This entry pertains to the European Summer Symposium in Financial Markets (ESSFM) 2026 — Banking and Corporate Finance. The conference was held at the Study Center Gerzensee, a scenic Swiss village near Bern.
This was my second year at Gerzensee and my first on the banking and corporate finance side, after last year's asset pricing meeting. The symposium was organized by Zhiguo He.
I experienced the misfortune of my laptop breaking down on Tuesday, so I had to prepare my night time presentation on my iPad. But it was also a cherished opportunity to write the manuscript of my drafts by hand (which apparently is good for your brain) and explore outside the area a bit more this time via biking and hiking.



Here is a summary of the sessions I attended (which is pretty much every session except for half of Monday morning where I arrived a bit late):
Monday: New Issues in (Old) Corporate Finance and Banks
Tuesday: Bank and Nonbank
Amit Seru delivered a nice opening session on the symbosis of banks and nonbanks.

The textbook view is bank-centric where savers hold the resources but cannot find the users, so the banks can step in to intermediate. He showed that the bank balance-sheet share of U.S. lending fell from 55% to 33% over about 50 years, but even adding private credit moves the bank share only minimally. All of this was to say that private credit is definitely real and interesting, but the secular shift out of bank balance sheets is much older than that.
Dominik Supera, my colleague at Columbia, presented "Bank to Non-Bank Lending and the Reallocation of Credit" (with Jian Li, Yiming Ma, and Caterina Mendicino). The authors document that there has been a rapid growth of euro-area bank lending to NBFIs since 2019, and that this happened mostly through reverse repos (which fund government-bond collateral) hence “crowding out” firm lending. Ben Hebert made a fair point that while the compositional evidence is convincing, the aggregate crowding out claim needs a GE assumption that was never made explicit (i.e. the pool of savings intermediated by banks). Ricardian equivalence probably doesn’t hold in practice, but still it would be nice to have the logic be airtight.
David Xu presented "Credit Commitments by Nonbanks" (with Jing Huang), which hand-collects facility-level data on BDC commitment books and shows that BDCs now issue credit commitments at commitment-to-asset ratios comparable to banks. Interestingly, they manage the resulting liquidity risk not with cash but with their own undrawn bank credit lines, so liquidity insurance runs in two layers along the credit chain. My question was whether this is really about BDCs or just about any firm-facing nonbank writing commitments without a public backstop.