The moderating effect of bank size on the interest rate – risk-taking relationship: Insights from Vietnam
-
Received February 3, 2026;Accepted June 6, 2026;Published July 10, 2026
-
Author(s)Huy Lam Tan NgoLink to ORCID Index: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4574-7258
,
Linh Thuy Do TranLink to ORCID Index: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0555-8770
-
DOIhttp://dx.doi.org/10.21511/imfi.23(3).2026.05
-
Article InfoVolume 23 2026, Issue #3, pp. 49-65
- TO CITE АНОТАЦІЯ
- 9 Views
-
3 Downloads
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Type of the article: Research Article
Abstract
This study examines how interest rates influence bank risk-taking within Vietnam’s transitional banking system, with a particular focus on how bank size moderates this relationship. While previous studies have linked prolonged low interest rates to increased risk-taking, Vietnam’s banking context – characterized by strict credit limits, frequent interventions, opaque ownership structures, and a tendency toward evergreening during tightening periods – suggests a reversed pattern. Using the System Generalized Method of Moments on annual data from 24 Vietnamese banks over 2014–2024, the findings indicate that higher interest rates are associated with significantly greater risk-taking. Specifically, the rediscount rate exerts the most significant impact on bank risk, followed by refinancing and interbank rates. Bank size also shows a negative baseline association with the Z score, suggesting that larger banks tend to take on more overall risk. This baseline risk in larger institutions is primarily driven by aggressive revenue diversification into volatile non-interest activities. Yet size also plays a crucial moderating role: larger banks demonstrate greater resilience when interest rates rise, as reflected in larger improvements in Z-scores and lower risk sensitivity compared with smaller banks, which are more vulnerable. Quantitatively, the adverse effect of interest rate shocks on the Z-scores significantly diminishes from the 25th to the 75th size percentile. This happens because larger banks successfully manage rising rates through funding advantages and diversified credit portfolios, while smaller banks react to these pressures by evergreening loans to conceal worsening asset quality.
Acknowledgment
The authors are thankful to the Internal Grant Agency of FaME TBU in Zlín, no. IGA/FaME/2026/016 for financial support to carry out this research.
- Keywords
-
JEL Classification (Paper profile tab)E43, G21, G32, P34
-
References62
-
Tables8
-
Figures1
-
- Figure 1. Theoretical framework
-
- Table 1. Summary of key variables
- Table 2. Descriptive statistics of input variables
- Table 3. Correlations among independent variables
- Table 4. Regression results using SGMM
- Table 5. Change in a bank’s Z-score as a result of a one percentage point increase in interest rates
- Table 6. Robustness check using total loans to replace total assets
- Table 7. Robustness check using total deposits to replace total assets
- Table A1. List of banks
-
- Afonso, G., Santos, J. A., & Traina, J. (2014). Do “Too-Big-To-Fail” Banks Take on More Risk? Economic Policy Review, 20(2), 41-58.
- Aiken, L. S., West, S. G., & Reno, R. R. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Sage.
- Alessi, L., Bruno, B., Carletti, E., Neugebauer, K., & Wolfskeil, I. (2021). Cover your assets: non-performing loans and coverage ratios in Europe. Economic Policy, 36(108), 685-733.
- Angeloni, I., Faia, E., & Duca, M. L. (2015). Monetary policy and risk taking. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 52, 285-307.
- Arellano, M., & Bover, O. (1995). Another look at the instrumental variable estimation of error-components models. Journal of Econometrics, 68(1), 29-51
- Athanasoglou, P. P., Brissimis, S. N., & Delis, M. D. (2008). Bank-specific, industry-specific and macroeconomic determinants of bank profitability. Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, 18(2), 121-136.
- Bani Yousef, A. N., Taha, R., Muhmad, S. N., & Zainul Abidin, A. F. (2024). Foreign Exchange Risk and Bank Performance: Evidence from Mena Banks. International Journal of Business & Society, 25(3).
- Bellia, M., Maccaferri, S., & Schich, S. (2022). Limiting too-big-to-fail: market reactions to policy announcements and actions. Journal of Banking Regulation, 23(4), 368-389.
- Berger, A. N. (1995). The Relationship between Capital and Earnings in Banking. Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, 27(2), 432.
- Berger, A. N., & DeYoung, R. (1997). Problem loans and cost efficiency in commercial banks. Journal of Banking & Finance, 21(6), 849-870.
- Bernanke, B. S., & Gertler, M. (1995). Inside the Black Box: The Credit Channel of Monetary Policy Transmission. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9(4), 27-48.
- Bertay, A. C., Demirgüç-Kunt, A., & Huizinga, H. (2013). Do we need big banks? Evidence on performance, strategy and market discipline. Journal of Financial Intermediation, 22(4), 532-558.
- Bhagat , S., Bolton, B., & Lu, J. (2015). Size, leverage, and risk-taking of financial institutions. Journal of Banking & Finance, 59, 520-537.
- Bitar, M., Pukthuanthong, K., & Walker, T. (2018). The effect of capital ratios on the risk, efficiency and profitability of banks: Evidence from OECD countries. Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, 53, 227-262.
- Blundell, R., & Bond, S. (1998). Initial conditions and moment restrictions in dynamic panel data models. Journal of Econometrics, 87(1), 115-143.
- Borio, C., & Zhu, H. (2012). Capital regulation, risk-taking and monetary policy: A missing link in the transmission mechanism? Journal of Financial Stability, 8(4), 236-251.
- Boyd, J. H., & Runkle, D. E. (1993). Size and performance of banking firms. Journal of Monetary Economics, 31(1), 47-67.
- Brana, S., Campmas, A., & Lapteacru, I. (2019). (Un) Conventional monetary policy and bank risk-taking: A nonlinear relationship. Economic Modelling, 81, 576-593.
- Breusch, T. S., & Pagan, A. R. (1979). A simple test for heteroscedasticity and random coefficient variation. Econometrica, 47(5), 1287-1294.
- Bushman, R. M., & Williams, C. D. (2012). Accounting discretion, loan loss provisioning, and discipline of banks’ risk-taking. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 54(1), 1-18.
- Chen, M., Wu, J., Jeon, B. N., & Wang, R. (2017). Monetary policy and bank risk-taking: Evidence from emerging economies. Emerging Markets Review, 31, 116-140.
- CNBC. (2024, April 16). Vietnam mounts ‘unprecedented’ $24 billion rescue for bank engulfed in giant fraud, documents show.
- Cornett, M. M., McNutt, J. J., Strahan, P. E., & Tehranian, H. (2011). Liquidity risk management and credit supply in the financial crisis. Journal of Financial Economics, 101(2), 297-312.
- Dang, V. D. (2020). The conditioning role of performance on the bank risk-taking channel of monetary policy: Evidence from a multiple-tool regime. Research in International Business and Finance, 54, 101301.
- Dang, V. D., & Nguyen, K. Q. B. (2021). Monetary policy, bank leverage and liquidity. International Journal of Managerial Finance, 17(4), 619-639.
- De Nicolo, G. (2000). Size, charter value and risk in banking: An international perspective (International Finance Discussion Papers No. 689). Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
- De Jonghe, O., Diepstraten, M., & Schepens, G. (2015). Banks’ size, scope and systemic risk: What role for conflicts of interest? Journal of Banking & Finance, 61, S3-S13.
- Dell’Ariccia, G., Laeven, L., & Marquez, R. (2014). Real interest rates, leverage, and bank risk-taking. Journal of Economic Theory, 149, 65-99.
- Delis, M. D., & Kouretas, G. P. (2011). Interest rates and bank risk-taking. Journal of Banking & Finance, 35(4), 840-855.
- Dietrich, A., & Wanzenried, G. (2011). Determinants of bank profitability before and during the crisis: Evidence from Switzerland. Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, 21(3), 307-327.
- Dietrich, A., & Wanzenried, G. (2014). The determinants of commercial banking profitability in low-, middle-, and high-income countries. The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, 54(3), 337-354.
- Djatche, M. J. N. (2019). Re-exploring the nexus between monetary policy and banks’ risk-taking. Economic Modelling, 82, 294-307.
- Dong, K. T. P., Hoa, N. T. N., Hiep, T. C., & True, T. V. T. (2023). The impact of banking relationship on firm performance: evidence from Ho Chi Minh Stock Exchange, Vietnam. International Journal of Business and Society, 24(2), 711-726.
- Greene, W. H. (2000). Econometric analysis (4th ed.). Prentice Hall.
- Gujarati, D. N. (2009). Basic econometrics. McGraw-Hill Education.
- Gujarati, D. N. (2021). Essentials of econometrics (5th ed.). Sage Publications.
- Hakenes, H., & Schnabel, I. (2011). Bank size and risk-taking under Basel II. Journal of Banking & Finance, 35(6), 1436-1449.
- Hausman, J. A. (1978). Specification Tests in Econometrics. Econometrica, 46(6), 1251.
- Hunjra, A. I., Hanif, M., Mehmood, R., & Nguyen, L. V. (2021). Diversification, corporate governance, regulation and bank risk-taking. Journal of Financial Reporting and Accounting, 19(1), 92-108.
- Imbierowicz, B., & Rauch, C. (2014). The relationship between liquidity risk and credit risk in banks. Journal of Banking & Finance, 40, 242-256.
- International Monetary Fund. (2024). Vietnam: 2024 Article IV Consultation – Press release; staff report; and statement by the Executive Director for Vietnam (IMF Country Report No. 24/306). Washington, D.C.: International Monetary Fund.
- Klein, P.-O., & Weill, L. (2022). Bank profitability and economic growth. The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, 84, 183-199.
- Laeven, M. L., Ratnovski, M. L., & Tong, M. H. (2014). Bank size and systemic risk. (IMF Working Paper No. WP/14/161). International Monetary Fund.
- Laeven, L., Ratnovski, L., & Tong, H. (2016). Bank size, capital, and systemic risk: Some international evidence. Journal of Banking & Finance, 69, S25-S34.
- López-Penabad, M. C., Iglesias-Casal, A., & Neto, J. F. S. (2022). Effects of a negative interest rate policy in bank profitability and risk taking: Evidence from European banks. Research in International Business and Finance, 60, 101597.
- O’brien, R. M. (2007). A caution regarding rules of thumb for variance inflation factors. Quality & Quantity, 41, 673-690.
- Passos, F. V., Carrasco-Gutierrez, C. E., & Loureiro, P. R. A. (2024). Monetary policy through the risk-taking channel: Evidence from an emerging market. The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, 98, 101923.
- Quoc, A. N., & My, S. T. (2023). Bank capital and bank profitability of Vietnam commercial banks. International Journal of Business and Society, 24(1), 56-65.
- Rakshit, B., & Bardhan, S. (2023). Does bank competition affect the transmission mechanism of monetary policy through bank lending channel? Evidence from India. Journal of Asian Economics, 86, 101595.
- Rajan, R. G. (2006). Has Finance Made the World Riskier? European Financial Management, 12(4), 499-533.
- Rashid, A., & Jabeen, S. (2016). Analyzing performance determinants: Conventional versus Islamic banks in Pakistan. Borsa Istanbul Review, 16(2), 92-107.
- Retail Banker International. (2022, October 17). Vietnam’s Saigon Joint Stock Commercial Bank under ‘special scrutiny’.
- Reuters. (2024, October 17). Vietnam central bank says Vietcombank, MBBank to take over smaller lenders.
- Rivard, R. J., & Thomas, C. R. (1997). The effect of interstate banking on large bank holding company profitability and risk. Journal of Economics and Business, 49(1), 61-76.
- Rizki, A. S., & Gunarsih, T. (2024). Effectiveness of RGEC-bank soundness level and inflation rate in predicting potential bankruptcy of banks: Evidence from Indonesia. International Journal of Business and Society, 25(1), 223-241.
- Roy, A. D. (1952). Safety First and the Holding of Assets. Econometrica, 20(3), 431.
- Stiroh, K. J. (2004). Diversification in Banking: is noninterest income the answer? Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking, 36(5), 853-882.
- Vietnam Investment Review. (2023, October 5). Vietnam gov’t to have commercial banks take over ailing peers.
- Wheeler, P. B. (2019). Loan loss accounting and procyclical bank lending: The role of direct regulatory actions. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 67(2-3), 463-495.
- Wooldridge, J. M. (2010). Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data (2nd ed.). MIT Press.
- Wu, D.-M. (1973). Alternative Tests of Independence between Stochastic Regressors and Disturbances. Econometrica, 41(4), 733-750.
- Wu, J., Chen, L., Chen, M., & Jeon, B. N. (2020). Diversification, efficiency and risk of banks: Evidence from emerging economies. Emerging Markets Review, 45, 100720.
-
-
Conceptualization
Huy Lam Tan Ngo
-
Data curation
Huy Lam Tan Ngo
-
Formal Analysis
Huy Lam Tan Ngo, Linh Thuy Do Tran
-
Investigation
Huy Lam Tan Ngo
-
Validation
Huy Lam Tan Ngo
-
Writing – original draft
Huy Lam Tan Ngo, Linh Thuy Do Tran
-
Writing – review & editing
Huy Lam Tan Ngo, Linh Thuy Do Tran
-
Visualization
Linh Thuy Do Tran
-
Conceptualization
-
Factors affecting the liquidity of commercial banks in India: a longitudinal analysis
Banks and Bank Systems Volume 14, 2019 Issue #4 pp. 78-88 Views: 7265 Downloads: 2241 TO CITE АНОТАЦІЯThis paper examines the long-term effect of various regulatory, bank-specific and macroeconomic factors on the determination of liquidity in Indian banks. For this purpose, the study uses a random effect panel data regression model and tests it with data on Indian banks for 21 years, covering the period from 1996 to 2016. The model considers the effect of regulatory factors, cash reserve ratio, and statutory liquidity, and incorporates four different liquidity ratios specific to the Indian banking scenario. The results of the analysis show contrasting relationships between the independent variables and the dependent variables measured by four liquidity ratios.
It is interesting to note that Indian banks rely more on asset-based liquidity and less on liability-based liquidity. More specifically, the most important liquidity ratio of L1 (liquid assets to total assets ratio) showed a significant relationship with macroeconomic variables of discount rates, call rates, foreign exchange reserve, exchange rate with US dollar, consumer price index and gross domestic product. L1 also showed a significant relationship with bank-specific variables of capital to total assets and bank size. However, the regulatory factors of cash reserve ratio and profitability determined by return on equity (ROE) and non-performing assets were not found to have any effect on liquidity of Indian banks. -
The macroeconomic factors affecting government bond yield in Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, and the Philippines
Benny Budiawan Tjandrasa
,
Hotlan Siagian
,
Ferry Jie
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/imfi.17(3).2020.09
Investment Management and Financial Innovations Volume 17, 2020 Issue #3 pp. 111-121 Views: 4271 Downloads: 941 TO CITE АНОТАЦІЯThe government bond (GB) has become the most attractive investment portfolio option, even though many macroeconomic factors affect the bond yield. This paper aims to investigate the determining factor of local currency government bond yield by considering the inflation rate, credit default swap, stock market index, exchange rate, and volatility index. This study used 240 data panel from the Bloomberg stock market in the form of data panel covering Southeast developing countries, namely Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia, and the Philippines, for five years or sixty months from January 2015 to December 2019. Data analysis used recursive models and multivariate regression techniques using EViews software. The random effect model results revealed that change in the foreign exchange rate and volatility indexes affected, partially and simultaneously, the changes in the stock market index. The result also showed that changes in the stock market index, inflation rate, and credit default swap affected, partially and simultaneously, government bond yield changes. These results suggest that the government bond yield could be managed by controlling volatility index, foreign exchange rate, stock market index, inflation rates, and credit default swaps. This finding could provide an insight into the policymaker and fiscal authority on managing the risk of government bonds under control during high volatility or even making it reasonably lower. This result could contribute to the current research in the field of financial management.
Acknowledgment
It is the author’s pleasure to thank Muhammad Aulia SE MSc CSA® from the Ministry of Finance of Republic Indonesia, for his invaluable contribution to encourage this study and also to share the data required for this paper. He also delivers essential insights into improving the quality of this work. This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. -
Impact of IT investments on bank profitability: Empirical evidence from Vietnam
Investment Management and Financial Innovations Volume 22, 2025 Issue #2 pp. 323-337 Views: 4096 Downloads: 1780 TO CITE АНОТАЦІЯThe increasing role of digitalization in the banking sector necessitates an in-depth analysis of the impact of information technology (IT) investments on bank profitability. The paper analyzes the influence of IT investments on the profitability of Vietnamese commercial banks. The data were collected from 27 commercial banks in Vietnam between 2010 and 2022. The methodology used in this paper is the Feasible Generalised Least Squares (FGLS) regression. The key results indicate that investment in IT has improved the overall performance of banks, as evidenced by an average increase of 1.8% in Return on Assets (ROA) and 15.3% in Return on Equity (ROE). In addition, the Equity-to-Asset ratio exerts a favorable influence on bank performance, increasing ROA by 15.7% and ROE by 40.9%. Furthermore, bank size also demonstrates a positive correlation with both ROA and ROE, raising it by 0.3% and 2.3%, respectively. Based on these findings, more efficient investment in digital transformation, collaboration with Fintech firms, IT competence enhancement for staff, and communication promotion for Vietnamese commercial banks are recommended. Enabling environments for bank digital transformation should be provided by the Government in building a centralized database and electronic systems, introducing fintech regulations, establishing digital ecosystems, and implementing security solutions.
Acknowlegment
This paper is funded by the National Economics University, Hanoi, Vietnam.
The authors would like to express their gratitude to the comments from chairs, scholars, and audiences at the 19th International Conference on Humanities & Social Sciences 2024 – Applying Humanities & Social Sciences for a sustainable future, Khonkhaen University, Thailand (ICHUSO-011). This paper has been revised significantly after presenting at the IC-HUSO 2024 Conference.

