IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Diversification in the Financial Services Industry: The Effect of the Financial Modernization Act

  • Neale Faith R.


    (University of North Carolina at Charlotte)

  • Drake Pamela Peterson


    (James Madison University)

  • Clark Steven P.


    (University of North Carolina at Charlotte)

The intent of the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 (FSM) was to strengthen the overall financial services sector by allowing financial firms to diversify across industries within the financial sector. Similar to other studies of the reaction to this Act, we observe that investors consider the FSM to be good news. More interestingly, we also observe that systematic risk increased for some types of firms, but decreased for others as barriers were lowered. This finding is consistent with the idea that the reduction of regulation may increase systematic risk, but that the effects of deregulation on risk may be mitigated by anticipated effects of diversification. Specifically, bank holding companies that chose to diversify into other financial industries experienced increases in systematic risk while those that did not diversify realized decreases in systematic risk. Overall, we find that the systematic risk of financial firms converged and increased in the past few years as firms expanded into non-traditional businesses. In addition, we find that the Act reduced systematic risk for some firms, specifically those that diversified their product lines with insurance products.

If 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.

File URL:
Download Restriction: For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.

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.

Article provided by De Gruyter in its journal The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy.

Volume (Year): 10 (2010)
Issue (Month): 1 (March)
Pages: 1-30

in new window

Handle: RePEc:bpj:bejeap:v:10:y:2010:i:1:n:16
Contact details of provider: Web page:

Order Information: Web:

No references listed on IDEAS
You can help add them by filling out this form.

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bpj:bejeap:v:10:y:2010:i:1:n:16. See general 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: (Peter Golla)

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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.