Banks’ Motivations for Designating Securities as Held to Maturity

ABSTRACT We provide evidence that banks classify fixed-rate debt investment securities as held to maturity (HTM) rather than as available for sale (AFS) when HTM classification provides preferred financial accounting and regulatory capital treatments, not because they have a distinct economically motivated intent and ability to hold the securities to maturity. Specifically, we document predictably divergent security classifications by three categories of banks that differ in whether the regulatory accumulated other comprehensive income (AOCI) filter, which removes AOCI from Tier 1 capital, applies in four subperiods of our 2012–2022 sample period. The boundaries of the subperiods reflect changes in the AOCI filter’s applicability in 2014 and 2019 and the sharp rise in interest rates beginning in late 2021. We further find that the bank categories differ in the interest rate risk of their AFS securities and the extents to which they economically hedge that risk using derivatives and uninsured deposits. JEL Classifications: G21; G28; M41; M48.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
The Accounting Review
Published
2025-04-18
DOI
https://doi.org/10.2308/tar-2023-0615
Citations
5
Primary Topic
Banking stability, regulation, efficiency
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
6.62
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Banks’ Motivations for Designating Securities as Held to Maturity

S. Thomas Kim, Stephen G. Ryan, Seil Kim
5 citations
The Accounting Review
Banking stability, regulation, efficiency
6.62
article

Banks’ Motivations for Designating Securities as Held to Maturity

S. Thomas Kim, Stephen G. Ryan, Seil Kim
article en
5 citations

Abstract

ABSTRACT We provide evidence that banks classify fixed-rate debt investment securities as held to maturity (HTM) rather than as available for sale (AFS) when HTM classification provides preferred financial accounting and regulatory capital treatments, not because they have a distinct economically motivated intent and ability to hold the securities to maturity. Specifically, we document predictably divergent security classifications by three categories of banks that differ in whether the regulatory accumulated other comprehensive income (AOCI) filter, which removes AOCI from Tier 1 capital, applies in four subperiods of our 2012–2022 sample period. The boundaries of the subperiods reflect changes in the AOCI filter’s applicability in 2014 and 2019 and the sharp rise in interest rates beginning in late 2021. We further find that the bank categories differ in the interest rate risk of their AFS securities and the extents to which they economically hedge that risk using derivatives and uninsured deposits. JEL Classifications: G21; G28; M41; M48.

The Accounting ReviewVol. 100(4)
Baruch College (US), New York University (US), Columbia University (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 4%
Banking stability, regulation, efficiency
6.62
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Banks’ Motivations for Designating Securities as Held to Maturity — S. Thomas Kim, Stephen G. Ryan, et al. · The Accounting Review (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS