Giorgio Barba Navaretti, Alberto Pozzolo, Giacomo Calzolari, Micol Levi, 23 May 2010

Many commentators have called for regulation to prevent banks from becoming “too big to fail”. This column adds a cautionary note. A world with only small and domestic banks is no safer. The key benefit of multinational banks – being able to mobilise funds across countries – could still be extremely useful for maintaining stability in times of distress.

Stefano Micossi, 16 March 2010

Policymakers and commentators have suggested that large banks should be broken up. This column argues that such an idea risks the very existence of a global financial system. It outlines an alternative framework in which deposit insurance should be covered by banks not taxpayers, banks should not be guaranteed a bailout, and regulators should be mandated to step in when the warning signs begin.

Daniel Gros, 26 January 2010

Did allowing financial institutions to become “too big” play a role in the financial crisis? This column argues that being “too interconnected” is also a factor, and that US accounting standards should recognise gross derivatives exposure on the balance sheet to make this interconnectedness, and the resulting exposure, clear.

Jorge Chan-Lau, Marco Espinosa-Vega, Kay Giesecke, Juan Solé, 02 May 2009

The current financial crisis has underscored the problem of institutions that are too connected to be allowed to fail. This column suggests new methodologies that could form the basis for policies and regulation to address the too-connected-to-fail problem.

Donato Masciandaro, 04 January 2009

Government guarantees for financial institutions that are "too big to fail" seem unavoidable, but such insurance against insolvency imposes major costs and may increase the risk of crisis. This column argues for the necessity of non-conventional regulatory solutions to make big banks pay for their implicit insurance. Progressive capital ratios may be one such solution.

Pages

Events

CEPR Policy Research