Search results

This study examines the influence of anti-money laundering (AML) regulations on the financial development-economic growth nexus around the world.

The study uses data from 165 countries spanning continents, income levels, and regulatory regimes from 2012 to 2018. The Prais–Winsten (1954) and Hansen (2000) panel threshold estimation approaches were used to assess the study's hypothesized relationships.

Financial development, according to the research, generally stimulates economic growth. However, the authors find evidence of AML regulations' threshold effect on the finance-growth connection, with the impact of finance on growth being positive below the threshold value. Above the threshold, however, the authors observe a negative influence. Further, the authors find that AML regulations have a considerable detrimental impact on the finance-growth nexus over the threshold for developed countries. However, the authors find a positive but insignificant effect of finance on growth below the AML regulations threshold for African countries, while finance positively impacts growth above the AML regulations threshold.

The findings of the study imply that countries must make conscious efforts to combat the incidence of money laundering by establishing policies to improve financial transparency and standards, promoting public sector transparency and accountability, reducing legal and political risk, and combating bribery and corruption.

This study contributes to the literature as it is the first attempt to examine the moderating role of AML regulations in the finance-growth nexus. Also, the study examines the threshold effect of how AML regulations impact the finance-growth nexus.

The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between regulation of non‐bank financial institutions and their risk‐taking behaviours in Ghana.

The analysis is performed using data derived from the Bank of Ghana Database during a five‐year period, 2006‐2010. Correlated Panels Corrected Standard Errors model is used to estimate the regression equation. Capital adequacy requirements and the restrictions on non‐bank financial institutions' (NBFIs') ability to take deposits are used as proxies for regulatory pressure. The study also used the ratio of risks weighted assets‐to‐total assets, the ratio of non‐performing loans‐to‐net loans and the Z‐scores of NBFIs as measures of risk.

The results of the study show a negative relationship between minimum capital adequacy requirement and the risks weighted assets of NBFIs. This indicates that, asking NBFIs to keep higher minimum capital adequacy ratio results in reducing their risk‐taking. The results also indicate a positive relationship between regulatory pressure and risk weighted assets of NBFIs. The paper however found a negative relationship between restrictions on deposits and the risk of insolvency. The findings suggest that, non‐deposit‐taking NBFIs have higher risk weighted assets and are more prone to the risk of insolvency than deposit‐taking NBFIs.

The value of this study is in respect of its contribution to the extant literature on financial regulation and risk‐taking of NBFIs.