of financial stability · 2022Article
- A note on regulatory responses to COVID-19 pandemic: Balancing banks' solvency and contribution to recovery.Journal of financial stability · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite the devastating worldwide human and economic tolls of the COVID-19 crisis, it has created some positive economic and financial surprises and opportunities for research. This paper highlights two such favorable surprises - the shortest U.S. recession on record and the avoidance of any banking crisis - and a number of research opportunities. The paper ties the "economic surprise" of the short recession to the speed and size of U.S. stimulus programs during COVID-19 - faster and larger than for the Global Financial Crisis (GFC). We connect the "financial surprise" of the resilient banking sector to prudential policies put in place during and after the GFC that fortified U.S. banks prior to COVID-19. These twin "surprises" are also mutually reinforcing - if either the economy or banking system had failed, so would the other. The paper also reviews extant COVID-19 banking research and suggest paths for future research. It recommends that particular attention be paid to research outside of the U.S. - where fewer favorable "surprises" may be present - as the best way to advance knowledge in this area.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.