The case for breaking up the big banks

Breaking up big banks is an untested solution to the too big to fail problem that attempts to isolate and dismantle large, troubled institutions while protecting the rest of the economy.

By The Fiscal Times Nov 20, 2012 3:38PM
By Mark ThomaThe Fiscal Times logo

I was pleasantly surprised to hear Federal Reserve Bank of New York President William Dudley say in a recent speech that solving the too big to fail problem may require breaking up big banks. He is in favor of trying the resolution authority granted in the Dodd-Frank legislation first, but this is an untested solution to the too big to fail problem that attempts to isolate and dismantle large, troubled institutions while protecting the rest of the economy.

If this solution doesn’t work, then he would be in favor of breaking large banks into smaller pieces. That wouldn’t fully solve the financial meltdown problem – we still had banking collapses in times when banks were much smaller – but it would reduce the economic and political power of individual institutions and lower the chance that the problems of a single firm will cause widespread harm to the economy.

Why not break the banks into smaller pieces as a precautionary measure? The main worry is that very large banks are needed to fully exploit economies of scope and scale, and that breaking them up would reduce efficiency and increase the cost of some types of financial transactions.

But the evidence on the size that a bank must attain to fully realize these efficiencies is not conclusive, and we don’t really know what the minimum size needs to be. My reading of the admittedly shaky evidence is that we could reduce bank size without losing efficiency, but that is not the approach that those in charge of the banking system have decided to take.

Banks are not the only systemically important firms in our economy. Any large, highly interconnected firm has the potential to produce large direct and indirect effects when it experiences problems. If an automobile company fails, for example, its suppliers are likely to fail along with it and the resulting domino effect can produce widespread negative effects that ripple throughout the economy. In fact, new research shows that a shock to a single large, highly interconnected firm can have a surprisingly large impact on the aggregate economy.

I believe strongly that we have paid too little attention to the growing economic and political power of our largest firms, and this concern is not limited to the financial sector. As The Economist noted recently, “the world’s biggest firms keep on getting bigger. In the past 15 years the assets of the top 50 American companies have risen from around 70 percent of American GDP to around 130 percent.”

The article goes on to note that “estimated cost functions suggest the limits of scale may have been reached for some very large firms, and that “antitrust authorities should be much more skeptical about mergers that claim to be justified because of economies of scale.”

I agree, and I’d go even further and break up firms that have the potential to impose large external costs if they fail, and are considerably larger than can be justified on efficiency grounds. In cases where economies of scope and scale clearly do justify large size, the firms should be subject to much stronger regulatory oversight than they are now.

At a minimum, these firms should pay for the costs they impose on the rest of us when they make poor decisions and fail. When financial firms, for example, failed as a result of the popped housing bubble the costs of the Great Recession fell on the entire economy. That is, the costs were largely socialized which is a bit ironic given how quick business leaders are to speak out against socializing anything.

One solution that has been proposed for the financial industry is to cover these costs through a tax on size. As Ken Rogoff states, “Financial systems are bloated by implicit taxpayer guarantees, which allow banks, particularly large ones, to borrow money at interest rates that do not fully reflect the risks they take in search of outsized profits. Since that risk is then passed on to taxpayers, imposing taxes on financial firms in proportion to their borrowing is a simple way to ensure fairness.”

But why limit this tax to large banks? Why not apply it to all large firms in the economy as a way of compensating taxpayers for the costs these firms impose when they fail, and to offset the benefits the largest among them enjoy from implicit taxpayer guarantees? Why shouldn’t all firms be asked to pay more as they grow larger?

The reality, of course, is that the political power these firms have is a large barrier to taxing their size, regulating them more aggressively, breaking them up, or anything else. But the acknowledgement of New York Fed President Dudley that solving the too big to fail problem may require breaking up banks is a hopeful sign that attitudes may be changing.

Let’s hope so, because the bigger they are, the harder they fall on the rest of us, and it’s long past the time to take a stand against the growing economic and political influence of our largest firms.

Mark Thoma is a columnist at The Fiscal Times. Subscribe to The Fiscal Times' FREE newsletter.

More from The Fiscal Times:

10Comments
Nov 21, 2012 7:10PM
avatar
Great article!

The Too Big To Fail (or Jail) banks should be broken up. The Big Banks have deployed Financial Weapons of Mass Destruction, also known as derivatives. Derivatives are highly leveraged speculative bets that are Heads I win (big bonuses for bank executives), tails you lose (big bailouts funded by taxpayers). Big banks are extorting bailouts from the federal government under the threat of Mutual Assured Destruction.

The solutions to the above problems are:

1) Ban derivatives

2) Break up the Too Big To Fail (or Jail) banks into smaller banks.

3) Re-institute Glass-Steagall, which separates Federally/FDIC guaranteed commercial banks which guarantee depositors versus investment banks, which are not federally guaranteed.

Nov 27, 2012 12:31PM
avatar

"That is, the costs were largely socialized which is a bit ironic given how quick business leaders are to speak out against socializing anything."

 

That just about sums it up. 

Nov 29, 2012 6:07AM
avatar
The big banks are to complex for anyone to understand like small banks because they have to make money the old fashion way making loans and such.From the people that brought you EGHT at 3.50 and SBSA at 1.00 Take a look at CVBK, Central Virginia Bank, with a Beta of 1.55 and showing a small profit of between .06 and .11 a share this is one small bank that's definetly on the mend, with a past value of 4 to 16 dollars ,recently upgraded by BB&T,  with a Yahoo 1 year target of 27.06!! at 10% of that you could triple your money. Check it out for yourself 
Nov 27, 2012 8:13AM
avatar
mr. thoma is a good socialist/communist.  use the gov. supreme popwer to break up the banks.  a true marxist if ever there  was one.  he has one thing in his favor, we are a welfare society.  we must hate the rich to receive the handout.  why do offshore banks begin to look so good.  i like the ones in countries that frown on govt. handouts.
Nov 20, 2012 4:52PM
avatar
Government interference is never a good idea.
Report
Please help us to maintain a healthy and vibrant community by reporting any illegal or inappropriate behavior. If you believe a message violates theCode of Conductplease use this form to notify the moderators. They will investigate your report and take appropriate action. If necessary, they report all illegal activity to the proper authorities.
Categories
100 character limit
Are you sure you want to delete this comment?

DATA PROVIDERS

Copyright © 2014 Microsoft. All rights reserved.

Fundamental company data and historical chart data provided by Morningstar Inc. Real-time index quotes and delayed quotes supplied by Morningstar Inc. Quotes delayed by up to 15 minutes, except where indicated otherwise. Fund summary, fund performance and dividend data provided by Morningstar Inc. Analyst recommendations provided by Zacks Investment Research. StockScouter data provided by Verus Analytics. IPO data provided by Hoover's Inc. Index membership data provided by Morningstar Inc.

VIDEO ON MSN MONEY

RECENT QUOTES

WATCHLIST

Symbol
Last
Change
Shares
Quotes delayed at least 15 min
Sponsored by:

MARKET UPDATE

NAMELASTCHANGE% CHANGE
There’s a problem getting this information right now. Please try again later.
NAMELASTCHANGE% CHANGE
There’s a problem getting this information right now. Please try again later.
Market index data delayed by 15 minutes

[BRIEFING.COM] The stock market finished an upbeat week on a mixed note. The S&P 500 shed less than a point, ending the week higher by 1.3%, while the Dow Jones Industrial Average (+0.1%) cemented a 1.7% advance for the week. High-beta names underperformed, which weighed on the Nasdaq Composite (-0.3%) and the Russell 2000 (-1.3%).

Equity indices displayed strength in the early going with the S&P 500 tagging the 2,019 level during the opening 30 minutes of the action. However, ... More


Currencies

NAMELASTCHANGE% CHANGE
There’s a problem getting this information right now. Please try again later.