Free banks in the United States issued private banknotes without discretionary restriction of entry. Previous research suggests explanations for noteholders' relatively large losses and the substantial number of banks that closed. The authors examine these hypotheses and the hypothesis that contagious runs were important. The evidence provides no support for the importance of wildcat banking due to par versus market valuation of bond reserves; episodic, but not general, support for the importance of declining bond prices; and support for contagion effects and contemporaries' knowledge of them with little or no impact on the number of banks that closed. Copyright 1994 by Ohio State University Press.
Download Info
To download:
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the
proper application to
view it first. Information about this may be contained
in the File-Format links below. 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.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Christopher F. Baum).
Related research
Keywords:
Other versions of this item:
Cited by: (explanations, 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.)