Chapter 11 by chenboying


									Chapter 11 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF BANKING REGULATION OVERVIEW AND TEACHING TIPS This chapter stresses the economic way of thinking by conducting an economic analysis using the adverse selection and moral hazard concepts to show why our regulatory system takes the form it does and how it led to a banking crisis. The discussion of the principal-agent problem and how it explains the political economy of the banking crisis is highly stimulating to students because it helps them understand how our political system affects our economic system. The chapter is sprinkled with many applications and special interest boxes that are fun for the students to think about. One application analyzes the outrageous episode of the Keating S&L scandal, while another asks the student to evaluate the FDICIA legislation and other possible regulatory reforms. Covering this latter application in class is an excellent way of getting the students to review the material in the chapter. Special interest boxes that are particularly interesting to students include: a box examining the politics of the Community Reinvestment Act; and a box on the outrageous BCCI scandal. Note that Chapter 8 does not need to be covered in order to teach this chapter. However, if Chapter 8 is covered in class, Chapter 11 is a nice application of the analysis in that chapter. Indeed, the instructor might want to stress in class the counterparts in private financial markets to the methods bank regulators use to cope with adverse selection and moral hazard (mentioned in footnote 2 in this chapter).


Chapter 11 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF BANKING REGULATION 3. Chartering banks is the bank regulation that helps reduce the adverse selection problem because it attempts to screen proposals for new banks to prevent risk-prone entrepreneurs and crooks from controlling them. It will not always work because risk-prone entrepreneurs and crooks have incentives to hide their true nature and thus may slip through the chartering process. The benefits of a too-big-to-fail policy are that it makes bank panics less likely. The costs are that it increases the incentives or moral hazard by big banks who know that depositors do not have incentives to monitor the bank's risk-taking activities. In addition, it is an unfair policy because it discriminates against small banks. Regulatory forbearance is a dangerous strategy because once a bank is insolvent it has even stronger incentives to commit moral hazard and take on excessive risk. It has little to lose if its risky activities go sour, but has a lot to gain if the risky activities pay off. The resulting excessive risk taking makes it more likely that the deposit insurance agency will suffer large losses. The Bank Insurance Fund of the FDIC was recapitalized by allowing it to borrow more from the Treasury and by raising insurance premiums. The bill reduced the scope of deposit insurance by limiting brokered deposits and by limiting the too-big-to-fail doctrine by forcing the FDIC to use the least cost method of closing failed banks except under unusual circumstances. The bill has prompt corrective action provisions that requires the FDIC to intervene earlier with stronger actions when banks move into one of the weaker of the five classifications based on bank capital. The limiting of deposit insurance and prompt corrective action should reduce moral hazard risk-taking on the part of banks. The bill instructs the FDIC to come up with risk-based premiums which will increase the premium cost when the banks





take on more risk, thus helping to reduce the moral hazard problem. The bill also mandates increased reporting requirements and annual examinations to prevent the banks from taking on too much risk. It also enhances regulation of foreign banks in the U.S. to keep then from operating in the U.S. if they are taking on too much risk. 11. The S&L crisis can be blamed on the principal-agent problem because politicians and regulators (the agents) have not had the same incentives to minimize costs of deposit insurance as do the taxpayers (the principals). As a result, politicians and regulators relaxed capital standards, removed restrictions on holdings of risky assets and engaged in regulatory forbearance, thereby increasing the cost of the S&L bailout. In general yes. A national banking system will enable banks to diversify their loan portfolios better, thus decreasing the likelihood of bank failures. In addition it may make banks and hence the economy more efficient and will help increase banks' profitability which will make them healthier. Market-value accounting for bank capital would let the deposit insurance agency know quickly if a bank was falling below its capital requirement so that it could be closed down before it led to substantial losses for the insurance agency. Also it would help keep banks from operating with negative capital when the moral hazard problem becomes especially severe and the bank takes on excessive risk. However, making market-value calculations of bank capital accurate is a complex task since it would require some estimates and approximations. However, even if not fully accurate, if market-value accounting provides a more accurate assessment of bank capital than historical-cost accounting, it would lead to lower losses from the deposit insurance agency.




Chapter 11

Economic Analysis of Banking Regulation

Asymmetric Information and Bank Regulation Government Safety Net Restrictions on Asset Holdings and Bank Capital Requirements Box 1: The Basel Risk-based Capital Requirements: Where Are They Heading? Bank Supervision: Chartering and Examination A New Trend in Bank Supervision: Assessment of Risk Management Disclosure Requirements Consumer Protection Box 2: The Community Reinvestment Act: A Political Hot Button Restrictions on Competition International Banking Regulation Problems in Regulating International Banking Box 3: The BCCI Scandal Summary


The 1980s Banking Crisis: Why? Early stages of the Crisis Later Stages of the Crisis: Regulatory Forbearance Competitive Equality in Banking Act of 1987 Political Economy of the Savings and Loan Crisis Principal-Agent Problem of Regulators and Politicians Application: Principal-Agent Problem in Action: Charles Keating and the Lincoln Savings and Loan Scandal Savings and Loan Bailout: Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991 Application: Evaluating FDICIA and Other Proposed Reforms of the Banking Regulatory System Limits on the Scope of Deposit Insurance Prompt Corrective Action Other FDICIA Provisions Other Proposed Changes in Banking Regulations Overall Evaluation


Banking Crises Throughout the World Scandinavia Latin America Russia and Eastern Europe Japan East Asia Deja Vu All Over Again


To top