Last bank standing: What do I gain if you fail?
AbstractBanks are highly leveraged institutions, potentially attracted to speculative lending even without deposit insurance. A counterbalancing incentive to lend prudently is the risk of loss of charter value, which depends on future rents. We show in a dynamic model that current concentration does not reduce speculative lending, and may in fact increase it. In contrast, a policy of temporary increases in market concentration after a bank failure, by promoting a takeover of failed banks by a solvent institution, is very effective. By making speculative lending decisions strategic substitutes, it grants bankers an incentive to remain solvent. Subsequent entry policy fine-tunes the trade-off between the social costs of reduced competition and the gain in stability.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by Elsevier in its journal European Economic Review.
Volume (Year): 46 (2002)
Issue (Month): 9 (October)
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/eer
Other versions of this item:
- G21 - Financial Economics - - Financial Institutions and Services - - - Banks; Other Depository Institutions; Micro Finance Institutions; Mortgages
- G28 - Financial Economics - - Financial Institutions and Services - - - Government Policy and Regulation
- L10 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - General
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Perotti, E. C., 1998. "Inertial credit and opportunistic arrears in transition," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 42(9), pages 1703-1725, November.
- Matutes, Carmen & Vives, Xavier, 1996. "Competition for Deposits, Fragility, and Insurance," Journal of Financial Intermediation, Elsevier, vol. 5(2), pages 184-216, April.
- Matutes, Carmen & Vives, Xavier, 2000.
"Imperfect competition, risk taking, and regulation in banking,"
European Economic Review,
Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 1-34, January.
- Matutes, Carmen & Vives, Xavier, 1995. "Imperfect Competition, Risk Taking, and Regulation in Banking," CEPR Discussion Papers 1177, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Xavier Vives, 2001. "Competition in the Changing World of Banking," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 17(4), pages 535-547.
- Douglas W. Diamond & Philip H. Dybvig, 2000.
"Bank runs, deposit insurance, and liquidity,"
Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, issue Win, pages 14-23.
- Mailath George J. & Mester Loretta J., 1994.
"A Positive Analysis of Bank Closure,"
Journal of Financial Intermediation,
Elsevier, vol. 3(3), pages 272-299, June.
- Enrico Perotti, 2001.
"Lessons from the Russian Meltdown: The Economics of Soft Legal Constraints,"
William Davidson Institute Working Papers Series
379, William Davidson Institute at the University of Michigan.
- Perotti, Enrico, 2002. "Lessons from the Russian Meltdown: The Economics of Soft Legal Constraints," International Finance, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 5(3), pages 359-99, Winter.
- Caminal, Ramon & Matutes, Carmen, 2002. "Market power and banking failures," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 20(9), pages 1341-1361, November.
- Rajan, Raghuram G, 1994. "Why Bank Credit Policies Fluctuate: A Theory and Some Evidence," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 109(2), pages 399-441, May.
- Keeley, Michael C, 1990. "Deposit Insurance, Risk, and Market Power in Banking," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(5), pages 1183-1200, December.
- Jensen, Michael C. & Meckling, William H., 1976. "Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 305-360, October.
This item has more than 25 citations. To prevent cluttering this page, these citations are listed on a separate page. reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.Access and download statisticsgeneral information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Wendy Shamier).
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.