arbiter
JournalsAccount

A Tale of Two Banks: When Credit Loss Models Meet Economic Crises

CHEN CHEN & Difang Huang

Journal of Accounting Research2026https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-679x.70030article
FT50UTD24AJG 4*ABDC A*
Weight
0.37

Abstract

Policy makers and researchers are concerned that the expected credit loss (ECL) approach may exacerbate procyclicality. Using administrative loan‐level and firm‐level data in China, we find that banks adopting the ECL model reduced their credit supply and became more prudent in lending decisions after the onset of the COVID‐19 pandemic, compared to banks using the incurred credit loss (ICL) approach. Our findings are more pronounced for banks that experienced greater loan loss provisions induced by ECL and for firms with higher credit risk. The credit contraction persisted throughout our sample period. We further document that firms more exposed to ECL banks experienced larger reductions in loans, assets, liabilities, and revenue after the pandemic began than those more exposed to ICL banks. These findings support the conjecture that the ECL approach may exacerbate procyclicality.

1 citation

Open via your library →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-679x.70030

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{chen2026,
  title        = {{A Tale of Two Banks: When Credit Loss Models Meet Economic Crises}},
  author       = {CHEN CHEN & Difang Huang},
  journal      = {Journal of Accounting Research},
  year         = {2026},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-679x.70030},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

A Tale of Two Banks: When Credit Loss Models Meet Economic Crises

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.

Evidence weight

0.37

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.16 × 0.4 = 0.06
M · momentum0.53 × 0.15 = 0.08
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.