70 posts on "Financial Intermediation"
June 24, 2019
Assessing Contagion Risk in a Financial Network
Duarte, Jones, and Ruela describe how stress can propagate through the financial system and sketch out an approach for quantifying economic losses stemming from default cascades.
Posted at 7:00 am in Crisis, Financial Institutions, Financial Intermediation, Financial Markets, Systemic Risk | Permalink | Comments (1)
May 29, 2019
Is There Too Much Business Debt?
Anna Kovner and Brandon Zborowski By many measures nonfinancial corporate debt has been increasing as a share of GDP and assets since 2010. As the May Federal Reserve Financial Stability Report explained, high business debt can be a financial stability risk because heavily indebted corporations may need to cut back spending more sharply when shocks […]
Posted at 7:00 am in Banks, Corporate Finance, Credit, Financial Intermediation | Permalink | Comments (10)
January 18, 2019
Post‑Crisis Financial Regulation: Experiences from Both Sides of the Atlantic
To celebrate the 100-year anniversary of the Banca d’Italia’s New York office, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and the Banca d’Italia hosted a workshop on post-crisis financial regulation in November 2018. The goal of the workshop was to discuss differences in regulation between the United States and Europe (and around the globe more broadly), examine gaps in current regulations, identify challenges to be addressed, and raise awareness about the unintended consequences of regulation. The workshop included presentations on such topics as market liquidity, funding, and capital requirements. In this post, we present some of the findings and discussions from the workshop.
January 16, 2019
Customer and Employee Losses in Lehman’s Bankruptcy
In our second post on the Lehman bankruptcy [link to recovery blog], we discussed the cost to Lehman’s creditors from having their funds tied up in bankruptcy proceedings. In this post, we focus on losses to Lehman’s customers and employees from the destruction of firm-specific assets that could not be deployed as productively with another firm. Our conclusions are based in part on what happened after bankruptcy—whether, for example, customer accounts moved to other firms or employees found jobs elsewhere. While these indirect costs are difficult to pin down, the analysis suggests that the most notable losses were borne by mutual funds that relied on Lehman’s specialized brokerage advice and firms that used Lehman for its equity underwriting services.
Posted at 7:00 am in Banks, Crisis, Employment, Financial Institutions, Financial Intermediation | Permalink
January 15, 2019
Lehman’s Bankruptcy Expenses
In bankruptcy, firms incur expenses for services provided by lawyers, accountants, and other professionals. Such expenses can be quite high, especially for complex resolutions. The direct costs of bankruptcy proceedings reduce a firm’s value below its fundamental level, thus constituting a “deadweight loss.” Bankruptcy also carries indirect costs, such as the loss in value of assets trapped in bankruptcy—a subject discussed in our previous post (link). In this post, we provide the first comprehensive estimates of the direct costs of resolving Lehman Brothers’ holding company (LBHI) and its affiliates under Chapter 11 bankruptcy, and of Lehman’s broker-dealer (LBI) under the Securities Investor Protection Act (SIPA).
January 14, 2019
How Much Value Was Destroyed by the Lehman Bankruptcy?
Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (LBHI) filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on September 15, 2008, initiating one of the largest and most complex bankruptcy proceedings in history. Recovery prospects for creditors, who submitted about $1.2 trillion of claims against the Lehman estate, were quite bleak. This week, we will publish a series of four posts that provide an assessment of the value lost to Lehman, its creditors, and other stakeholders now that the bankruptcy proceedings are winding down. Where appropriate, we also consider the liquidation of Lehman’s investment banking affiliate (which occurred on a separate track in the Securities Investor Protection Act (SIPA) proceedings).
Posted at 7:00 am in Banks, Crisis, Financial Institutions, Financial Intermediation | Permalink | Comments (2)
November 19, 2018
“Skin in the Game,” Depositor Discipline, and Bank Risk Taking
In a previous post, we argued that double liability for bank owners might not limit their risk taking, despite the extra “skin in the game,” if it also weakens depositor discipline of banks. This post, drawing on our recent working paper, looks at the interplay of those opposing forces in the late 1920s when bank liability differed across states. We find that double liability may have reduced the outflow of deposits during the crisis, but wasn’t successful in mitigating bank risk during the boom.
Posted at 7:00 am in Banks, Economic History, Financial Intermediation, New Jersey, New York | Permalink | Comments (3)
October 17, 2018
Credit Market Choice
Credit default swaps (CDS) are frequently credited with being the cause of AIG’s collapse during the financial crisis. A Reuters article from September 2008, for example, notes “[w]hen you hear that the collapse of AIG […] might lead to a systemic collapse of the global financial system, the feared culprit is, largely, that once-obscure […] instrument known as a credit default swap.” Yet, despite the prominent role that CDS played during the financial crisis, little is known about how individual financial institutions utilize CDS contracts on individual companies. In a recent New York Fed staff report, we assess the choice banks face when trading the idiosyncratic credit risk of a firm, and argue that banks’ participation decisions have been affected in the post-regulation period, either by direct changes in market structure or by changes in the relative cost of pursuing different strategies.
Posted at 7:00 am in Financial Institutions, Financial Intermediation, Financial Markets, Regulation | Permalink | Comments (2)
October 16, 2018
Liquidity Effects of Post‑Crisis Regulatory Reform
The post-crisis regulatory reform efforts to improve capital and liquidity positions of regulated institutions provide incentives for banks to change not only the structure of their own balance sheets but also how they interact with their customers and other market participants more generally. A 2015 PwC study on global financial market liquidity, for example, noted that “[a]s banks respond to the new regulatory environment, they have sought to make more efficient use of capital and liquidity resources, by reducing the markets they serve and streamlining their operations.” In this blog post, we provide an overview of three recent New York Fed staff reports that study the impact that post-crisis regulation has had on the willingness and ability of regulated firms to participate in U.S. over-the-counter (OTC) markets.
Posted at 7:00 am in Crisis, Financial Institutions, Financial Intermediation, Financial Markets, Regulation | Permalink
October 15, 2018
Did Banks Subject to LCR Reduce Liquidity Creation?
Banks traditionally provide loans that are funded mostly by deposits and thereby create liquidity, which benefits the economy. However, since the loans are typically long-term and illiquid, whereas the deposits are short-term and liquid, this creation of liquidity entails risk for the bank because of the possibility that depositors may “run” (that is, withdraw their deposits on short notice). To mitigate this risk, regulators implemented the liquidity coverage ratio (LCR) following the financial crisis of 2007-08, mandating banks to hold a buffer of liquid assets. A side effect of the regulation, however, is a reduction in liquidity creation by banks subject to LCR, as we find in our recent paper.
Posted at 7:00 am in Banks, Federal Reserve, Financial Institutions, Financial Intermediation, Liquidity, Regulation | Permalink | Comments (1)
RSS Feed
Follow Liberty Street Economics
