Money, Banking, and Financial Markets

Understand the principles, understand the future
 
Commentary

Debt causes fragility. When banks lack equity funding, even a small adverse shock can put the financial system at risk. Fire sales can undermine the supply of credit to healthy firms, precipitating a decline in economic activity. The failure of key institutions can threaten the payments system. Authorities naturally respond by increasing required levels of equity finance, ensuring that intermediaries can weather severe conditions without damaging others.

Readers of this blog know that we are strong supporters of higher capital requirements: if forced to pick a number, we might choose a leverage ratio requirement in the range of 15% of total exposure (see here), roughly twice recent levels for the largest U.S. banks. But as socially desirable as high levels of equity finance might be, the fact is that they are privately costly. As a result, rather than limit threats to the financial system, higher capital requirements for banks have the potential to shift risky activities beyond the regulatory perimeter into non-bank intermediaries (see, for example here).

Has the increase of capital requirements since the financial crisis pushed risk-taking beyond the regulated banking system? So far, the answer is no. However, in some jurisdictions, especially the United States, the framework for containing systemic risk arising from non-bank financial institutions remains inadequate….

Do diversified investment vehicles―especially index funds―diminish competitive pressures in concentrated industries? There is an active (and contentious) debate among researchers, policymakers and practitioners about the costs and benefits of such “common ownership.”

In addition to a rapidly growing number of industry-level studies—looking at airlines (here and here), banking (here and here) and ready-to-eat cereals (Backus, Conlon and Sinkinson, forthcoming), or at broad groups of industries—other researchers have sought to link common ownership to macroeconomic phenomena, like the weakness of post-crisis investment. And, in response to anti-competitive claims, legal scholars propose using antitrust law to limit the holdings of institutional investors in oligopolistic industries. Against this background, competition authorities in Europe and the United States are taking the debate seriously (see, for example, the FTC hearing held in December at the NYU School of Law).

Our own view is that the discussion remains at a very early stage, and that it is likely to take years to resolve whether CO, especially through index-tracking mutual and exchange-traded funds, meets the cost-benefit test (for a skeptical view of CO, see here). Importantly, even if CO does reduce competitive pressures, we currently know far too little to about the scale or scope to identify remedies that would be most effective and least disruptive. Furthermore, should the case for broad-based anti-competitive effects become compelling, any response will need to consider the welfare trade-off between the very large consumer benefits arising from broad index funds and the consumer costs associated with a loss of competition in selected oligopolistic industries.

Against this background, we welcome two new papers (here and here) by Backus, Conlon and Sinkinson (BCS) that review the literature, provide new data to characterize the evolving pattern of share ownership, and suggest a back-to-basics approach for testing the CO hypothesis in specific industries. We hope that their work will spur a wave of CO research that will help us weigh the increasingly animated claims and counter-claims. In the remainder of this post, we highlight a few of the lessons from this recent research….

To read the full article, click the headline.
Further commentary, click here.

 
Welcome to MoneyandBanking.com ...

... the site where you can learn about finance and economics. We provide commentary on events in the news and on questions of more lasting interest. Because the financial system is constantly evolving, our analysis is informed by a set of core principles: understand the principles, understand the future. The opening excerpts of our two most recent posts appear above. For prior posts, click on the Commentary link to the left, or on the month-by-month Archives to the right. Alternatively, if you are interested in a specific topic, use the tags.

The site also provides material related to our textbook, Money, Banking and Financial Markets, 5th edition, 2017. The Five Core Principles on which the book is based are highlighted here. In addition, Cecchetti and Schoenholtz 5e systematically integrates the use of economic and financial data from FRED, the online database provided by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. Click on FRED Lessons on the left to access help on how to use this incredible resource.

Steve Cecchetti and Kim Schoenholtz
 

The work on this site is protected by the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License. It may be copied, redistributed, remixed, transformed, or built upon for any purpose, so long as the work is attributed to Cecchetti and Schoenholtz, www.moneyandbanking.com, and any changes are indicated.

 
Economics Blogs 2018

FOLLOW BY EMAIL

Delivered by FeedBurner




Top tags (# posts)