Response to a Financial Crisis in the Banker’s New Clothes: What’s Wrong with Banking and What to Do about It

The fact that banks control 97% of the world's money supply makes them a vital institution. Banks are the engine of our modern financial system and a source for economic growth. The bank's ability to create credit can have destructive effects; the Great Depression of 1929 and the Great Recession of 2008. In both cases, banks spurred on an asset bubble through overextending credit to aid the purchase of assets. The result was an economic collapse that wiped out wealth and reduced credit creation which stalled productive investments. The lessons of the two great economic collapse support the notion proposed by the author, that bank credit for transactions that do not contribute to the economy should be restricted.

The banking industry has undergone major upheaval in recent years, largely due to the lingering recessionary environment and increased regulatory environment. Many banks have failed in the face of such tough environmental conditions. These conditions

Morrison suggests that government should try to make regulations that can make TBTF policy effective rather than, try to end the policy, which is impossible. Morrison discusses the role of the policy in designing suitable capital regulations, in the restriction of bank scope and in institutional design. The author argues that financial institutions receive help from taxpayers and government because regulatory authorities believe that its failure would have severe effects on the country’s economy.

In 2008, the United States went through one of the most significant economical period in history. The housing market and banks started to fail and people were unable to pay off their loans on the houses. This lead to a giant need for government intervention in determining which investment banks and corporations were worthy of being considered “too big to fail”. If they were in this category, the government would supply them with the funds necessary to not go bankrupt. Most of the time, the corporations would put this money towards consolidating their balance sheets, rather than solving the problems. This paper looks in depth into the 2008 financial crisis: the course

Andrew Bailey (2013) “The future of UK banking - challenges ahead for promoting a stable sector”. Bank of England [online]. Available from:

The banking crisis of the late 2000s, often called the Great Recession, is labelled by many economists as the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. Its effect on the markets around the world can still be felt. Many countries suffered a drop in GDP, small or even negative growth, bankrupting businesses and rise in unemployment. The welfare cost that society had to paid lead to an obvious question: ‘Who’s to blame?’ The fingers are pointed to the United States of America, as it is obvious that this is where the crisis began, but who exactly is responsible? Many people believe that the banks are the only ones that are guilty, but this is just not true. The crisis was really a systematic failure, in which many problems in the

The three types of capital mentioned in chapter 18 are, equity capital, economic capital, and regulatory capital. Equity capital, economic capital, and regulatory capital were established a capital standard for banks. Equity capital is defined as the book value of assets less the book value of liabilities. Furthermore, equity capital is also said to cushion debt and equity holders from unexpected losses. Regulatory capital includes the subordinated debt and some adjustments for off-balance sheet items. This is also different from economic capital, which is a statistical estimate of risk and capital, it also reflects the bank’s estimate of the amount of capital needed to support its risk-taking activities; it is not the amount of

The Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 that defined the roles for commercial banks, investments banks and insurance firms was over ridden by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (1999) which repealed the provisions that restricted affiliations in financial institutions. Hence one solution is to overcome the incentive problem and the conflict of interests that arise when financial institutions simultaneously undertake financial activities of varied nature.

Whether a reader agrees or disagrees with how the centralized banking system was created, the foundation for which it was built off of has continued to grow over a century with key fundamentals still in place today. The author’s implications demonstrate that an economists, the intellectuals, were responsible for the banking reform that led to a structured banking system. Could this all have been possible without the influence of the economists? In my opinion, the author has provided enough evidence that would allow the reader to properly analyze and have confidence in the integrity of the article.

In his book, “Diary of a very bad year: Confessions of an anonymous hedge fund manager”, Keith Gessen provides a captivating, entertaining and a shocking account of the 2008 financial crisis. The 2008 financial crisis is described as the deepest dives and the steepest recovery of a catastrophic mortgage crisis. The analysis will incorporate the “Efficient market hypothesis.” In addition, the analysis explains the concept of “financialization of markets.” The confessions of the hedge fund manager debunk the theory of rational markets. In addition, rational reasoning is a trait certainly absent in the financial sector. The absence of logical reasoning in the financial sector is to be blamed for leading the economy down the path of utter chaos and destruction instead of steering towards a more prosperous, less economically fickle future. Lastly, examine the role of the government in bailing out the financial sector.

To understand the development and the impact of the financial crisis, the following paragraph gives a general overview about the timeline of the financial crisis and the series of reactions which caused, at the end, the failure of the American banking system and led to a worldwide economic downturn with the result of the global economic crisis. The topic of this paper is the failure of the American banking system, but as the banking systems of the whole world are interdependent, the whole situation and the whole crisis has to be investigated.

Recent studies have investigated the impact of the 2007-2009 financial crises on banks’ capital. Berger and Bouwman (2011) emphasised the importance of capital during financial crisis. Their empirical study concludes that banks with solid capital base have some benefits during the crisis than those that are poorly capitalised. Well capitalised banks are more able to withstand the shocks due to liquidity squeeze, and therefore had higher chances of surviving the crisis period. Other benefits accrued to well capitalised banks include increase in their market share and profitability, as customers withdrew their funds from less capitalised to a well-capitalised banks. This conclusion was also reinforced by a recent empirical study conducted Olivier de Bandt et al (2014) on a sample of large French banks over a period of 1993 – 2012. Similarly, Gambacorta and Marques-Ibanez (2011) demonstrate the existence of structural changes during the period of financial crisis. They conclude that banks with weaker core capital positions, greater dependence on market funding and on non-interest sources of income restricted the loan supply more strongly during the crisis period. Using a multi-country panel of banks, Demirgüç-Kunt, Detragiache and Merrouche (2010) find among others results, that during

Extensive research has determined that the banking industry is in an unstable state. The industry’s profits have

The crises showed just how interconnected the banking system is throughout the world. The Lehman Brothers bank closure in 2008 created a major financial crisis around the world due to its influence (The Economist, 2013). It took the government’s massive bail outs to prevent total collapse of the financial system and to some extent economic collapse of the country. This government action set a precedent and to some sent a message that the reckless action by the banks in the name of profit is fine because they now have a safety net. It is a good example of how the collapse of a big financial institution that has national and global influence can affect several interrelated firms to the detriment of the country’s economic interests. This paper therefore, examines the notion “too big to fail” in relation to banking.

In this essay I will be addressing the “Too Big To Fail” (TBTF) problem in the current banking system. I will be discussing the risks associated with this policy, and the real problems behind it. I will then examine some solutions that have been proposed to solve the “too big to fail” problem. The policy ‘too big to fail’ refers to the idea that a bank has become so large that its failure could cause a disastrous effect to the rest of the economy, and so the government will provide assistance, in the form of perhaps a bailout/oversee a merger, to prevent this from happening. This is to protect the creditors and allow the bank to continue operating. If a bank does fail then this could cause a domino effect throughout