“Too Big to fail” was first known in a 1984 Congressional hearing where Congressman Stewart McKinney discussed the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation’s intervention with Continental IIIinois. The idea interprates that certain financial institutions are so large, if any of them fails, it will bring an unexpected disastrous effect to the economy. As we all known, the 2008 financial crisis had arose the “too big to fail” problem to the peak controversial point. Banks, insurance companies, auto companies are part of the big company industry. They make profit by creating and selling complicated derivatives and trading loans, commodities and stocks. When the big economic environment is prosperous, those big companies make a competitive advantage and try to take some small firms to become bigger. If their investments are experiencing a failure, their customers and also the taxpayers will be forced to take the risk of the collapse of the global economy.
Kimberly Amadeo describes an example of how the “too big to fail” problem applied to American International Group (AIG) which is one of the largest insurance company in the world. Amadeo records, “Most of its business was traditional insurance products. When it got into ‘credit default swaps,’ it got into trouble. These swaps insured the assets that supported corporate debt and mortgages. AIG was too big to fail because, if AIG went bankrupt, it would trigger the bankruptcy of many of the financial institutions that bought these swaps.” (Amadeo) AIG was eventually saved by an 85 billioon, two-year loan form the Federal Reserve. It prevented AIG from furthur stress on the financial industry. “In return, the government received 79.9% of AIG's equity, the right to replace management, and ...
... middle of paper ...
... financial institutions no matter what purposes they are for. Otherwise, the AIG problem will once again be brought to the stage.
Works Cited
1) Amadeo, K. (n.d.). Too big to fail. Retrieved from http://useconomy.about.com/od/businesses/p/Too-Big-to-Fail.htm
2) Puzzanghera, J. (2013, September 17). Several banks considered too big to fail are even bigger. Los Angeles Times. Web. 01 Mar. 2014
3) Dudley, W. C. (2013, November 7). Ending too big to fail. Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Web. 01 Mar. 2014
4) Dodd frank act. (n.d.). U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Web 01 Mar. 2014 Retrieved from http://www.cftc.gov/lawregulation/doddfrankact/index.htm
5) Bordelon, B. (2013, July 23). Dodd-frank wall street law still criticized three years later Retrieved from http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/23/dodd-frank-wall-street-law-still-criticized-three-years-later/
Vlasic, Bill. "U.S. Ends Bailout of G.M., Selling Last Shares of Stock." The New York Times [New York City] 9 Dec. 2013: n. pag. Print.
“Too big to fail” is a theory that suggests some financial institutions are so large and so powerful that their failure would be disastrous to the local and global economy, and therefore must be assisted by the government when struggles arise. Supporters of this idea argue that there are some institutions are so important that they should be the recipients of beneficial financial and economic policies from government. On the other hand, opponents express that one of the main problems that may arise is moral hazard, where a firm that receives gains from these advantageous policies will seek to profit by it, purposely taking positions that are high-risk high-return, because they are able to leverage these risks based on their given policy. Critics see the theory as counter-productive, and that banks and financial institutions should be left to fail if their risk management is not effective. Is continually bailing out these institutions considered ethical? There are many facets that must be tak...
In October of 1929, the American economy took a huge hit from the stock market crash. Since so much people had invested their money and time in the banks, when the banks closed many had lost all of their money and were in the deep poverty. Because of this, one of my first actions of the New Deal was the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). Every bank in the United States had to abide by this rule. This banking program I launched not only ensured the safety and protection of deposits made my users of banks, but had also restored America’s faith in banks, causing people to once again use banks which contributed in enriching the economy. Another legislation I was determined to get passed...
Treanor, J. 2013. UK banks benefited from 38bn euro 'too big to fail' state subsidy. [online] Tuesday 17 December 2013. Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/dec/17/uk-banks-benefit-from-massive-state-subsidies [Accessed: 14 Mar 2014].
The presence of systemic risk in the current United States financial system is undeniable. Systemic risks exist when the failure of one firm may topple others and destabilize the entire financial system. The firm is then "too big to fail," or perhaps more precisely, "too interconnected to fail.” The Federal Stability Oversight Council is charged with identifying systemic risks and gaps in regulation, making recommendations to regulators to address threats to financial stability, and promoting market discipline by eliminating the expectation that the US federal government will come to the assistance of firms in financial distress. Systemic risks can come through multiple forms, including counterparty risk on other financial ...
Big businesses “often use money as a motivator for the government to decide policies that would only benefit them. The more affluent they are, the greater are the chances that they will get their way,” (Startupbizhub.com). It is no secret that money plays a large role in politics. The American economy is overrun by a small amount of large corporations, also known as the Fortune 500. In 1988, the Fortune 500 companies had made over $2 trillion in sales alone. When the Chrysler Corporation and Continental Bank Corporation were faced with the possibility of bankruptcy, the federal government had stepped in to save them; this concept is known as the “too big to fail” doctrine. If a small business was faced with bankruptcy, the only thing government officials would be doing is putting up a bankruptcy notice. “Forces outside Congress influence what goes on inside it; in particular, if the Marxist theory is correct, Congress is influenced heavily by the economic structure of our society. those who dominate the American economy dominate Congress as well,” (Berg 214). John C. Berg proclaims that the companies who are undeniably dominating the American economy will have influence on the government, mostly the
Mullard, M. (2012). The Credit Rating Agencies and Their Contribution to the Financial Crisis. The Political Quarterly, 83, 77-95
Companies whose success and continuous operation prove vital to the economy and financial systems should receive auditor scrutiny and regulation oversight. It is clear that Lehman Brothers required oversight and possible prohibition of its liabilities financing practices using repo borrowing. Likewise, AIG deserved more review of its credit swap business practices. The negligence of these institutions cost the United States and foreign economies billions of dollars. The federal government chose not to intervene on Lehman Brothers’ behalf, for reasons that some say are inconsistent with other bailout decisions (Smith, 2011). However, the government did find that an AIG failure would constitute systemic risk and chose to rescue the insurance company. The government created incentives to increase depositor confidence by guaranteeing market-based fund-raising. The financial crisis of 2008 offered lessons learned to both government and banking
Cited as one of the most influential and paramount financial regulation since 1930’s, Dodd-Frank act and Consumer Protection Act was passed by the Obama Administration in 2010 as a response to the financial crisis of 2008. It is not a hidden fact that after the repealing of Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in 1999, commercial banks again started investing in unregulated derivatives, and this unregulated and least supervised investment channels of banks led to formation of cowboy financing, eventually leading to massive carnage in the US economy in the form of financial crisis of 2007-08. Learning from the mistake of past government, and to endow a supervisory eye on investments and risk channels of the bank, the Obama Administration passed the law in order to have a sweeping impact on the delivery of financial services in the United States. Therefore, Dodd-Frank Act is a legislative proposal to reform the entire financial service industry in the United States, in order to prevent financial crisis.
Countrywide Financial was an organization that was considered too big to fail, because of the large ranging impact its failure would have on multiple stakeholders throughout the world. Furthermore, the company carried billions of dollars in mortgaged home loans and was considered to be the largest home loan provider in the United States. But, somehow unknowingly to regulators this organization created a culture and environment within its organization of widespread corruption with unethical financial reporting. Sadly, the leaders of Countrywide Mortgage pursued greed instead of the financial security that its customers were seeking.
The "subprime crises" was one of the most significant financial events since the Great Depression and definitely left a mark upon the country as we remain upon a steady path towards recovering fully. The financial crisis of 2008, became a defining moment within the infrastructure of the US financial system and its need for restructuring. One of the main moments that alerted the global economy of our declining state was the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers on Sunday, September 14, 2008 and after this the economy began spreading as companies and individuals were struggling to find a way around this crisis. (Murphy, 2008) The US banking sector was first hit with a crisis amongst liquidity and declining world stock markets as well. The subprime mortgage crisis was characterized by a decrease within the housing market due to excessive individuals and corporate debt along with risky lending and borrowing practices. Over time, the market apparently began displaying more weaknesses as the global financial system was being affected. With this being said, this brings into question about who is actually to assume blame for this financial fiasco. It is extremely hard to just assign blame to one individual party as there were many different factors at work here. This paper will analyze how the stakeholders created a financial disaster and did nothing to prevent it as the credit rating agencies created an amount of turmoil due to their unethical decisions and costly mistakes.
The term “too big to fail” became popular when a U.S. Congressman used it in a 1984 Congressional hearing. The theory behind “too big to fail” is that some financial institutions are vital to the economy because they are so big that if they were to fail that the economy would be in a disastrous state and therefore people believe that the government should step in and help support and save these financial institutions when they face problems. (Investopedia) I believe that this is right in assuming that the financial institutions are vital to the economy but I also believe that it is a waste of government and tax payers money to keep bailing out the big financial institutions every time they need to be bailed out. The solution that I and many other people believe to help this be less of a problem is to break up the bigger financial institutions into smaller ones.
Before a bank can be described as too big to fail, the criticality of the roles played by such bank, its complexity, leverage, interconnectedness and size are some of the factors to be considered. On the size of these banks, Berger et al. (1997) discovered that some individual banks and overall banking systems in Europe reached enormous size relative to their countries’ GDP. In Iceland the liabilities of the overall banking system reached around 9 times GDP at the end of 2007, while it is 6.3 and 5.5 in Switzerland and United Kingdom respectively.
If financial markets are instable, it will lead to sharp contraction of economic activity. For example, in this most recent financial crisis, a deterioration in financial institutions’ balance sheets, along with asset price decline and interest rate hikes increased market uncertainty thus, worsening what is called ‘adverse selection and moral hazard’. This is a serious dilemma created before business transactions occur which information is misleading and promotes doing business with the ‘most undesirable’ clients by a financial institution. In turn, these ‘most undesirable’ clients later engage in undesirable behavior. All of this leads to a decline in economic activity, more adverse selection and moral hazards, a banking crisis and further declining in economic activity. Ultimately, the banking crisis came and unanticipated price level increases and even further declines in economic activity.
Warwick J. McKibbin, and Andrew Stoeckel. “The Global Financial Crisis: Causes and Consequences.” Lowy Institute for International Policy 2.09 (2009): 1. PDF file.