## _wp1040 — Organizational Form of Banks’ Foreign Operations (Branches vs. Subsidiaries)

## Source details

**Canonical URL:** [_wp1040 — Organizational Form of Banks’ Foreign Operations (Branches vs. Subsidiaries)](https://www.imf.org/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/pubs/ft/wp/2010/_wp1040.pdf)

## Other formats

- [Markdown version](/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/pubs/ft/wp/2010/_wp1040.pdf.md)
- [Structured JSON version](/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/pubs/ft/wp/2010/_wp1040.pdf.json)

---

### I. Introduction — scope and key questions
- Objective: analyze how risk affects the organizational structure of banks’ foreign operations, with primary focus on a bank’s decision to set up affiliates as either subsidiaries or branches.
- Definitions:
  - Subsidiaries: locally incorporated stand-alone entities with their own capital and limited liability at the affiliate level; parent bank’s legal obligation limited to capital invested.
  - Branches: offices of the parent bank without independent legal personality; liabilities of branch affiliates represent real claims on the parent bank.
- Two sources of risk examined:
  - Economic (credit) risk: shocks to economic activity and interest rates affecting borrowers’ creditworthiness (modeled via idiosyncratic noise term i in the model).
  - Political risk: host-government actions that infringe on property rights and expropriate revenue/capital (modeled via binary variable q taking value 1 with probability ').
- Empirical pattern documented:
  - Negative relationship between the relative importance of economic versus political risk and the proportion of foreign affiliates organized as branches.
  - When political risk is low relative to economic risk, banks prefer subsidiaries; when political risk is relatively greater, banks more often choose branches.
- Empirical evidence and context:
  - Cerutti, Dell’Ariccia, and Martinez-Peria (2007) find subsidiaries are more common in highly risky macroeconomic environments, while branches are prevalent where risks stem from possible government intervention.
  - In the EU in 2006: foreign subsidiaries accounted for over 60% of total bank assets in New Member Countries, compared to about 6.5% controlled by foreign branches.
  - In the European Union in 2006, the average foreign subsidiary was about four times as large as the average foreign branch in terms of total assets.
- Policy relevance:
  - Organizational structure affects international crisis transmission, resolution strategies, and political economy of government intervention.
  - Discussion relates to limited use of EU “single passport” despite ease of transforming subsidiaries into branches.

### II. Conceptual trade-offs and model overview
- Main trade-off:
  - Subsidiary advantage: stronger limited liability protection at affiliate level shields parent from spillover losses when credit/economic risk is dominant.
  - Branch advantage: greater protection against property-right infringements (political risk) because capital stays with parent bank (not subject to host expropriation).
- Model setup and key elements:
  - Two markets: home (i = 0) and foreign affiliate (i = 1).
  - Funding: deposits D at cost r_D, equity K at cost r_K.
  - Loan revenue: Li Ri i, where i ∈ {0,1}; probability that i = 0 is ; corr(0, 1) may be nonzero.
  - Political risk at foreign affiliate: q ∈ {0,1}, q = 1 with probability '; q assumed uncorrelated with economic risk. No political risk in home market.
  - Capital/regulation:
    - Subsidiary: Ki must satisfy Ki ≥ kLi; K0 + K1 = K.
    - Branch: capital requirement can be met consolidated: K ≥ k(L0 + L1); branches assumed to hold no capital and be financed by local deposits (DB1 = L1).
  - Balance-sheet identity: L0 + L1 = D + K.
- Key formal insight:
  - Political-risk dominated environments favor branch-based structure because capital remains at parent and is shielded from expropriation.
  - Credit-risk dominated environments favor subsidiary structure because limited liability shields parent from affiliate losses.

### III. Branch structure — consolidated profit characterization and institutional assumptions
- Consolidated profit expression for branch structure:
  - Π_B = max{ L0 P0 − D_B0 r_D + (1 − q) [ L1 P1 − D_B1 r_D ] ; 0 } − K r_K
- Under simplifying assumptions:
  - Branches financed entirely by local deposits ⇒ D_B1 = L1.
  - Home market deposits D_B0 = L0 − K.
  - Rewritten consolidated profit:
    - Π_B = max{ L0 P0 − (L0 − K) r_D + (1 − q) L1 (P1 − r_D) ; 0 } − K r_K
- Institutional/legal assumptions:
  - Parent bank liable for branch losses but parent capital kept at home and not directly expropriable by host.
  - In event of host expropriation, parent typically not required to repay branch liabilities.
  - Branches often need not hold local capital; consolidated supervision and reliance on home-country regulation are common (with exceptions).
- Practical caveats:
  - Distinctions between branches and subsidiaries may be blurred by contractual ring-fencing and regulatory pressures.
  - Host regulators sometimes act to make corporate form transparent to depositors (example given in source).

### IV. Subsidiary structure — formulation and implications
- Consolidated holding (parent + subsidiary) profit expressions:
  - S = max{0; L0 P0 − DS0 rD + (1 − q) max{L1 P1 − DS1 rD; 0}} − (K0 + K1) rK
  - Using DSi = Li − Ki for i = 0,1, S rewritten:
    - S = max{0; L0 P0 − (L0 − K0) rD + (1 − q) max{L1 P1 − (L1 − K1) rD; 0}} − K rK
- Trade-off summary:
  - Branch: capital at home protects against expropriation; leads to higher leverage at foreign affiliate and higher profits in expropriation states.
  - Subsidiary: limited liability at affiliate prevents spillover of credit losses to parent.
- Practical caveats affecting pure comparison:
  - Parent-honored liabilities to branches can reduce branch advantage.
  - Shareholder loans to subsidiaries can reduce limited-liability protection.
  - Main results assume parent-honored liabilities do not exceed subsidiary-equivalent obligations and shareholder loans do not effectively transform a subsidiary into a branch.
- Proposition 1 (threshold politics vs. economics):
  - There exists some political risk level ' ∈ (0,1) for which E[S] = E[B], with E[S] > E[B] for ' < ' and E[S] < E[B] for ' > '.
  - The threshold ' is increasing in ρ, the probability of default.
- Intuition:
  - High political risk favors branches; low political risk favors subsidiaries.
  - As credit/default risk ρ increases, limited liability becomes more valuable, so the political-risk threshold ' must increase.

### V. Comparative statics and extensions
- Cross-country correlation of economic risk (Corollary 1):
  - Corollary 1.1) ∂(E[S] − E[B]) / ∂corr(ε0, ε1) < 0.
  - Corollary 1.2) ∂' / ∂corr(ε0, ε1) < 0.
  - Intuition: higher corr(ε0, ε1) reduces diversification benefit of subsidiaries, favoring branches and lowering the political-risk threshold '.
  - Extreme case: perfect correlation (ε0 = ε1) implies E[S] − E[B] = 0.
- A. Endogenous rates of return on assets (Ri(Li) decreasing in Li):
  - Main implications:
    - (1) Entry abroad occurs if combined economic and political risk is sufficiently small.
    - (2) For large ' branch preferred; for small ' subsidiary preferred (confirms Proposition 1).
    - (3) Optimal affiliate sizes decrease in political risk '.
  - Political risk affects branch and subsidiary sizes differently:
    - If ' high relative to macroeconomic risk, branches optimally choose larger affiliates than subsidiaries.
    - If ' low, subsidiaries optimally choose larger affiliates.
  - Empirical consistency: EU 2006 average foreign subsidiary about four times as large as average foreign branch in total assets.
- B. Endogenous deposit rates (pricing liabilities and partial insurance):
  - If all liabilities are fully priced for risk, affiliate deposit rates:
    - rb = r̄ (1 − ') for a branch,
    - rs = r̄ (1 − ρ) (1 − ') for a subsidiary.
  - Proposition 2:
    - When all liabilities are fully risk-priced, E[S] = E[B] (organizational form neutrality).
  - Partial pricing / deposit insurance:
    - Suppose fraction 1 − θ of affiliate liabilities is insured and fraction θ is risk-priced.
    - Proposition 3:
      - For any θ < 1, there is a threshold '(θ) < 1 such that E[S] < E[B] for ' > '(θ), and E[S] > E[B] for ' < '(θ).
    - Interpretation: when not all risk is priced (θ < 1), the political-risk vs. credit-risk trade-off reappears; for θ = 1 structures are equivalent.
- C. Bank risk taking (endogenous monitoring μ ∈ [0,1]):
  - Monitoring cost v μ^2 / 2; monitoring raises probability of repayment.
  - Monitoring decided at parent level; monitoring reduces default risk.
  - Proposition 4:
    - There exists e' < 1 such that E[S] < E[B] for ' > e' and E[S] > E[B] for ' < e'.
  - Key insights:
    - Branch structures choose higher monitoring (μB > μS) because parent bears affiliate failure liabilities.
    - Even with endogenous risk choices, higher political risk favors branches; higher credit risk favors subsidiaries.

### VI. Policy implications and conclusions
- Central message:
  - Subsidiaries protect parent via limited liability against affiliate credit/economic risk — valuable when political risk is low.
  - Branches keep capital at home and shield it from foreign expropriation — valuable when political risk is high.
- Comparative-static implications relevant for policy/supervision:
  - Higher cross-country correlation of macroeconomic risk reduces subsidiary diversification benefits and shifts choices toward branches.
  - Partial deposit insurance or incomplete pricing of liabilities restores the political-risk vs. credit-risk trade-off; full pricing eliminates it.
  - Corporate structure choice affects affiliate size and credit availability: subsidiaries predicted (and empirically observed in 2006 EU data) to have larger foreign affiliates than branches.
  - Corporate structure influences risk-taking incentives: branches have stronger ex ante monitoring incentives because parent exposure to affiliate losses is greater.
- Real-world caveats:
  - Differential taxation, regulatory restrictions, and other institutional factors are excluded from the model but may influence real-world structure choices.
  - Model clarifies how corporate-structure design helps banks manage political risk vs. credit risk and informs design of prudential rules and cross-border resolution mechanisms.

*Content derived strictly from the supplied excerpt of _wp1040 - References...............................................................................................23*

### References...............................................................................................23

### _wp1040 - References...............................................................................................23

### I. Introduction — scope and key questions
- Objective: analyze how risk affects the organizational structure of banks’ foreign operations, with primary focus on a bank’s decision to set up affiliates as either subsidiaries or branches.
- Definitions:
  - Subsidiaries: locally incorporated stand-alone entities with their own capital and limited liability at the affiliate level; parent bank’s legal obligation limited to capital invested.
  - Branches: offices of the parent bank without independent legal personality; liabilities of branch affiliates represent real claims on the parent bank.
- Two sources of risk examined:
  - Economic (credit) risk: shocks to economic activity and interest rates affecting borrowers’ creditworthiness (modeled via idiosyncratic noise term i in the model).
  - Political risk: host-government actions that infringe on property rights and expropriate revenue/capital (modeled via binary variable q taking value 1 with probability ').
- Empirical pattern documented (Figure 1 summary):
  - Negative relationship between the relative importance of economic versus political risk and the proportion of foreign affiliates organized as branches.
  - When political risk is low relative to economic risk, banks prefer subsidiaries; when political risk is relatively greater, banks more often choose branches.
- Empirical evidence and context:
  - Cerutti, Dell’Ariccia, and Martinez-Peria (2007) find subsidiaries are more common in highly risky macroeconomic environments, while branches are prevalent where risks stem from possible government intervention.
  - In the EU in 2006: foreign subsidiaries accounted for over 60% of total bank assets in New Member Countries, compared to about 6.5% controlled by foreign branches.
  - In the European Union in 2006, the average foreign subsidiary was about four times as large as the average foreign branch in terms of total assets.
- Policy relevance:
  - Organizational structure affects international crisis transmission, resolution strategies, and political economy of government intervention (home governments more likely to share intervention burdens when banks/depositors are directly exposed).
  - Discussion relates to limited use of EU “single passport” despite ease of transforming subsidiaries into branches.

### II. Conceptual trade-offs and model overview
- Main trade-off identified:
  - Subsidiary advantage: stronger limited liability protection at affiliate level shields parent from spillover losses when credit/economic risk is dominant.
  - Branch advantage: greater protection against property-right infringements (political risk) because capital stays with parent bank (not subject to host expropriation).
- Model setup (summary of assumptions and key elements):
  - Bank operates across two markets: home (i = 0) and foreign affiliate (i = 1).
  - Funding: deposits D at cost r_D, equity K at cost r_K (costs uniform across markets).
  - Loan revenue: Li Ri i, where i ∈ {0,1} models credit/economic risk; probability that i = 0 is ; corr(0, 1) may be nonzero.
  - Political risk at foreign affiliate: q ∈ {0,1}, q = 1 (full expropriation) with probability ' and q = 0 otherwise; assumed uncorrelated with economic risk. No political risk in home market.
  - Capital/regulation:
    - Subsidiary: affiliate-level capital Ki must satisfy Ki ≥ kLi; Ki allocated so K0 + K1 = K.
    - Branch: capital requirement can be met on consolidated basis: K ≥ k(L0 + L1); for simplicity branches assumed to hold no capital and be financed by local deposits (DB1 = L1).
  - Balance-sheet identity: L0 + L1 = D + K.
- Key formal insight:
  - When political risk is the dominant concern, branch-based structure is preferable because capital remains at parent (shielded from expropriation).
  - When credit risk is more consequential, subsidiary limited liability is preferable because it shields parent from losses that spill over.

### III. Branch structure — consolidated profit characterization and assumptions
- Consolidated profit expression for branch structure (as given):
  - Π_B = max{ L0 P0 − D_B0 r_D + (1 − q) [ L1 P1 − D_B1 r_D ] ; 0 } − K r_K
  - Under assumptions used for algebraic simplification:
    - Branches financed entirely by local deposits ⇒ D_B1 = L1.
    - Home market deposits D_B0 = L0 − K.
  - Rewritten consolidated profit:
    - Π_B = max{ L0 P0 − (L0 − K) r_D + (1 − q) L1 (P1 − r_D) ; 0 } − K r_K
- Institutional and legal assumptions underpinning branch treatment:
  - Parent bank liable for branch losses but parent capital kept at home and not directly expropriable by host (assumption aligned with international practice and specific legal provisions cited).
  - In event of host expropriation, parent typically not required to repay branch liabilities (consistent with textual examples and legal provisions).
  - Branches need not hold capital in many jurisdictions; consolidated supervision and reliance on home-country regulation are common practices (exceptions exist where host countries impose capital or reserve requirements on foreign branches).
- Practical caveats discussed:
  - Distinctions between branches and subsidiaries may be blurred in practice by contractual ring-fencing and regulatory pressures on parent banks to support subsidiaries.
  - Host regulators sometimes act to make corporate form transparent to depositors (example: Argentina regulation preventing foreign subsidiaries from using parent company name after 2001 crisis).

### IV. Extensions, implications, and related literatures
- Additional model insights (overview):
  - Effects of cross-market correlation of economic risk, affiliate size, degree to which depositors and creditors price risk, and banks’ risk-taking incentives on relative profitability of structures.
  - Subsidiaries likely to take on more risk and be larger than branches on average (consistent with empirical evidence cited).
  - Under frictionless pricing of liabilities and no tax distortions, branch vs. subsidiary choice has a dual in liability structure and expected profitability may be equivalent — a version of Modigliani-Miller (1958) irrelevance for organizational form. Main qualitative results survive when liabilities are imperfectly priced.
- Policy and regulatory implications:
  - Organizational form matters for credit availability and allocation in markets with significant foreign bank presence.
  - Choice of corporate structure has implications for cross-border resolution frameworks and for host/home government intervention incentives when public funds are needed.
  - Regulators should recognize the differentiated incentives and protections of branches versus subsidiaries when designing prudential rules and cross-border resolution mechanisms.
- Relation to empirical and theoretical literatures:
  - Empirical: Cerutti et al. (2007) and other studies document associations between risk environments and corporate form; additional literature examines size/presence determinants of foreign operations.
  - Theoretical: Limited direct literature on bank organizational choice; related work examines regulation differences between branches and subsidiaries, internal capital markets in bank holding companies, and limited liability modeling for multidivisional firms.

*Italicized source attribution: Content derived strictly from the supplied excerpt of _wp1040 - References...............................................................................................23*

### Section 10 (a) Ring-Fencing Agreements).

### Section 10 (a) Ring-Fencing Agreements)

### Subsidiary structure — formulation and implications
- A subsidiary must be separately capitalized (K1) and is protected by limited liability so losses do not spill over from the affiliate to the parent bank.
- The parent bank has a claim on affiliate profits and must use them to cover any domestic losses.
- Consolidated profits for a consolidated holding structure are written as (equations reproduced from source):
  - S = max{0; L0 P0 − DS0 rD + (1 − q) max{L1 P1 − DS1 rD; 0}} − (K0 + K1) rK;
  - Using DSi = Li − Ki for i = 0,1, S can be rewritten as:
    - S = max{0; L0 P0 − (L0 − K0) rD + (1 − q) max{L1 P1 − (L1 − K1) rD; 0}} − K rK.
- The analysis focuses on the consolidated holding structure (parent + subsidiary) rather than “parallel-owned” banks.

### Comparison of corporate structures — trade-offs and main result
- Key trade-off:
  - Branch structure: keeps capital at home, shields capital from foreign expropriation → higher leverage at the foreign affiliate, lower domestic deposit liabilities, higher profits in expropriation states.
  - Subsidiary structure: limited liability at affiliate level → protects parent from affiliate credit/economic losses.
- Practical caveats:
  - Branches may be partially financed through parent liabilities the parent must honor in expropriation, reducing branch advantage.
  - Subsidiaries may be partly funded via shareholder loans, reducing limited-liability protection.
  - Main results hold under assumptions that branches’ parent-honored liabilities do not exceed those of a subsidiary and shareholder loans do not de facto transform a subsidiary into a branch.
- Proposition 1 (main implication):
  - There exists some level of political risk ' ∈ (0,1) for which E[S] = E[B], and such that E[S] > E[B] for ' < ' and E[S] < E[B] for ' > '.
  - The threshold value of political risk ' is increasing in ρ, the probability of default.
- Intuition:
  - High political risk (large '): branch structure preferred because parent capital is insulated from expropriation.
  - Low political risk (small '): subsidiary structure preferred because limited liability prevents parent from absorbing affiliate credit losses.
  - As credit risk (ρ) increases, the threshold ' must increase because limited liability becomes relatively more valuable.

### Comparative statics: cross-country correlation of economic risk (Corollary 1)
- Corollary 1.1) The difference in expected profits E[S] − E[B] is decreasing in corr(ε0, ε1) for all levels of political risk:
  - ∂(E[S] − E[B]) / ∂corr(ε0, ε1) < 0.
- Corollary 1.2) The threshold value of political risk ' for which E[S] = E[B] is decreasing in the cross-country correlation of economic risks:
  - ∂' / ∂corr(ε0, ε1) < 0.
- Intuition:
  - When foreign and domestic economic risks are more correlated, limited liability at the affiliate level provides less diversification benefit; this favors branch structures and lowers the political-risk threshold at which branches become optimal.
  - In the extreme of perfect correlation (ε0 = ε1), E[S] − E[B] = 0.

### Extensions and robustness — overview
- Section IV relaxes assumptions and shows robustness of main results under:
  - Endogenous rates of return on bank assets (scale/contestability effects).
  - Endogenous rates on deposits (pricing of liabilities and deposit insurance).
  - Endogenous bank risk taking (monitoring/screening choices).

A. Endogenous rates of return on bank assets
- Allow R i to decrease with loan quantity Li: R i(Li) < 0.
- Main implications:
  - (1) Entry abroad occurs (for branch or subsidiary) if combined economic and political risk is sufficiently small.
  - (2) For large political risk (' large) branch structure preferred; for small ' subsidiary preferred (confirms Proposition 1).
  - (3) Optimal size of affiliates (both branch and subsidiary) decreases in political risk '.
  - Political risk affects branch and subsidiary sizes differently:
    - When ' is high relative to macroeconomic risk, branches optimally choose larger affiliates than subsidiaries.
    - When ' is low, subsidiaries optimally choose larger affiliates.
- Empirical consistency: In the European Union in 2006, the average foreign subsidiary was about four times as large as the average foreign branch in total assets (data exclude banks located in the UK; source ECB (2007)).

B. Endogenous rates on deposits (pricing liabilities and partial insurance)
- If all bank liabilities are priced to fully reflect risk (extreme case), then affiliate deposit rates:
  - rb = r̄ (1 − ') for a branch,
  - rs = r̄ (1 − ρ) (1 − ') for a subsidiary.
- Proposition 2:
  - When all the bank’s liabilities are priced to fully reflect risk, expected profits are invariant across organizational structures: E[S] = E[B].
  - This mirrors a Modigliani-Miller–type neutrality when markets fully price risk.
- Partial pricing / deposit insurance:
  - Suppose fraction 1 − θ of affiliate liabilities is insured (risk-free) and fraction θ is priced for risk.
  - Proposition 3:
    - For any θ < 1, there is a threshold value of political risk '(θ) < 1 such that E[S] < E[B] for ' > '(θ), and E[S] > E[B] for ' < '(θ).
  - Interpretation:
    - As long as not all risk is priced (θ < 1), the main trade-off reappears: branch preferred when political risk is high; subsidiary preferred when political risk is low.
    - For θ = 1 (all risk priced), structures become equivalent (Proposition 2).

C. Bank risk taking (endogenous monitoring/screening)
- Banks can choose monitoring effort μ ∈ [0,1] at cost v μ^2 / 2; monitoring raises probability of project repayment.
- Monitoring decisions are made at parent level; monitoring reduces loan default risk.
- Expected profits with monitoring are given (branch and subsidiary expressions retained from source).
- Proposition 4:
  - There exists a threshold value of political risk e' < 1 such that E[S] < E[B] for ' > e' and E[S] > E[B] for ' < e'.
- Key insights:
  - Branch structures have stronger incentives to monitor (μB > μS) because parent bears liability for affiliate failures; thus branches choose higher monitoring, leading to lower risk.
  - Even when banks endogenize risk, the central trade-off remains: higher political risk favors branches; higher credit/default risk favors subsidiaries.

### Discussion and conclusions — policy-relevant findings
- Summary of central message:
  - Subsidiaries provide limited-liability protection against credit/economic risk at the affiliate level — valuable when credit risk is the dominant concern (political risk low).
  - Branches concentrate capital at home and shield it from foreign expropriation — valuable when political risk is the dominant concern (political risk high).
- Comparative-static implications relevant for policy and supervision:
  - Cross-country correlation of macroeconomic/economic risk matters: higher correlation reduces the diversification advantage of subsidiaries and shifts optimal choices toward branches.
  - Partial deposit insurance or incomplete pricing of liabilities restores the political-risk–credit-risk trade-off; full pricing eliminates it.
  - Corporate structure choice affects affiliate size and credit availability: subsidiaries are predicted (and empirically observed in 2006 EU data) to have larger foreign affiliates on average than branches.
  - Corporate structure influences risk-taking incentives: branches have stronger ex ante monitoring incentives because parent exposure to affiliate losses is greater.
- Real-world caveats noted in the analysis:
  - Differential taxation, regulatory restrictions, and other institutional factors are excluded from the model but may influence real-world corporate-structure choices.
  - The model aims to clarify how corporate-structure design helps banks manage political risk vs. credit risk.

*Source: _wp1040 - Section 10 (a) Ring-Fencing Agreements).*

### References

### _wp1040 - References

### References list
- Bianco, Magda, and Giovanna Nicodano, 2006, “Pyramidal Groups and Debt,” European Economic Review,  Vol. 50, pp. 937-61.  
- Buch, Claudia, 2003, “Information or Regulation: What Drives the International Activities of Commercial Banks? Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking, Vol. 35, pp. 851-69.  
- Calzolari, Giacomo, and Gyongyi Loranth, 2007, “Regulation of Multinational Banks: A Theoretical Inquiry,” Working Paper, Judge Business School, Cambridge, UK.  
- Campello, Murillo, 2002, “Internal Capital Markets in Financial Conglomerates: Evidence from Small Bank Responses to Monetary Policy,” Journal of Finance, Vol. 57, pp. 2773-805.  
- Cerutti, Eugenio, Giovanni Dell'Ariccia, and Maria Soledad Martinez-Peria, 2007, “How do Banks go Abroad: Branches or Subsidiaries?” Journal of Banking and Finance, Vol. 31, pp. 1669-692.  
- Claessens, Stijn, Asli Demirg-Kunt, and Harry Huizinga, 2000, “How Does Foreign Entry Affect Domestic Banking Markets? Journal of Banking and Finance, Vol. 25, pp. 891-911.  
- Dalen, Dag, and Trond Olsen, 2003, “Regulatory Competition and Multinational Banking,” CESifo Working paper No. 971.  
- De La Torre, Augusto, Eduardo Levy Yeyati, and Sergio Schmukler, 2003, “Living and Dying with Hard Pegs: The Rise and Fall of Argentina's Currency Board,” Economia, Vol. 3, pp. 43-107  
- Dell'Ariccia Giovanni, and Robert Marquez, 2006, “Competition Among Regulators and Credit Market Integration,” Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 79, pp. 401-30.  
- Diamond, Douglas, and Raghuram Rajan, 2000, A Theory of Bank Capital,” Journal of Finance, Vol. 55, pp. 2431-465.  
- Eisenbeis, Robert, and George Kaufman, 2005, “Bank Crisis Resolution and Foreign-owned Banks,” Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta Economic Review, Vol.  90, pp. 1-18.  
- European Central Bank, 2007, EU Banking Structures.  
- Flannery, Mark, Joel Houston, and Subramanyam Venkataraman, 1993, “Financing Multiple Investment Projects,” Financial Management, Vol. 22, pp. 161-72.  
- Focarelli, Dario, and Albert Pozzolo, 2005, “Where do Banks Expand Abroad? An Empirical Analysis,” Journal of Business, Vol. 78, pp. 2435-465.  
- 24  
- Freixas, Xavier, Gyongyi Loranth, and Alan Morrison, 2007, “Regulating Financial Conglomerates,” Journal of Financial Intermediation, Vol. 16, pp. 479-514.  
- Goldberg, Lawrence, and Anthony Saunders, 1980, “The Causes of U.S. Bank Expansion Overseas: The Case of Great Britain,” Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking, Vol. 13, pp. 365-74.  
- Harr, Thomas, and Thomas Ronde, 2005, “Branch or Subsidiary? Capital Regulation of Multinational Banks,” Working Paper, University of Copenhagen.  
- Holmstrom, Bengt, and Jean Tirole, 1997, “Financial Intermediation, Loanable Funds, and the Real Sector,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 112, pp. 663-91.  
- Houston, Joel, Christopher James, and David Marcus, 1997, “Capital Market Frictions and the Role of Internal Capital Markets in Banking, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 46, pp. 135-64.  
- Kahn, Charles, and Andrew Winton, 2004, “Moral Hazard and Optimal Subsidiary Structure for Financial Institutions,” Journal of Finance, Vol. 59, pp. 2531-75.  
- Kane, Edward, 1996, “De Jure Interstate Banking: Why Only Now?” Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking, Vol. 28, pp. 141-61.  
- Kim, Daesik, and Anthony Santomero, 1988, “Risk in Banking and Capital Regulation,” Journal of Finance, Vol. 43, pp. 1219-233.  
- Koehn, Michael, and Anthony Santomero, 1980, “Regulation of Bank Capital and Portfolio Risk,” Journal of Finance, Vol. 35, pp. 1235-244.  
- Lastra, Rosa, 2003, “Cross-border Bank Insolvency: Legal Implications in the Case of Banks Operating in Fifferent Jurisdictions in Latin America,” Journal of International Economic Law, Vol. 6, pp. 79-110.  
- Loranth, Gyongyi, and Alan Morrison, 2007, “Deposit Insurance, Capital Regulations, and Financial Contagion in Multinational Banks,” Journal of Business, Finance and Accounting, Vol. 34, pp. 917-49.  
- Martinez-Peria, Maria Soledad, and Sergio Schmukler, 2001, “Do Depositors Punish Banks for Bad Behavior? Market Discipline, Deposit Insurance, and Banking Crises,” Journal of Finance, Vol. 56, pp. 1029-051.  
- Modigliani, Franco, and Merton Miller, 1958, “The Cost of Capital, Corporate Finance and the Theory of Investment,” American Economic Review, Vol. 48, pp. 261-97.  
- Padoa-Schioppa, Tommaso, 2004, “How to Deal with Emerging Pan-European Financial Institutions?” Speech at the Conference on Supervisory Convergence organized by the Dutch Ministry of Finance, The Hague, November 3.  
- 25  
- Peura, Samu, and Jussi Keppo, 2006, Optimal Bank Capital with Costly Recapitalization, Journal of Business, Vol. 79, pp. 2163-201.  
- Shin, Hyun-Han, and Rene Stulz, 1998, “Are Internal Capital Markets Efficient?” Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 113, pp. 531-52.  
- Song, Inwon, 2004, “Foreign Bank Supervision and Challenges to Emerging Market Supervisors,” IMF Working paper 04/82.

*Source: _wp1040 - References*

---


_Source: https://www.imf.org/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/pubs/ft/wp/2010/_wp1040.pdf_