Heavier Regulation May do Little to Reduce Financial Risk
Increased competition rather than heavier regulation may be a better way to deal with the problem of financial institutions (FIs) that are too big to fail (TBTF), according to an article in Booz & Co’s strategy+business.
“It is debatable whether a heavier degree of regulation will actually make financial institutions safer,” write Alan Gemes, Peter T. Golder, and Thorsten Liebert. “Throughout 2008, markets, not regulators, provided the first signals of crisis. The true riskiness of FIs and financial transactions can best be determined closest to the source of risk buildup. Proposals for different types of FIs need to take into account their different risk profiles. This asymmetry of information and the lack of transparency are likely to lead to a more restrictive level of regulation than would be optimal.
In that light, the objective of financial regulation should be not to identify and reduce risk per se, but rather to ensure that the risks are dealt with appropriately by those financial institutions that are best equipped to handle them.
“Most proposals that address the TBTF problem rely on regulating complex FIs more tightly. An alternative is to address the root cause — namely, to prevent FIs from becoming so big in the first place. Options for doing so include antitrust or anticompetitive measures, and levying capital charges on institutions in proportion to the level of systemic risk they pose. In effect, that would charge these institutions a market price for their TBTF guarantee.”
For details see A Global Financial Governance Primer
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
