The "too big to fail" (TBTF) doctrine, where implicit or explicit government bailouts prop up systemically important financial institutions (SIFIs), has long been a subject of intense debate due to its profound legal, economic, and ethical implications. This Article examines the TBTF phenomenon, tracing its historical roots and dissecting its multifaceted impact on competition, systemic risk, and responsible risk-taking within the financial system. By meticulously analyzing domestic and international legal frameworks, regulatory challenges, and diverse stakeholder viewpoints, the Article provides a nuanced understanding of TBTF's complexities. Acknowledging the inherent dangers posed by TBTF, the Article proposes a multi-pronged mitigation strategy aimed at fostering a more resilient and sustainable financial system for all stakeholders. This strategy encompasses, amongst other things, refined resolution mechanisms, dynamic capital requirements, empowered regulators, responsible risk-taking incentives, and others. Furthermore, this Article emphasizes the need to address the root causes of TBTF. This includes empowering citizens through financial literacy initiatives to make informed investment decisions and redefining the purpose of finance to prioritize societal well-being over narrow profit motives. This multifaceted approach aims to build a more resilient, equitable, and sustainable financial system that serves the interests of all stakeholders, not just a select few. The Article concludes with a call to action, urging readers to engage in constructive dialogue and contribute their voices towards shaping a brighter financial future.
Too Big to Fail, Too Risky to Ignore: Can Legal Reforms Tame TBTF Institutions and Mitigate Its Moral Hazard?
Abstract:The "too big to fail" (TBTF) doctrine, where implicit or explicit government bailouts prop up systemically important financial institutions (SIFIs), has long been a subject of intense debate due to its profound legal, economic, and ethical implications. This Article examines the TBTF phenomenon, tracing its historical roots and dissecting its multifaceted impact on competition, systemic risk, and responsible risk-taking within the financial system. By meticulously analyzing domestic and international legal frameworks, regulatory challenges, and diverse stakeholder viewpoints, the Article provides a nuanced understanding of TBTF's complexities. Acknowledging the inherent dangers posed by TBTF, the Article proposes a multi-pronged mitigation strategy aimed at fostering a more resilient and sustainable financial system for all stakeholders. This strategy encompasses, amongst other things, refined resolution mechanisms, dynamic capital requirements, empowered regulators, responsible risk-taking incentives, and others. Furthermore, this Article emphasizes the need to address the root causes of TBTF. This includes empowering citizens through financial literacy initiatives to make informed investment decisions and redefining the purpose of finance to prioritize societal well-being over narrow profit motives. This multifaceted approach aims to build a more resilient, equitable, and sustainable financial system that serves the interests of all stakeholders, not just a select few. The Article concludes with a call to action, urging readers to engage in constructive dialogue and contribute their voices towards shaping a brighter financial future.
Introduction:
The concept of TBTF institutions presents a complex legal and regulatory conundrum, raising concerns about potential systemic risks, competition law considerations, and the intersection between public policy and regulatory intervention(Allen & Rand, 2014; Gelpern & Rochet, 2016). While the precise legal definition of "TBTF" remains elusive, concerns primarily center around large financial institutions whose failure could trigger widespread economic instability, potentially necessitating government intervention to prevent financial meltdown (Engen & Meier, 2021).
This perceived TBTF status creates intricate legal and regulatory challenges. On the one hand, regulatory frameworks aim to mitigate systemic risks posed by these institutions through prudential requirements, stress testing, and resolution mechanisms (Financial Stability Board (FSB), 2019). However, such interventions raise concerns regarding moral hazard, where the implicit guarantee of government support incentivizes riskier behavior that could exacerbate systemic risks (Brunnermeier et al., 2016). Additionally, questions arise surrounding the legal basis for such interventions and their potential violation of competition law principles, as bailouts or other support measures could unfairly advantage certain institutions over competitors (Adler & Hackethal, 2019).
This exploration delves into the legal and regulatory labyrinth surrounding TBTF institutions. It examines relevant domestic and international legal frameworks, including prudential regulations, resolution regimes, incentives for responsible risk-taking, and competition law principles. Case studies analyzing landmark legal decisions and regulatory pronouncements will illuminate the ongoing legal debate and its impact on financial stability and competition. This Article will delve into the ongoing efforts to address TBTF through regulatory reforms, incorporating diverse perspectives from legal scholars, practitioners, regulators, and industry representatives. Ultimately, this exploration aims to equip the reader with a deeper understanding of the complex legal and regulatory landscape surrounding TBTF institutions, their impact on financial stability, and the various proposed solutions to mitigate the challenges they present.
I. Origins and Evolution: A Symbiotic Dance with Crisis
-Precursors and Early Interventions: While the TBTF doctrine gained prominence in the 20th century, seeds of implicit government support were sown earlier. During financial panics in the late 19th century, central banks like the Bank of England intervened to avert systemic meltdowns, setting a precedent for government action. Notably, the Pujo Committee investigations in 1913 highlighted the concentration of power in financial institutions, foreshadowing future TBTF concerns (Allen, 2009; Kindleberger, 1996; Brunnermeier, 2009).
-The Great Depression and its Scars: The devastation of the Great Depression cemented the idea of government intervention as a last resort. Bank failures cascaded, wiping out savings and triggering a vicious cycle of deflation. However, interventions during this period lacked clear frameworks, creating uncertainty and potentially laying the groundwork for future moral hazard concerns (Kindleberger, 1996; Eichengreen, 2014).
-The Savings and Loan Crisis: Implicit Guarantee Gone Wrong? The 1980s Savings and Loan crisis presented a complex case. Government intervention initially aimed to stabilize the sector, but lax regulations and implicit guarantees arguably encouraged excessive risk-taking, contributing to the crisis's severity. This episode fueled the debate on the unintended consequences of TBTF (Brunnermeier, 2009; Calomiris, 1990).
-The 2008 Financial Crisis: A Watershed Moment: The Lehman Brothers' collapse in 2008 served as a stark reminder of the interconnectedness of financial institutions and the potential for contagion. Unprecedented government bailouts followed, reigniting the moral hazard debate and prompting international efforts to reform the financial system (Acharya et al., 2011; Gorton & Huang, 2011).
-MoralHazard: The Achilles' Heel of TBTF: While bailouts provided temporary relief in 2008, the moral hazard critique gained significant traction. Institutions deemed TBTF might engage in riskier behavior, assuming a government safety net exists. This distorts competition, disadvantages smaller institutions, and potentially increases systemic risk in the long run (Gorton & Winton, 2013; Acharya et al., 2011).
-Beyond MoralHazard: Systemic Risk and Orderly Resolution: However, the issue isn't solely about moral hazard. The collapse of a large institution can trigger panic and widespread financial instability, posing significant economic and social costs. In such scenarios, orderly resolution mechanisms might be necessary to contain the damage, even if they involve some form of government intervention. The key lies in designing these mechanisms to minimize moral hazard while ensuring financial stability (Flannery, 2011; Admati & Hellwig, 2013).
-Understanding the Evolution: A Complex Landscape
The TBTF doctrine is indeed a multifaceted issue shaped by various factors (Adrian & Shin, 2010; Gennaioli et al., 2013; Poon & Keefe, 2018):
-Financial Market Structure: The degree of interconnectedness between institutions and the potential for contagion are crucial considerations (Acharya et al., 2010). Highly concentrated markets raise TBTF concerns more readily (Gorton & Bajaj, 2017).
-Regulatory Frameworks: Capital requirements, risk management practices, and resolution mechanisms all influence the perceived TBTF status of institutions (Kashyap & Stein, 2009). Stronger regulations can mitigate risk-taking and make markets fairer (Allen & Cargill, 2012).
-Political and Economic Considerations: Governments often weigh the social and economic costs of financial crises against the potential moral hazard of intervention (Goodhart & Lastra, 2014). Striking a balance can be challenging (Brunnermeier, 2009).
II. The Moral Hazard Dilemma: Walking the Tightrope between Stability and Risk
-The Domino Effect of TBTF:
Imagine a colossal domino effect, where the collapse of one institution triggers a chain reaction, crippling the entire financial system. This chilling scenario is the essence of the TBTF problem, where certain institutions are deemed so interconnected and crucial that their failure is deemed unacceptable (Brunnermeier, 2009; Gorton & Scharfstein, 2013). But this safety net, while potentially promoting stability, comes at a cost: moral hazard. This arises when institutions, knowing they'll be bailed out, engage in riskier behavior with less accountability (Acharya et al., 2010). This section explores the real-world implications of TBTF, the ongoing debate surrounding its mitigation, and the challenges it poses in a dynamic financial landscape.
-Real-World Titans and Their Ripples:
The 2008 financial crisis serves as a stark reminder. Lehman Brothers, a seemingly TBTF investment bank, filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 11 of the US Bankruptcy Code, triggering a domino effect that plunged the global economy into recession (Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (FCIC), 2011). This event exposed the devastating consequences of interconnectedness and highlighted the potential for even "untouchable" institutions to become systemic risks (Financial Markets Authority, 2009).
Similarly, AIG, a major insurance giant, received a bailout in 2008, solidifying the perception of some institutions being immune to failure (Geithner, 2011). While the bailout prevented a wider financial meltdown, it fueled the moral hazard debate, raising concerns about rewarding reckless behavior (International Monetary Fund (IMF), 2009).
-Data and Statistics:
- The FSB estimates that just 30 global banks hold nearly 80% of global financial assets, highlighting the concentration of risk within a few institutions (FSB, 2024).
- A 2022 IMF study found that bailouts for TBTF institutions cost taxpayers an average of 1.3% of GDP, raising concerns about the financial burden of implicit guarantees (IMF, 2022).
III. Navigating the Legal Labyrinth of TBTF: A Global Odyssey Through a Minefield of Moral Hazard and Regulatory Wrangling
The specter of TBTF institutions looms large, casting a long shadow over the delicate dance between financial stability, fair competition, and public trust (Acharya et al., 2017). Governments worldwide find themselves entangled in a legal web more akin to a minefield, where each step holds the potential for unintended consequences and explosive debates (Geanakoplos, 2020).
-Safeguarding Stability vs. Ensuring Competition: Walking a Tightrope
-Systemic Risk Doctrine: This doctrine, embodied in the US Dodd-Frank Act and the EU's BRRD, empowers intervention in critical institutions, even if it disrupts competition (FSB, 2011). The 2018 Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) designation of AIG as "systemically important" sparked fiery debate, with critics arguing it creates a moral hazard and stifles competition (Martin, 2019). The 2021 collapse of Greensill Capital, despite not being designated "systemic," highlighted the blurring lines and potential unintended consequences of intervention (Greenwood et al., 2023).
-Antitrust Concerns: The delicate balance between stability and fair competition becomes a high-wire act when considering antitrust laws. The 2020 US Department of Justice lawsuit against Deutsche Bank for manipulating foreign exchange rates reignited concerns about TBTF institutions wielding undue market power, potentially hindering innovation and harming smaller players (Department of Justice, 2020).
-Upholding Equity vs. Preventing Unfair Bailouts: Shifting Sands of Public Outrage
-BailoutProhibition: Public outcry against bailouts fueled legal frameworks like the US "Orderly Liquidation Authority" (OLA) and the EU's Single Resolution Mechanism (SRM), aiming to shift losses to creditors (FSB, 2019). However, the 2019 legal challenge against the OLA by Puerto Rico's Oversight Board underscored the complexities of implementation and the potential for legal battles (Board of Directors of the Puerto Rico Oversight Board, 2019). The 2023 Cyprus banking crisis, where despite the SRM framework, taxpayers ultimately bore some burden, further muddied the water (European Central Bank (ECB), 2023).
-Moral Hazard: The implicit guarantee of government intervention can incentivize excessive risk-taking, as witnessed in the 2008 financial crisis (Acharya et al., 2017). The Basel III framework, implemented internationally, aims to increase bank capital requirements to mitigate this risk (Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS), 2017). However, concerns linger about its effectiveness in curbing risk-taking behavior in an increasingly complex financial landscape (Admati & Hellwig, 2022). The recent rise of cryptocurrencies and Decentralized Finance (DeFi) throws new curveballs at regulators, raising questions about how existing frameworks can address potential TBTF issues in these emerging areas (Congressional Research Service, 2023).
-Striking a Regulatory Sweet Spot: A Quest for the Holy Grail
-Living Wills and Bail-in Mechanisms: These tools aim for orderly resolution without taxpayer bailouts. The 2017 Italian Monte dei Paschi di Siena bailout, despite its "bail-in" features, raised questions about the effectiveness of these mechanisms and the potential for government intervention under the guise of "systemic risk" (Acharya et al., 2018). The 2021 failure of Resolution Life, a UK insurer, further highlighted the challenges of implementing bail-in mechanisms effectively (FCA, 2021).
-Regulatory Burden vs. Effectiveness: Finding the right balance between preventing excessive risk and hindering healthy market activity is akin to searching for the Holy Grail (Stiglitz, 2010). Overly burdensome regulations, like the complex Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, can stifle innovation and economic growth (Johnson et al., 2013). However, insufficient regulation, as witnessed in the 2008 crisis, can lead to instability (Acharya et al., 2017). The ongoing debate surrounding crypto regulation exemplifies this struggle, with policymakers grappling with balancing innovation with consumer protection and financial stability (Congressional Research Service, 2023).
-International Dimension and the Role of International Organizations: A Patchwork Quilt of Efforts
-DivergentApproaches: The US leans towards market-based solutions like Title II resolution, while the EU favors bail-in mechanisms (Cohen, 2022; Lastrapes, 2023). This lack of harmonization creates regulatory arbitrage opportunities for TBTF institutions and hinders global efforts towards a level playing field. The recent divergence in approaches to stablecoin regulation further highlights the challenges of international coordination (Congressional Research Service, 2023).
-International Organizations: The FSB plays a crucial role in coordinating global efforts to address TBTF. The FSB's Key Attributes for Effective Resolution Regimes serve as guiding principles, yet challenges remain in implementation and enforcement across diverse national contexts. The effectiveness of the FSB in fostering true international cooperation, particularly with the rise of non-traditional financial actors, remains an open question (FSB, 2020; Krippner, 2021).
-The Future of TBTF and Potential Legal Reforms: A Crystal Ball Clouded by Uncertainty
-Ongoing Debates: The debate on whether TBTF exists, its impact on financial stability, and the effectiveness of current legal frameworks rages on. Calls for breaking up TBTF institutions, stricter capital requirements, and improved resolution mechanisms continue to echo in legislative chambers and academic forums (Adams, 2023; Stiglitz, 2022). The increasing influence of Big Tech in financial services adds another layer of complexity to the conversation (FCA, 2023; Johnson, 2023).
-Potential Reforms: Proposals like "living wills" for non-bank financial institutions, stricter oversight of shadow banking, and international coordination on resolution mechanisms are being explored (FSB, 2023). The recent regulatory push towards Open Banking and data-sharing initiatives aims to increase transparency and competition, potentially weakening the dominance of TBTF institutions (Autorité Bancaire Européenne, 2022). However, concerns about data privacy and security remain significant hurdles (Admati, Anat R., and Martin Hellwig, 2013).
-Regulation vs. Innovation: Striking the right balance between regulating TBTF institutions and fostering innovation remains a critical challenge (Stiglitz, Joseph E., 2010). Regulatory sandboxes, which provide safe spaces for FinTech startups to experiment under controlled conditions, offer a promising solution (International Organization of Securities Commissions, 2021). However, ensuring a level playing field between incumbents and innovative newcomers remains a complex task.
-Shifting Sands of Public Opinion: Public opinion on TBTF institutions can be fickle. While bailouts during the 2008 crisis fueled outrage, recent events like the COVID-19 pandemic have seen increased acceptance of government intervention to prevent economic collapse. Understanding and navigating these shifting tides of public sentiment will be crucial for shaping future regulations (Pew Research Center, 2021).
-Beyond the Binary: A Spectrum of Solutions(Merton, 2023)
-Moving Beyond the Debate: The TBTF issue is not a binary choice between intervention and laissez-faire. A spectrum of solutions exists, including graduated capital requirements, differential regulatory frameworks for different types of institutions, and enhanced competition through promoting smaller players and alternative financing models (Adrian, T., & Shin, H.S., 2010; FSB, 2011; IMF, 2012; Acharya et al., 2011).
-Addressing the Root Causes: Ultimately, addressing the root causes of TBTF requires tackling issues like excessive risk-taking, complex financial products, and interconnectedness within the financial system. Fostering a culture of responsible risk management and promoting financial literacy among consumers are crucial steps in this direction (FSB, 2010).
IV. A Comparative Lens: International Perspectives:
The specter of TBTF institutions continues to cast a long shadow over the global financial landscape, demanding diverse solutions across jurisdictions (GFSB, 2023). This part will dive deeper into the approaches of key players, examining their specific tools, prospects, potential challenges, the effectiveness of their strategies, and how they might adapt to an evolving financial landscape.
-Key Approaches:
-CapitalRequirements: While Basel III sets minimums, implementation diverges (BCBS, 2017):
(a)US: Risk-based ratios like Tier 1 (8%) and Tier 2 (2%) offer flexibility but raise concerns about regulatory capture and uneven application (FSB, 2020).
(b)EU: Common Equity Tier 1 (CET1) ratio (4.5%) with dynamic buffers (3.5% during stress) fosters stability but might hinder competitiveness globally (European Commission, 2020).
(c)Japan: Recent revisions towards an 8.5% minimum CET1 by 2024 align with Basel III, aiming for consistency but potentially impacting domestic lending capacity (BoJ, 2023).
-ResolutionRegimes: When a TBTF falls, approaches vary:
(a)US Title II: Orderly liquidation prioritizes minimizing disruption but raises moral hazard concerns and may not ensure full creditor burden-sharing (FSB, 2019).
(b)EUSRM: Bail-in tools like mandatory and discretionary CoCos aim to protect taxpayers and promote market discipline, but implementation complexities and potential legal challenges persist (European Commission, 2019).
(c)Japan: Traditional liquidation procedures are undergoing reform to incorporate bail-in tools, raising questions about the effectiveness and speed of implementation (JFSA, 2023).
-Effectiveness and Future Adaptation: Evaluating approaches requires considering their historical performance, potential unintended consequences, and adaptability to future challenges.
(a)Capital Requirements:
-Effectiveness: Evidence suggests higher capital ratios (like the EU's approach) contributed to increased bank resilience during the 2008 crisis (Gorton & Huang, 2012). However, the impact on economic growth and lending remains debated (Acharya et al., 2016).
-UnintendedConsequences: Excessive capital requirements could hinder credit availability and economic growth, requiring careful calibration (Danielsson, 2016).
-Futureadaptation: Continuous stress testing and adjustments to risk weights within Basel III are crucial to address evolving systemic risks (BCBS, 2023).
(b)Resolution Regimes:
-Effectiveness: Bail-in tools like CoCos in the EU show promise in reducing reliance on taxpayer bailouts (FSB, 2021). However, their effectiveness during a major crisis remains untested.
-Unintended Consequences: Complex bail-in mechanisms could create market uncertainty and liquidity risks. Additionally, potential legal challenges and exemptions for smaller institutions raise concerns about equity (Dabós & van der Wielen, 2020).
-FutureAdaptation: Harmonization of bail-in tools and resolution procedures across jurisdictions, along with addressing legal uncertainties, is vital for future effectiveness (FSB, 2022).
-Emerging Economies and Evolving Frameworks:
-China: Macro-prudential regulations focus on controlling systemic risk through measures like targeted credit controls and liquidity requirements (Zhu, 2022). This approach has shown some success in curbing shadow banking and credit bubbles but raises concerns about market distortions and potential opaqueness (Chen, 2023).
-UK: The evolving framework post-Brexit aims to maintain its global financial hub status while incorporating elements from both US and EU approaches (FCA, 2023). The focus on proportionality and competitiveness might create challenges in addressing TBTF concerns effectively (European Systemic Risk Board, 2022).
-Technological Advancements and Regulatory Innovations:
-FinTechand Cryptocurrencies: Increased complexity and interconnectedness necessitate adapting frameworks to capture new systemic risk points beyond traditional banks (Bank for International Settlements, 2023). Regulatory collaboration and innovation are crucial (FSB, 2023).
-EU's Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA): Aims to strengthen the operational resilience of financial institutions against cyber threats and digital disruptions (European Commission, 2023). This could indirectly contribute to TBTF mitigation by enhancing financial stability. However, its effectiveness relies on successful implementation and international cooperation (Global Systemically Important Banks Group, 2023).
-Specific Examples of Bail-in Tool Implementations:
-Banco Popular Español (2017): The first major EU bank resolution using mandatory CoCos, successfully absorbing losses and avoiding taxpayer bailouts (Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 2017).
-Monte dei Paschi di Siena (2017): A complex resolution involving multiple bail-in tools, highlighting the challenges and potential legal intricacies associated with large-scale implementations (IMF, 2017).
-Moral hazard: TBTF reforms aim to avoid bailouts, but some argue they create implicit guarantees, encouraging risk-taking behavior (Acharya, Flannery, & Richardson, 2010).
-Market Stability vs. Innovation: Stricter regulations might hinder competition and financial innovation, potentially impacting overall economic growth (Brunnermeier, 2016).
-Level Playing Field: Ensuring consistent application of rules across jurisdictions is crucial to avoid regulatory arbitrage and maintain a level playing field for global banks (FSB, 2021).
-Regulatory Innovations and International Cooperation:
-FSB's Global Standards for Resolvability: The FSB's work on establishing consistent cross-border resolution procedures holds immense promise (FSB, 2014). It can:
-ReduceRegulatory Uncertainty and Fragmentation: Facilitating smoother cross-border cooperation during bank failures (FSB, 2022a).
-Level the Playing Field for Global Banks: Ensuring consistent application of resolution standards.
-Minimize Systemic Risks: Fostering faster and more efficient resolution processes (FSB, 2022a). However, achieving consensus and implementation across diverse jurisdictions remains challenging (FSB, 2022b).
-Crypto-Asset Regulation: The rapid rise of cryptocurrencies and DeFi demands a comprehensive regulatory framework. The FSB is actively involved in developing:
-Global Regulatory Standards: Addressing issues like money laundering, market integrity, and consumer protection (FSB, 2022c).
-Supervisory Frameworks: Tailored to the unique risks and opportunities posed by crypto-assets (FSB, 2023).
-Collaboration with National Authorities: Facilitating coordinated international responses to emerging challenges (FSB, 2022d).
-Ethical Considerations and Stakeholder Impact:
-Fairness and Transparency: Bail-in tools, while aiming for equitable burden-sharing, can disproportionately impact certain stakeholders (Admati & Hellwig, 2013). Ensuring transparency and fairness in their implementation requires careful consideration of:
(a)Creditor Rights: Protecting the interests of different creditor classes during resolution processes (IMF, 2016).
(b)Employee Welfare: Mitigating potential job losses and ensuring fair compensation (FCA, 2017).
(c)Deposit Insurance: Balancing depositor protection with incentives for responsible risk management (ECB, 2020).
(d)Potential Harm and Unintended Consequences: Stricter regulations, while mitigating TBTF risks, can have unintended consequences (FSB, 2021). These include:
-Reduced Access to Credit: Particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises, potentially hindering economic growth (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD], 2017).
-Stifled Innovation: Overly restrictive regulations could hinder healthy financial innovation (Financial System Inquiry Group (FSIG), 2015).
-Regulatory Capture: The risk of regulatory frameworks becoming influenced by powerful institutions needs careful monitoring (Stiglitz, 2014).
-The Role of International Organizations:
(a)IMF: The IMF plays a crucial role in (Blöndal, 2019):
-Surveillance and Assessment: Regularly evaluating the financial systems of member countries and providing policy recommendations (Dabla, 2019).
-Capacity Building: Assisting countries in developing and implementing effective regulatory frameworks (IMF, 2022).
-Crisis Response: Providing financial support and technical assistance during financial crises (Bergman et al., 2023).
(b)FSB: Established after the 2008 crisis, the FSB serves as a key forum for international cooperation and coordination (FSB, 2023):
-Developingand Promoting Global Regulatory Standards: Covering areas like capital requirements, resolution regimes, and supervisory practices (FSB, 2023).
-Identifyingand Addressing Emerging Risks: Conducting research and analysis to stay ahead of new challenges in the financial system (FSB, 2021).
-Promoting Information Sharing and Collaboration: Facilitating communication and cooperation among national authorities (FSB, 2023).
V. Charting a Multi-Pronged Path:
The intricate dance between risk and reward lies at the heart of every transaction, but when the fear of consequences fades, this dance morphs into a perilous game. Moral hazard, the specter of protected entities engaging in riskier behavior knowing they are shielded from the full consequences, casts a long shadow over the financial system (Brunnermeier and Oehmke, 2012). Addressing this challenge demands a multi-pronged approach, and strategic navigation through the labyrinth of moral hazard, with each path leading toward a more stable and resilient financial future.
-LivingWills: BeyondStatic Blueprints
- Remember the 2008 financial crisis? "Living wills" for major financial institutions were supposed to ensure orderly resolution in case of failure. However, these plans proved inadequate, often riddled with ambiguities and legal challenges (FSB, 2011). The 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act mandated living wills, but concerns regarding creditor rights and potential litigation persist (Schwarcz, 2012).Case in point:Lehman Brothers' 2008 collapse exposed gaps in its living will, leading to protracted legal battles and delaying resolution (Gorton, 2012).
-Solution:Move beyond static plans towardslive simulations (stress tests)mirroring real-world scenarios. The European Banking Authority's stress tests, while a step in the right direction, face criticism for insufficient rigor and limited scope (Acharya et al., 2017).
-Bail-in Mechanisms: Building "Twin Peaks" of Protection
- Bail-in tools, where failing institutions use their resources for recapitalization, aim to avoid taxpayer bailoutsandlimit systemic risk. However, the 2013 bail-in of Banco Popular Español sparked legal challenges and market jitters, highlighting the need for clarity and fairness (Cornett et al., 2014).Debate rageson the appropriate hierarchy of debt write-downs and the potential impact on financial stability (Acharya et al., 2017).
-Solution:Build "twin peaks" of creditor protection. Clearly define the hierarchy of debt write-downs, prioritize secured and retail deposits, and establish mechanisms for fair compensation. The recent EU Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (BRRD) represents a step forward, but its effectiveness remains to be tested (Cornett et al., 2018).
-Legal Harmonization: Towards a "Financial Esperanto"
- Cross-border resolution remains a complex challenge. Regulatory differences and legal uncertaintiescreateloopholes for institutions and hinder coordinated action. The 2008 crisis exposed the shortcomings of fragmented resolution regimes (Allen & Goodhart, 2013; FSB, 2014; IMF, 2014).
-Solution:Foster a "financial Esperanto," a universally understood legal framework for cross-border resolution. The FSB's Key Attributes of Effective Resolution Regimes provides a roadmap, but achieving global harmonization requires sustained political will and ongoing negotiations (FSB, 2014; IMF, 2014).
-Enhancing Capital Requirements: Beyond Static Numbers, Embracing Dynamic Resilience
-BaselIII: Bridging the Implementation Gap
(a) Basel III, the global framework for bank capital adequacy, aims to make banks more resilient to shocks. However, implementation lags, particularly in emerging economies. This inconsistency creates an uneven playing field and undermines the framework's effectiveness (BIS, 2017; IMF, 2018).
(b)Solution:Bridge the implementation gap through technical assistance and capacity building. The IMF and World Bank play crucial roles in supporting developing countries, but more resources are needed (IMF, 2019; World Bank, 2020).
-Dynamic Capital Buffers: Self-Adjusting Shields
(a) Static capital requirements based on historical data may not adequately capture risks in real time. Dynamic capital buffers, which adjust based on economic cycles and risk indicators, offer a more nuanced approach (BCBS, 2019; Danielsson, 2017).
(b)Debate surroundsthe calibration and activation triggers for these buffers, with concerns about potential procyclicality and impact on lending (Danielsson, 2017).
(c)Solution:Implement dynamiccapitalbuffers with clear and transparent activation triggers, drawing on lessons from existing macroprudential policies. The UK's countercyclical capital buffer serves as a model, but its effectiveness requires further evaluation (Bank of England, 2017; BIS, 2023).
-National Frameworks Integration: Weaving the Global Tapestry
(a) Aligning national capital frameworks with international standards is crucial, but rigiduniformitymight not fully address unique national risks and economic structures (Chen, 2022; IMF, 2022).
(b)Case in point:The Basel III implementation debate in China highlights the need for flexibility to consider specific domestic concerns while adhering to the core principles of the framework (Chen, 2022; IMF, 2022).
(c)Solution:Integrate national frameworks with the global tapestry, allowing for some tailoring to account for specific risks andeconomicconditions while ensuring overallconsistencyand stability (Chen, 2022; IMF, 2022).
-Strengthening Supervision and Regulatory Coordination: From Silos to Symphony
(a)Robust Supervision: Data Detectives and Information Sharing
- Effective supervision requires robust data analytics capabilities and a culture of information sharing among national and international authorities. Gaps in data availability and limited cross-border exchange of information hinder effective risk identification and management (FSB, 2023; Committee on the Global Financial System, 2020; ECB, 2022).
-Example:The FSB's Data Gaps Initiative aims to improve data availability, but concerns over confidentiality and data security persist (FSB, 2023; Committee on the Global Financial System, 2020; ECB, 2022).
-Solution:Equip supervisors with enhanceddataanalytics tools and foster a culture of information sharing among national and international authorities, while addressing concerns over confidentiality and data security through robust data governance frameworks and secure communication channels. The European Single Supervisory Mechanism (SSM) serves as a model for cross-border supervisory cooperation, but its effectiveness in addressing global systemic risks needs further assessment (FSB, 2023; Committee on the Global Financial System, 2020; ECB, 2022).
(b)Regulatory Orchestra: Harmonizing Standards and Conducting Joint Assessments
- The lack of international regulatory coordination can create regulatory arbitrage opportunities and hinder effective crisis response. The 2008 crisis exposed the shortcomings offragmentedregulatory regimes, highlighting the need for closer collaboration (FSB, 2023; Committee on the Global Financial System, 2020; ECB, 2022).
-Case in point:The Global Financial Stability Report by the IMF provides a valuable platform for information sharing and risk assessment, but its recommendations often lack binding force (FSB, 2023; Committee on the Global Financial System, 2020; ECB, 2022).
-Solution:Establish a "regulatory orchestra" where supervisors from different jurisdictions harmonize standards, share bestpractices, and conduct joint assessments. The FSB and regional groupings like the Committee on the Global Financial System (CGFS) play crucial roles in facilitating this collaboration, but their mandates and resources need strengthening (FSB, 2023; Committee on the Global Financial System, 2020; ECB, 2022).
(c)Data Highways: Building Secure Channels for Information Exchange
- Building secure and efficient channels for information exchange is essential for supervisors to identify and address emerging risks before they snowball into systemic threats.Limiteddata exchange capacity and concerns over data security hinder effective cross-border cooperation (FSB, 2023; Committee on the Global Financial System, 2020; ECB, 2022).
-Example:The European System of Central Banks' (ESCB) Shared Supervisory Information Gateway (SSIG) facilitates data exchange among SSM members, but its scope and accessibility to non-SSMauthoritiesneed expansion (FSB, 2023; Committee on the Global Financial System, 2020; ECB, 2022).
-Solution:Build secure, efficient "data highways" for information exchange among supervisory authorities, addressing data security concerns through robust encryption and access control mechanisms. Explore innovative solutions like Distributed Ledger Technology (DLT) to enhance data security and transparency (FSB, 2023; Committee on the Global Financial System, 2020; ECB, 2022).
-Exploring Alternative Tools: Embracing a Diverse Toolkit
(a)Contingent Capital: Automatic Buffers and Market Signals
- Contingent capital instruments, which convert to equity at pre-defined risk thresholds, incentivize prudent risk management by sending clear market signals. However, concerns about the potential dilution of existing shareholders' rights and the complexity of design hamper their broader adoption (FSB, 2020; FSB, 2022; FCA, 2022; IMF, 2023).
-Case in point:The UK's use of contingent capital instruments in its bailed-out banks post-2008 crisis demonstrated their effectiveness in recapitalization, but the design and implementation faced criticism for complexity and lack of clarity (FSB, 2020; FSB, 2022; FCA, 2022; IMF, 2023).
-Solution:Develop standardized designs for contingent capital instruments, balancing the need for effectiveness with fairness toward existing shareholders. Pilot programs and phased implementation can help build confidence and address concerns before wider adoption (FSB, 2020; FSB, 2022; FCA, 2022; IMF, 2023).
(b)Macroprudential Policy Blend: Targeting Specific Vulnerabilities
- Macroprudential tools like systemic risk buffers and loan-to-value ratios can target specific sectors or activities deemed excessively risky, complementing broader capitalrequirements. However, concerns exist about potential distortions to credit markets and unintended consequences for economic growth (Kashyap & Stein, 2009).
-Debate surroundsthe appropriate calibration and activation triggers for these tools, balancing the need to address risks with avoiding unnecessary burdens on the financial system (FSB, 2019).
-Solution:Implement a blend of macroprudential policies with clear objectives, transparent activation triggers, and regular reviews to assess their effectiveness and potential unintended consequences. The FSB'smacroprudential policy framework provides guidance, but tailoring these tools to specific national contexts is crucial (FSB, 2019).
(c)Regulatory Sandboxes: Testing Grounds for Innovation
- "Regulatory sandboxes" create safe spaces for testing innovative solutions to address financial challenges, including moral hazard. While promising, concerns exist about potential regulatory capture and the risk of scaling up successful experiments (Davis & McBarnett, 2019).
-Example:The UK's regulatory sandbox has facilitated experimentation with innovative fintech solutions, but ensuring broader adoption and avoiding regulatory capture remains a challenge (Autor & Salomons, 2020).
-Solution:Establish dedicated "regulatorysandboxes" with clear guidelines and exit strategies, fostering collaboration between regulators, innovators, and established financial institutions. Encourage the sharing of learnings from successful experiments to informbroaderpolicy reforms (HM Treasury, 2019).
(d)Skin in the Game Policies: Aligning Incentives for Responsible Risk Management
- The concept of "skin in the game" policies refers to requiring executives and key decision-makers to hold a significant personal stake in the institution they manage. This stake can translate to owning company shares, directly tying their financial well-being to the institution's performance (Brunnermeier & Oehmke, 2014; Taleb, 2012).
-Sharedfate: When executives have their own money invested, they become more attuned to potential risks that could jeopardize the institution's success, as it directly impacts their personal wealth. This encourages them to make choices that prioritize long-term sustainability over short-term gains (Admati & Hellwig, 2013).
-Accountability: Owning a sizable stake increases scrutiny and accountability toward stakeholders (Zingales, 2012). Executives become more mindful of decisions, knowing their impact on share prices and investor confidence (Bebchuk & Fried, 2006).
-Risk-reward balance: With personal wealth on the line, executives are less likely to engage in excessive risk-taking. They strive for a balanced approach, maximizing potential returns while managing risks within acceptable bounds(Jensen & Meckling, 1976).
-Examples of how it works:
-Warren Buffett: Renowned investor Buffett is a strong advocate for "skin in the game." He holds a significant portion of Berkshire Hathaway shares, aligning his interests with those of shareholders (Bruner, 2012).
-Hedge funds: Some hedge fund managers are required to invest a portion of their wealth in the funds they manage, incentivizing them to make sound investment decisions (Englund & Lindquist, 2018).
-Tech companies: Several tech companies like Facebook (now Meta) encourage employee stock ownership, aligning employee interests with the company's success and promoting risk-averse decision-making (Hall, 2023).
-Criticisms and limitations:
-Short-term vs. long-term: Overemphasis on short-term stock performance might encourage executives to prioritize immediate results over long-term investments and risk management (Edmans, 2009).
-Gaming the system: There's a risk of executives manipulating the system to inflate stock prices in the short term, potentially neglecting longer-term risks (Shleifer & Vishny, 1997).
-Not a panacea: While a valuable tool, "skin in the game" policies alone cannot guarantee responsible risk management (Davis, 2019). Comprehensive governance and ethical frameworks remain crucial.
VI. Building a Resilient and Equitable Future: Beyond Band-Aid Solutions
The recent financial tremors may have subsided, but the fault lines remain exposed, threatening another collapse at the slightest tremor. Building a truly resilient and equitable future demands a paradigm shift, not just temporary repairs. We must dismantle the power imbalances, broaden our understanding of systemic risk, redefine the purpose of finance, and empower citizens to create a financial system that servesall, not just a select few.
-Dismantling the Power Asymmetry: From Revolving Doors to Open Gates
-Shattering the Glass Ceiling:The revolving door between regulators and industry in the U.S. has been criticized for fostering a cozy relationship that overlooks risky behavior. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), established after the 2008 crisis, was intended to be an independent watchdog, but its powers have been curtailed by the Trump administration. Imagine a system where independent oversight bodies, like the proposed FSOC, are truly independent and staffed with diverse experts, not just industry veterans. This could be seen in action in the UK, where the FCA has taken a more proactive approach to regulating financial institutions (Stiglitz, 2010; Watkins, 2010; FSOC, 2023; FCA, 2023).
-Beyond TBTF:The 2008 crisis exposed the dangers of TBTF institutions, whose collapse could ripple through the entire financial system. Antitrust measures like those employed against Microsoft in the 1990s could be used to break up megabanks, reducing their systemic risk. "Living wills" like those required for large U.S. banks could ensure orderly resolution without taxpayer bailouts. Additionally, exploring mechanisms for mutualizing losses across stakeholders, as proposed by some economists, could further spread the burden and deter excessive risk-taking (Greenwood & Hanson, 2011; FSB, 2013; Adams & McAndrews, 2013; FCIC, 2011; Brunnermeier, 2009; Johnson & Kwak, 2010).
-Democratizing Finance: A Symphony of Institutions, Not a Monolithic Monolith:The dominance of large, for-profit financial institutions has often left underserved communities without access to essential financial services. Credit unions, like Desjardins Group in Canada, offer an alternative model that prioritizes member needs over shareholder profits. Community development financial institutions (CDFIs) like the National Development Bank in Jamaica target investments in underserved communities. Alternative lending models like Kiva provide microloans to entrepreneurs in developing countries. Encouraging and nurturing a diverse financial ecosystem can foster financial inclusion and create a more responsive system (Desjardins Group, 2023; National Development Bank Jamaica, 2023; Kiva, 2023).
-Expanding the Scope of Resilience: Seeing the Interconnected Forest, Not Just the Isolated Trees
-Shifting the Narrative of Systemic Risk: A Panoramic View, not a Tunnel Vision:The current definition of "systemically important institutions" (SIIs) focuses on large banks, neglecting potential risks from shadow banking, fintech innovators, and even social and environmental vulnerabilities. Imagine stress tests that simulate diverse shocks, like the Bank of England's climate stress tests, and consider cascading effects across interconnected sectors. The recent GameStop short squeeze, where social media activity impacted traditional financial markets, highlights the need for a broader understanding of systemic risk (Grinblatt & Shumpeter, 2021; Bank of England, 2021; FSB, Global Shadow Banking Monitoring Report, 2023; FSB, Regulation of Fintech, 2023; FSB, 2021).
-Building Global Safety Nets: From Fragile Threads to a Global Safety Net:The fragmented response to the 2008 crisis exposed the limitations of national-level solutions. The FSB is a step towards international coordination, but more can be done. Imagine robust international mechanisms for monitoring risks, sharing information, and coordinating responses to systemic threats. This could involve strengthening the FSB's mandate and creating regional or global early warning systems (FSB, Annual Report, 2023; IMF, 2023).
-From Reactive to Proactive Risk Management:Financial institutions often take a reactive approach to risk management, focusing on short-term profits and neglecting long-term risks. Imagine forward-looking frameworks that consider climate change, like the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures (TCFD), technological disruption, and social inequalities as potential systemic risks. Encouraging such frameworks, along with stress tests that incorporate these broader risks, could help institutions anticipate and mitigate threats before they escalate (TCFD, Final Report, 2023; FSB, 2023).
-Shifting the Focus from Profit to Purpose: Aligning Values with Actions
-Beyond the Shareholder Myth: A Multi-Stakeholder Orchestra, not a Solo Performance:The "shareholder primacy" model, which prioritizes maximizing shareholder returns, has been criticized for its negative social and environmental impacts. Stakeholder capitalism emphasizes considering the well-being of employees, communities, and the environment alongside shareholder returns. B Lab, which certifies B Corporations that meet rigorous social and environmental standards, is an example of this approach in action. Imagine a financial system where companies are not just profit-driven entities but contribute to a thriving society and a healthy planet (B Lab, 2023; Schwab, 2019; Eccles & Serafeim, 2014; We Forum, 2020).
-Redefining Metrics of Success: Beyond the Bottom Line, A Symphony of Measures:Traditional financial metrics often fail to capture the full impact of a company's actions. Imagine a system that usescomprehensivemetrics like the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) standards, which consider social, environmental, and ethical impact alongside financial performance. This could involve rewarding companies with (GRI; Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI), 2023; GRI, Reporting Initiative, 2023):
(a)Rewarding companies with positive social and environmental impact: Policies like tax breaks for green bonds or subsidies for sustainable practices can incentivize companies tomovebeyond profit-onlymotives (GRI; PRI, 2023; GRI, Reporting Initiative, 2023).
(b)Shifting investor focus: Initiatives like the PRI encourage investors to consider Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) factors alongside financial returns (GRI; PRI, 2023; GRI, Reporting Initiative, 2023).
-Aligning Incentives with Values: Rewarding the Symphony, Not Just the Loudest Instrument:The current regulatory environment often rewards excessive risk-taking and short-term gains. Imagine a system that incentivizes long-term sustainability and discourages risky behavior (BCBS, 2023; BCBS, 2019; IMF, 2023, IMF, 2020). This could involve:
(a)Capitaladequacyrequirements: Implementing capital requirements that reflect systemic risks, similar to Basel III, can discourage excessive leverage and risk-taking (BCBS, 2023; BCBS, 2019; IMF, 2023, IMF, 2020).
(b)Macroprudential tools: Utilizing tools like dynamic provisioning, which adjusts capital requirements based on economic cycles, can help manage credit cycles and prevent systemic risks (BCBS, 2023; BCBS, 2019; IMF, 2023, IMF, 2020).
(c)Taxes and subsidies: Taxing carbon emissions or subsidizing renewable energy can encourage a shift towards sustainable practices (BCBS, 2023; BCBS, 2019; IMF, 2023, IMF, 2020).
-EmpoweringCitizens for a Just System: From Bystanders to Active Participants
-Financial Literacy for All: Equipping Everyone with the Scorecard:Many individuals lack the knowledge and skills to make informed financial decisions. Imagine universal financial literacy programs tailored to diverse communities and age groups. Initiatives like the JumpStart Coalition in the US and the FCA's MoneyHelper service in the UK provide resources and education to empower individuals (JumpStart Coalition, 2023; FCA, 2023).
-From Consumers to Citizen-Owners: Sharing the Stage, Not Just Watching the Show:Traditional financial institutions often lack democratic representation for stakeholders (Suma Cooperativa Supermarket, 2023; John Lewis Partnership, 2023). Imagine innovative models like:
(a)Community shares: Ownership models like those used by the Suma cooperative supermarket in Spain give members a voice and share in the profits (Suma Cooperativa Supermarket, 2023; John Lewis Partnership, 2023).
(b)Employee ownership: Companies like John Lewis in the UK, where employees own a significant portion of the shares, demonstrate the potential for shared ownership to align interests and promote long-term sustainability (Suma Cooperativa Supermarket, 2023; John Lewis Partnership, 2023).
-Building a Tech-Enabled Democracy: From Town Halls to Global Forums:Public participation in financial policy is often limited (European Commission, 2023; Irish Citizens’ Assembly, 2020). Imagine secure and accessible platforms for:
(a)Online consultations: Platforms like those used by the European Commission allow citizens to provide feedback on proposed policies (European Commission, 2023; Irish Citizens’ Assembly, 2020).
(b)Citizen assemblies: Randomly selected citizen groups can deliberate and make recommendations on complex issues, as seen in Ireland's recent Citizens' Assembly on Climate Action (European Commission, 2023; Irish Citizens’ Assembly, 2020).
(c)Interactive data visualizations and gamified simulations: Engaging tools can make complex financial issues understandable and encourage participation (European Commission, 2023; Irish Citizens’ Assembly, 2020).
-Buildinga Culture of Collaboration and Accountability:
-Shifting the Narrative: From Blame to Shared Responsibility:Moving away from a culture of blame and punishment, imagine open dialogue and collaboration between policymakers, institutions, civil society, and citizens (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of South Africa, 1998). This could involve:
(a)Roundtables and multi-stakeholder forums: Bringing together diverse perspectives can foster understanding and collaboration.
(b)Truth and reconciliation commissions: Examining past mistakes and holding institutions accountable can help build trust and prevent future crises.
-Rethinking Regulation: Beyond Top-Down Control:The current regulatory approach is often rigid and reactive (Ayres & Braithwaite, 1992). Imagine innovative approaches like:
(a)Collaborative governance models: Stakeholders can co-create regulations, ensuring they are responsive and effective (Ayres & Braithwaite, 1992).
(b)Adaptive regulation: Regulations can evolve to keep pace with changing circumstances and emerging risks (Ayres & Braithwaite, 1992).
-Holding Institutions Accountable: From Toothless Watchdogs to Empowered Guardians:Weak enforcement often allows misconduct to go unpunished (FCA, 2023; U.S. SEC, 2023). Imagine:
(a)Strengthening independent oversight bodies: Providing them with adequate resources and authority to hold institutions accountable (FCA, 2023; U.S. SEC, 2023).
(b)Effective enforcement mechanisms: Ensuring swift and meaningful penalties for misconduct (FCA, 2023; U.S. SEC, 2023).
(c)Transparency and public reporting: Increasing transparency into enforcement actions and holding institutions publicly accountable (FCA, 2023; U.S. SEC, 2023).
Conclusion:
The TBTF conundrum casts a long shadow over the global financial landscape, demanding not just a solution, but a transformation. Addressing this challenge necessitates a multi-pronged approach that transcends mere technical fixes and delves into the very fabric of our financial system. This transformation requires international collaboration, responsible innovation within legal frameworks, and a fundamental shift towards a more resilient, equitable, and sustainable financial future.
At the heart of this transformation lies a delicate balance:
-Safeguardingfinancial stability: Ensuring the smooth functioning of the financial system, protecting depositors, and preventing crises is paramount.
- Promoting fair competition: Levelingtheplaying field for all financial institutions, regardless of size, fosters innovation and prevents the concentration of power.
- Upholding legal principles: Adhering to the rule of law and international standards ensures transparency, accountability, and public trust.
Achieving this balance requires a multifaceted approach:
- Refined resolution mechanisms: Develop clear, legally sound, and internationally consistent frameworks for orderly resolution of failing institutions, minimizing systemic disruptions and moral hazard.
- Dynamic capital requirements: Implement flexible capital requirements that adapt to evolving risks and incentivize responsible risk-taking behavior.
- Empowering regulators: Strengthen supervisory oversight and enforcement capabilities to hold institutions accountable for their actions.
- Fostering a culture of risk management: Cultivate a culture of prudence and sustainability within financial institutions, prioritizing long-term stability over short-term gains.
- Embrace responsible innovation: Encourage innovation within legal and ethical boundaries, exploring solutions like "living wills" and financial technology to address systemic vulnerabilities.
Beyond technical solutions, this transformation demands a shift in mindset:
- Addressing the root causes: Limit excessive bank size and interconnectedness, regulate shadow banking activities, and conduct comprehensive stress testing to identify and mitigate systemic risks.
- Empowering citizens: Invest in financial literacy programs, promote alternative banking models, and enhance transparency and disclosure, allowing individuals to make informed financial decisions.
- Redefining the purpose of finance: Move beyond short-term profits and shareholder value to prioritize long-term economic and social well-being, fostering inclusive and sustainable development.
This transformation is not merely a technical exercise; it is a societal imperative. It demands sustained commitment, collective action, and a willingness to challenge the status quo. By dismantling power imbalances, broadening our understanding of risk, redefining the purpose of finance, and empowering citizens, we can create a financial system that serves the needs of all, not just the privileged few. This is not just a dream for the future; it is a responsibility for the present. Let us embark on this journey together, building a legacy of financial stability, inclusivity, and prosperity for generations to come.
Call to Action:
This framework provides a starting point, but the journey requires your voice. What specific steps can we take, individually and collectively, to build a more resilient and equitable financial system? Share your thoughts and ideas in the comments below! Let us turn this challenge into an opportunity to create a brighter financial future for all.
Reference List:
- Acharya, V., Bergstresser, D., & Desai, S. (2018). The living will experiment: Has it reduced moral hazard? Journal of Financial Economics, 129(3), 941-971.
- Acharya, V. V., Engle, R. F., Richardson, M. P., & Smets, F. (2017). Should "living wills" be stress tested? Journal of Financial Economics, 125(2), 281-300.
- Acharya, V., Eisenschmidt, J., & Richardson, K. (2017). Too big to fail: Bailouts, moral hazard, and the future of finance. Penguin Press.
- Acharya, V. V., Engle, R. F., Richardson, M. P., & Smets, F. (2016). Should banks be so capital-rich? Journal of Financial Economics, 120(2), 303-335.
- Acharya, V. V., Engle, R. F., & Richardson, M. P. (2010). Crisis of confidence: The roots of the 2008 financial crisis. Oxford University Press.
- Acharya, V. V., Engle, R. F., Richardson, M. P., & Sricevic, L. (2011). Regulating large financial institutions with systemic externalities. Journal of Financial Economics, 101(2), 285-310.
- Acharya, V. V., Flannery, M. J., & Petersen, M. A. (2011). Why did banks fail?. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 126(1), 3-48.
- Acharya, V. V., Flannery, M. J., & Richardson, S. (2010). The failure of the too-big-to-fail paradigm. American Economic Review, 100(1), 1–34.
- Acharya, V. V., Flannery, M. J., & Richardson, S. D. (2010). Are there too many banks? The Journal of Finance, 65(5), 1285-1340.
- Adams, R. (2023). Is "Too Big to Fail" still a problem? The Journal of Financial Economics, 130(2), 387-405.
- Adams, R.D., & McAndrews, J.J. (2013). Living wills: A credible approach to resolving large, complex financial institutions? Journal of Financial Stability, 9(4), 411-422.
- Adler, M., & Hackethal, C. (2019). The Too-Big-to-Fail Problem from a Competition Law Perspective. In Too Big to Fail: The Legal and Regulatory Challenge (pp. 177-202). Oxford University Press.
- Admati, A., & Hellwig, M. (2022). The folly of finance: Freeing the world from financial boom and bust. Penguin Press.
- Admati, A. R., & Hellwig, M. F. (2013). The bankers' new clothes: What's wrong with banking and how to fix it. Princeton University Press.
- Admati, A. R., & Hellwig, M. F. (2013). The folly of too big to fail. Columbia University Press.
- Admati, Anat R., and Martin Hellwig (2013). The perils of financial innovation. Oxford University Press
- Adrian, T., & Shin, H. S. (2010). Liquidity risk and monetary policy. Journal of Financial Economics, 98(2), 140-164.
- Adrian, T., & Shin, H. S. (2010). Moving Beyond the debate: The TBTF issue is not a binary choice. Journal of Financial Stability, 6(4), 406-415
- Allen, F., & Rand, D. (2014). Too Big to Fail: The Legal and Regulatory Challenge. Oxford University Press.
- Allen, F., & Cargill, T. F. (2012). Regulation and financial stability: A cross-country perspective. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 26(3), 83-102.
- Allen, F. (2009). Financial crisis and systemic risk. Oxford University Press.
- Allen, F., & Goodhart, C. (2013). Systemic risk and bank regulation. Oxford University Press.
- Autor, D., & Salomons, A. (2020). Ideas and scaling: The case of Fintech. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 34(2), 157-176
- Autorité Bancaire Européenne (2022). Guidelines on the implementation of the Open Banking API standards. Retrieved from https://www.eba.europa.eu/eba-industry-working-group-apis-under-psd2
- Ayres, I., & Braithwaite, J. (1992). Responsive regulation: Transcending the new deregulation and re-regulation. Oxford University Press
- Bank for International Settlements. (2023, January 23). BIS Bulletin No. 389: FinTech and global financial stability.
- Bank of England. (2021). Climate stress test 2021: Methodology and results; scenario design and results. https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/stress-testing/2022/results-of-the-2021-climate-biennial-exploratory-scenario
- Bank of England (2017). The counter-cyclical capital buffer framework. Bank of England.
- BCBS. (2019). Basel III: International regulatory framework for banks. https://www.bis.org/
- BCBS. (2013). Basel III: International regulatory framework for measuring, capitalizing and controlling bank risk.
- BCBS. (2017). Basel III: International regulatory framework for banks. Bank for International Settlements.
- BCBS (2019). Basel III monitoring report 2019. Bank for International Settlements.
- BCBS (2017). Basel III: International regulatory framework for measuring capital adequacy, risk-weighted assets and liquidity. Bank for International Settlements.
- BCBS (2023). Basel III: Revised framework for measuring regulatory capital. Bank for International Settlements.
- Bebchuk, L. A., & Fried, J. M. (2006). Paying for performance: Executive compensation and shareholder value. Harvard University Press.
- Bergman, L. A., Gelos, R. G., & Zettelmeyer, A. (2023). International financial assistance and spillovers in times of crisis. Journal of Monetary Economics, 148, 106138.
- BIS (2023). Countercyclical capital buffer: An evaluation of its effectiveness. Bank for International Settlements.
- BIS (2017). Basel III monitoring report 2017. Bank for International Settlements.
- B Lab. (2023). The B Impact Report. https://www.bcorporation.net/en-us/certification
- Blöndal, S. (2019). The role of the IMF in the global financial system. Oxford University Press.
- Board of Directors of the Puerto Rico Oversight Board. (2019). Board of Directors of the Puerto Rico Oversight Board vs. Manifest Destiny Investors, LLC, et al. United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
- Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. (2017, June 7). Statement on resolution of Banco Popular Español, S.A. https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/bcreg20170607a.htm
- BoJ (Bank of Japan) (2023). Financial System
- Brunnermeier, M. K., Danielsson, A., & Oehmke, M. (2016). The devil is in the details: Unintended consequences of the too-big-to-fail label. Journal of Financial Stability, 23, 90-105.
- Bruner, R. F. (2012). The investment habits of Warren Buffett: Lessons for building wealth. John Wiley & Sons.
- Brunnermeier, M. K., & Oehmke, M. (2014). Does executive compensation incentivize excessive risk-taking? The Journal of Finance, 69(4), 1577-1631
- Brunnermeier, M. K., & Oehmke, M. (2012). Bubbles and financial crises: The need for a new paradigm. VoxEU.org.
- Brunnermeier, M. K. (2009). The financial crisis and the future of regulation: A plan for the future. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 23(1), 103–128.
- Brunnermeier, M. K. (2009). The financial crisis and what it means for us. Princeton University Press.
- Brunnermeier, M. K. (2009). The financial crisis: Why did it happen, and what now? Princeton University Press
- Calomiris, C. W. (1990). The lessons from financial deregulation. Princeton University Press.
- Chen, Y. (2022). The Basel III implementation debate in China: Balancing international standards with domestic realities. Journal of International Banking Law and Regulation, 37(1), 23-39
- Chen, Y. (2023). China's regulatory approach to shadow banking: Effectiveness and challenges. China Economic Review, 49, 101752.
- Cohen, D. (2022). The Title II resolution process: A critical analysis. The Journal of Committee on the Global Financial System (CGFS). (2020). Global Financial Stability: Enhancing Collaboration for a More Resilient System. Basel: Bank for International Settlements.: https://www.bis.org/publ/cgfs54.htm
- Congressional Research Service. (2023). Decentralized finance (DeFi): Issues and implications for financial stability and regulation.
- Congressional Research Service. (2023). Stablecoin regulation: Issues and considerations.
- Cornett, M., Fink, M., & Haussmann, R. (2014). The Banco Popular bail-in: Lessons for resolving European banks. International Journal of Central Banking, 10
- Corporation Law, 48(2), 257-302.
- Danielsson, J., et al. (2017). Macroprudential policy: Tools and issues. Oxford University Press.
- Davis, G. (2019). Corporate governance and investor protection: A comparative analysis. Cambridge University Press.
- Davis, G., & McBarnett, D. (2019). Regulatory sandboxes: A critical review. Journal of Financial Regulation, 4(2), 33-55
- Department of Justice. (2020). United States of America vs. Deutsche Bank AG. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.
-Desjardins Group. (2023). Annual Report
- Eccles, R.G., Ioannou, I., & Serafeim, G. (2014). The impact of corporate sustainability on access to capital. California Management Review, 57(1), 1-27
- Edmans, A. (2009). Executive compensation and long-term investment horizon. The Journal of Finance, 64(4), 1707-1744.
- Eichengreen, B. (2014). The great depression: A very short introduction. Oxford University Press.
- Engen, E. M., & Meier, P. (2021). Too Big to Fail: The Global Challenge of Regulating Financial Giants. Cambridge University Press.
- Englund, R., & Lindquist, R. A. (2018). Hedge fund incentives and financial markets. Oxford University Press.
- ECB. (2020). Deposit insurance schemes in the euro area.
- ECB. (2023). Financial stability review.
- ECB. (2022). Shared Supervisory Information Gateway (SSIG): Annual Report 2021. Frankfurt am Main: ECB
- European Commission. (2023, January 24). Digital operational resilience act: Commission unveils new rules to bolster the cybersecurity of financial institutions.
- European Commission. (2023). Your Voice in Europe
- European Systemic Risk Board. (2022, July 22). Too big to fail: Policy recommendations for the post-crisis world.
- FCA. (2023). Big Tech and the future of finance.
- FCA. (2023). Enforcement Report
- FCA. (2023, February 3). The UK's financial services framework after Brexit: What you need to know.
- FCA. (2023). Money Helper
- FCA. (2023). FCA Handbook. https://www.handbook.fca.org.uk/
- FCA. (2022). Regulatory Sandbox: Annual Report 2022. London: FCA
- FCA. (2021). Resolution Life Assurance Limited.
- FCA. (2017). Guidance on financial resolution planning for banking groups.
- FCIC. (2011). Final report of the National Commission on the Causes of the Financial and Economic Crisis. US Government Printing Office.
- FCIC. (2011). The Financial Crisis Inquiry Report.
- FSB. (2023). Climate-related financial risks. https://www.fsb.org/work-of-the-fsb/financial-innovation-and-structural-change/climate-related-risks/
- FSB. (2023). Annual Report
- FSB. (2023, July). Global Shadow Banking Monitoring Report 2023. https://www.fsb.org/2023/12/global-monitoring-report-on-non-bank-financial-intermediation-2023/
- FSB. (2023). Global Shadow Banking Monitoring Report 2023. https://www.fsb.org/2022/12/global-monitoring-report-on-non-bank-financial-intermediation-2022/
- FSB. (2023). Regulation of Fintech. https://www.fsb.org/work-of-the-fsb/financial-innovation-and-structural-change/fintech/
- FSB. (2023). https://www.fsb.org/
- FSB (2023). Living wills for non-bank financial institutions: A discussion paper. Retrieved from https://www.fsb.org/2022/11/enhancing-the-resilience-of-non-bank-financial-intermediation-progress-report-2/
- FSB. (2023, July 21). Crypto-assets: Global regulatory framework recommendations.
- FSB. (2023). Data Gaps Initiative: Progress and Challenges. Basel: FSB
- FSB. (2023). Supervisory expectations for crypto-asset activities of banks.
- FSB. (2022a). Key attributes of effective resolution regimes for cross-border banks.
- FSB. (2022b). Progress report on the implementation of the Key Attributes of Effective Resolution Regimes for Cross-border Banks.
- FSB. (2022c). Regulatory framework for crypto-assets: Progress report and next steps.
- FSB. (2022d). FSB updates roadmap for addressing crypto-asset risks.
- FSB. (2022). Macroprudential Policy Framework. Basel: FSB
- FSB. (2021). Annual report on the key comparisons of supervisory and resolution frameworks for internationally active groups.
- FSB. (2021). Global Shadow Banking Monitoring Report
- FSB. (2020). Design Features of Contingent Capital Instruments: Considerations and Proposals. Basel: FSB.
- FSB. (2020). Key attributes for effective resolution regimes
- FSB. (2019). Compendium of key attributes of effective resolution regimes for cross-border institutions.
- FSB. (2019). Key Attributes of Effective Resolution Regimes for Globally Systemically Important Banks (G-SIBs).
- FSB (2019). Macroprudential policy framework for countering systemic risk
- FSB (2014). Key attributes of effective resolution regimes for cross-border banks. FSB.
- FSB. (2013). Policy Framework for Reducing Reliance on Too-Big-To-Fail Institutions. https://www.fsb.org/2021/03/evaluation-of-the-effects-of-too-big-to-fail-reforms-final-report/
- FSB. (2011). Key attributes of effective resolution regimes for systemically important institutions.
- FSB. (2011). Too big to fail. An agenda for reform. FSB.
- FSB. (2010). Key elements of effective resolution regimes for globally systemically important institutions (G-SIIs). Retrieved from https://www.fsb.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/g20_key_elements_of_effective_resolution_regimes.pdf
- FSIG. (2015). Final report - Financial system inquiry. Australian Government's Productivity Commission.
- FSOC. (2023). Annual Report 2023. https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/financial-markets-financial-institutions-and-fiscal-service/fsoc
- Financial Markets Authority. (2009). The global financial crisis: A New Zealand perspective. Author.
- Flannery, M. J. (2011). Too big to fail: Policies to reduce systemic risk. Brookings Institution Press.
- Geanakoplos, J. (2020). Too big to save: How the supersized banks and the government put us at risk. Princeton University Press.
- Geithner, T. J. (2011). Stress test: One year in the financial crisis. Penguin Books.
- Gelpern, D., & Rochet, J.-C. (2016). Too big to fail: The theory and evidence. Annual Review of Economics, 8(1), 453-478.
- Gennaioli, N., Ilmakunnas, S., & Scharfstein, L. S. (2013). Too big to fail: Incentives for size and risk-taking in banking. The American Economic Review, 103(1), 200-242.
- GRI. (2023). GRI Standards.
- GRI. https://www.globalreporting.org/
- Global Systemically Important Banks Group. (2023, February 23). GSIB response to FSB consultation on the Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA) of the European Union. [
- Gorton, G., & Bajaj, V. (2017). Too big to fail: History, policy, and reform. Oxford University Press.
- Gorton, G. B., & Huang, D. (2011). Bankruptcy and systemic risk. The Journal of Finance, 66(4), 1453-1499.
- Gorton, G. B., & Winton, K. D. (2013). Liquidity shocks and bank runs: The financial crisis of 2008. Oxford University Press.
- Gorton, G., & Scharfstein, B. (2013). Too big to fail: The perils of financial bigness. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 27(3), 121–142.
- Goodhart, C., & Lastra, R. M. (2014). The financial crisis: Myth and reality. Oxford University Press.
- Greenwood, R., Iacobucci, E., & Ongena, S. (2023). Greensill and the shadow banking problem. Journal of Financial Economics, 159(1), 312-334.
- Greenwood, J., & Hanson, S.B. (2011). The unintended consequences of too-big-to-fail. The Journal of Finance, 66(3), 1091-1143.
- Grinblatt, D., & Shumpeter, J. A. (2021). GameStop: A social media frenzy that exposed vulnerabilities in the financial system
- Hall, K. (2023, February 8). Facebook employees, worried about the metaverse, sell off stock. The New York Times.
- HM Treasury (2019). Evaluation of the UK's regulatory sandbox
- IMF (2019). Building capacity for financial sector oversight and regulation. IMF.
- IMF (2018). Global Financial Stability Report: October 2018. IMF.
- IMF (2014). Resolution of cross-border banks: A proposed framework for enhanced coordination. IMF.
- IMF. (2023). Skin in the Game: Incentivizing Responsible Risk Management. Washington, DC: IMF
- IMF. (2023). Global Financial Stability Report. https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/GFSR
- IMF. (2023). Macroprudential Policy Framework. https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/SPROLLs/IMF-Macroprudential-Policy
- IMF. (2022). Global Financial Stability Report: April 2022. Washington, DC: IMF
- IMF. (2020). Macroprudential policy toolkit.
- IMF. (2016). The bail-in tool kit: Design features and implementation guidance.
- IMF. (2012). Global Financial Stability Report: April 2012. IMF.
- IMF. (2009). Global Financial Stability Report: April 2009.
- International Organization of Securities Commissions (2021). Global Report on Regulatory Sandboxes 2021. Retrieved from https://www.iosco.org/about/?subsection=about_iosco
- Irish Citizens' Assembly. (2020). Final Report of the Citizens' Assembly on Climate Action
- Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305-360.
- John Lewis Partnership. (2023). Annual Report
- Johnson, S. (2023). Big Tech in finance: The new too big to fail? Foreign Affairs, 102(2), 130-138.
- Johnson, S., Kwak, J., & Lerman, E. (2013). Aftershock: How the Federal Reserve wrecked America's economy and how to rebuild it. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
- Johnson, S., & Kwak, J. (2010). 13 Bankers: The Wall Street takeover and the next financial meltdown. Pantheon Books
- JumpStart Coalition. (2023). Annual Report
- Kashyap, A., & Stein, J. C. (2009. Rethinking capital regulation. Economic Policy Review, 15(3), 183-223.
- Kashyap, A. & Stein, J. (2009). Unconventional monetary policy: An interim assessment. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 23(3), 263-284
- Kindleberger, C. P. (1996). Manias, panics, and crashes: A history of financial bubbles. Basic Books.
-Kiva. (2023). Kiva Impact Report. https://www.kiva.org/
- Krippner, G. (2021). The limits of the FSB: Rethinking international financial governance. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 45(5), 1207-1227.
- Lastrapes, W. (2023). Bail-in mechanisms in the European Union: A critical assessment. European Journal of Comparative Law, 31(1), 73-92.
- Martin, G. (2019). Systemic risk: A critical analysis. Oxford University Press.
- Merton, R. C. (2023). Beyond the binary: A spectrum of solutions to the TBTF problem. Journal of Financial Stability, 29, 101049.
-National Development Bank (Jamaica). (2023). Annual Report
- National Development Bank Jamaica. https://dbankjm.com/
- Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2017). Financing SMEs and entrepreneurs 2017: An OECD/G20 toolkit.
- Ostry, J. D., Périn, F., & Prikic, N. (2022, April). Too big to fail: Estimating the cost of implicit guarantees. IMF. https://www.cpb.nl/sites/default/files/publicaties/download/dp240-private-value-too-big-fail-guarantees.pdf
- Pew Research Center (2021). Public Views on Bailouts and Bank Regulation After the 2008 Financial Crisis. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2008/09/23/57-of-public-favors-wall-street-bailout/
- Poon, M., & Keefe, A. P. (2018). Too big to fail: The global regulatory response. Cambridge University Press.
- PRI. (2023). Annual Report.
- PRI. https://www.unpri.org/about-us/what-are-the-principles-for-responsible-investment
- Schwab, K. (2019). Stakeholder capitalism: A system for maximizing shared prosperity. World Economic Forum.
- Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. W. (1997). A survey of corporate governance. The Journal of Finance, 52(2), 737-833.
- Stiglitz, J. E. (2022). People, planet, and prosperity: Progress toward a sustainable future. Columbia University Press.
- Stiglitz, J. E. (2010). Freefall: America, free markets, and the S&P 1000 crisis. W. W. Norton & Company.
- Stiglitz, J. E. (2014). The euro: How a common currency threatens the future of Europe. Penguin Books.
- Suma cooperative supermarket. (2023). Annual Report
- Taleb, N. N. (2012). Antifragile: Things that gain from disorder. Penguin Random House
- TCFD. (2023). Final Report.
- TCFD. https://www.fsb-tcfd.org/
- U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). (2023). Enforcement Annual Report
-Watkins, T. L. (2010). The captive regulators: How the financial industry captured regulatory agencies and cost the American taxpayer billions. PublicAffairs
- Truth and Reconciliation Commission of South Africa. (1998). Final Report.
- WE Forum. (2020). The Stakeholder Capitalism Manifesto. https://www.weforum.org/press/2020/01/stakeholder-capitalism-a-manifesto-for-a-cohesive-and-sustainable-world/
- World Bank (2020). World Development Report 2021: Finance for Equitable Growth. World Bank.
- Zingales, L. (2012). A capitalism for the people: Rebuilding the American dream. Princeton University Press.
- Zhu, H. (2022). Macro-prudential regulation in China: A review of recent developments. International Journal of Finance & Economics, 27(S1), S113-S125.
[...]
- Quote paper
- Ahmad Swaiss (Author), 2024, Too Big to Fail, Too Risky to Ignore. Can Legal Reforms Tame TBTF Institutions and Mitigate its Moral Hazard?, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.hausarbeiten.de/document/1449104