No bank should be “too big to fail,” and the financial crisis in 2008 demonstrated that financial reforms were necessary to prevent taxpayers from ever again having to step in to prevent a systemic failure. In response, the chances of a large banking organization failing have been greatly reduced by higher levels of and better quality of capital and liquidity, central clearing and other efforts to reduce risk; if a banking organization should fail, a new legal regime imposes losses from failed institutions on shareholders and creditors without government “bailouts.” However, as evidenced at the Minneapolis Federal Reserves’ recent Ending Too Big to Fail Policy symposium, some scholars have chosen to ignore the reality of these seismic changes. They continue to propagate myths that are inconsistent with reality.
You Might Also Be Interested In...
Bank Capital and Stress Testing BPI Response to Federal Reserve Vice Chair Barr’s Statements on Bank Capital Requirements
Bank Capital and Stress Testing Governance and Authority of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision
Bank Capital and Stress Testing As U.S. Regulators Implement the 2017 Basel Accord, It’s Time for a Reality-Based Assessment of Current Capital Levels
Systemic Risk & TBTF U.K. Pension Fund Debacle Illustrates How Government-Created Moral Hazard Can Lead to Systemic Risk
More Posts by This Author
Bank Liquidity How the Overnight Reverse Repurchase Agreement Facility Could Derail the Fed’s Path to Getting Smaller
Bank Liquidity The Bank of England Just Released Its Plan for Getting Smaller. The Fed Could Learn from it.