The Contribution of On-Site Examination Ratings to an Empirical Model of Bank Failures

Review of Accounting and Finance

Volumn 4, Issue 4, 2005, Pages 110-133

  Wheelock, David C ^a   Wilso, Paul W ^b  

^a FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF ST LOUIS   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84993089948     PISSN: 14757702     EISSN: 17587700     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1108/eb043440     Document Type: Review

References (24)

1. Andersen, P. K. and R. D. Gill. 1982. Cox's Regression Model for Counting Processes. Annals of Statistics. 1 (1982): 1100-1120.
2. Berger, A. N. and S. M. Davies. 1994. The Information Content of Bank Examinations. Working paper. 1994.
3. Berger, A. N., S. M. Davies, and M.J. Flannery. 2000. Comparing Market and Supervisory Assessments of Bank Performance: Who Knows What When?. Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking. 32 (3, part 2): 641-67.
4. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Commercial Bank Examination Manual. Washington, D.C. December 2003.
5. Cole, R. A., B. G. Cornyn, and J. W. Gunther. 1995. FIMS: A New Monitoring System for Banking Institutions. Federal Reserve Bulletin. January: 1-15.
6. Cole, R. A., and J. W. Gunther. 1998. Predicting Bank Failures: AComparison of Onand Off-Site Monitoring Systems. Journal of Financial Services Research. 13 (2): 103-17.
7. Cox, D.R. 1972. Regression Models and Life-Tables (with discussion). Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. 34B:187-220.
8. Cox, D.R. 1975 Partial Likelihood. Biometrika. 62:269-276.
9. DeYoung, R. 1998. Management Quality and X-lnefficiency in National Banks. Journal of Financial Services Research. 13:5-22.
10. Efron, B. 1977. The Efficiency of Cox's Likelihood Function for Censored Data. Journal of the American Statistical Association. 72:557-565.
11. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. History of the Eighties: Lessons for the Future., Volume 1. Washington, D.C., 1997.
12. Flannery, M. J. and J. F. Houston. 1999. The Value of a Government Monitor for U.S. Banking Firms. Journal of Money; Credit, and Banking. 31 (1):14-34.
13. Gilbert, R. A. 1993. Implications of Annual Examinations for the Bank Insurance Fund. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review. 75 (1):35-52.
14. Gilbert, R. A., A. P. Meyer, and M. D. Vaughan. 1999. The Role of Supervisory Screens and Econometric Models in Off-Site Surveillance. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review. 81 (6):31-56.
15. Gilbert, R. A., A. P. Meyer, and M. D. Vaughan. 2002. Could a CAMELS Downgrade Model Improve Off-Site Surveillance?. Federal Reserve Bank of St.Louis Re view. 84(1): 47-63.
16. Hirschhom, E. 1987. The Informational Content of Bank Examination Ratings. FDIC Banking and Economic Review. 5 (4): 6-11.
17. Hirtle, B. J. and J. A. Lopez. 1999. Supervisory Information and the Frequency of Bank Examinations. Federal Reserve Bank of New York Economic Policy Review. 5 (1):1-20.
18. Johansen, S. 1983. An Extension of Cox's Regression Model. International Statistical Review. 51:165-174.
19. Jones, D. S. and K. K. King. 1995. The Implementation of Prompt Corrective Action: An Assessment. Journal of Banking and Finance. 19 (3-4):491-510.
20. Nuxoll, D. A., J. O'Keefe, and K. Samoiyk. 2003. Do Local Economic Data Improve Off-Site Bank-Monitoring Models?. FDIC Banking Review. 15 (2): 39-53.
21. Siems, T. F. and R. S. Barr. 1998. Benchmarking the Productive Efficiency of U.S. Banks. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas Financial Industry Studies. December: 11-24.
22. Swindle, C. S. 1995. Using CAMEL Ratings to Evaluate Regulator Effectiveness at Commercial Banks. Journal of Financial Services Research. 9:123-41.
23. Whalen, G. and J. B. Thomson. 1998. Using Financial Data to Identify Changes in Bank Condition. Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland Economic Review. 24 (2):17-26.
24. Wheelock, D. C. and P. W. Wilson. 2000. Why Do Banks Disappear? The Determinants of U.S. Bank Failures and Acquisitions. Review of Economics and Statistics. 82(1): 127-138.