Search Results
Discussion Paper
Fear of $10 Billion
Ten billion has become a big number in banking since the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010. When banks’ assets exceed that threshold, they face considerably heightened supervision and regulation, including exams by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, caps on interchange fees, and annual stress tests. There are plenty of anecdotes about banks avoiding the $10 billion threshold or waiting to cross with a big merger, but we’ve seen no systematic evidence of this avoidance behavior. We provide some supporting evidence below and then discuss the implications for size-based bank regulation—where ...
Journal Article
Do \\"Too-Big-to-Fail\\" banks take on more risk?
The notion that some banks are ?too big to fail? builds on the premise that governments will offer support to avoid the adverse consequences of disorderly bank failures. However, this promise of support comes at a cost: Large, complex, or interconnected banks might take on more risk if they expect future rescues. This article studies the effect of potential government support on banks? appetite for risk. Using balance-sheet data for 224 banks in forty-five countries starting in March 2007, the authors find higher levels of impaired loans after an increase in government support. To measure ...
Discussion Paper
Did the Dodd-Frank Act End ‘Too Big to Fail’?
One goal of the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010 was to end ?too big to fail.? Toward that goal, the Act required systemically important financial institutions to submit detailed plans for an orderly resolution (?living wills?) and authorized the FDIC to create an alternative resolution procedure. In response, the FDIC has developed a ?single point of entry? (SPOE) strategy, under which healthy parent companies bear the losses of their failing subsidiaries. Since SPOE makes the parent company responsible for subsidiaries? losses, we would expect that parents have become riskier, relative to their ...
Journal Article
Evidence from the bond market on banks’ “Too-Big-to-Fail” subsidy
Using information on bonds issued over the 1985-2009 period, this study finds that the largest banks have a funding advantage over their smaller peers. This advantage may not be entirely attributable to investors? belief that the largest banks are ?too big to fail,? because the study also finds that the largest nonbanks, as well as the largest nonfinancial corporations, have a cost advantage relative to their smaller peers. However, a comparison across the three groups reveals that the funding advantage enjoyed by the largest banks is significantly larger than that available to the largest ...