We investigate whether and how strongly Basel 3 chief innovations jointly affected in different ways individual Eurozone banks’ stability (z-score) across six business models (BMs). We study this issue in the initial years when adaptation was most intense (2011–2014) and the Eurozone underwent a phase with sovereign crises abated by ECB policies easing financial conditions. In parallel, we run this exercise over 2000–2010 data, a time frame over which Basel 3 did not apply yet to see through the eyes of the regulator. Irrespective of BMs, we identify the leverage ratio as the most effective driver of banks’ stability. However, the impact on z-score of Basel 3 chief drivers does not seem to differ significantly on 2011–2014 vs. 2000–2010. Next, interactions with banks’ BMs suggest that Basel 3 innovations improve z-scores the most at traditionally focused banks (cooperative and savings banks), vis-à-vis diversified banks. Our results suggest Basel regulatory decisions were questionable. First, the front loading of the increased minimum capital requirements vs. the backloading of the leverage ratio phasing in may have lured banks from credit to financial assets. Second, our findings support the desirability of revising the current “one-size-fits-all” European prudential framework, which disregards BMs.

我们调查了巴塞尔协议 3 的主要创新是否以及如何以不同方式共同影响欧元区各个银行在六种商业模式 (BM) 中的稳定性 (z-score)。我们在适应最激烈的最初几年（2011-2014 年）研究了这个问题，欧元区经历了一个主权危机因欧洲央行放宽金融条件的政策而缓解的阶段。与此同时，我们对 2000 年至 2010 年的数据进行了这项练习，而巴塞尔协议 3 尚未通过监管机构的眼睛看到这一时间范围。不考虑 BM，我们认为杠杆率是银行稳定的最有效驱动因素。然而，2011-2014 年与 2000-2010 年巴塞尔 3 主要驱动因素对 z 分数的影响似乎没有显着差异。下一个，与银行 BM 的互动表明，相对于多元化银行，巴塞尔协议 3 的创新最能提高传统银行（合作银行和储蓄银行）的 z 分数。我们的结果表明，巴塞尔的监管决定值得怀疑。首先，增加的最低资本要求的前负荷与逐步实施的杠杆率的后负荷可能已将银行从信贷转向金融资产。其次，我们的研究结果支持修订当前“一刀切”的欧洲审慎框架的可取性，该框架无视 BM。逐步提高杠杆率可能已将银行从信贷转向金融资产。其次，我们的研究结果支持修订当前“一刀切”的欧洲审慎框架的可取性，该框架无视 BM。逐步提高杠杆率可能已将银行从信贷转向金融资产。其次，我们的研究结果支持修订当前“一刀切”的欧洲审慎框架的可取性，该框架无视 BM。