IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/refreg/v3y2017i1p66-88..html

Structural Reforms in Banking: The Role of Trading

Author

Listed:
  • Jan-Pieter Krahnen
  • Felix Noth
  • Ulrich Schüwer

Abstract

In the wake of the recent financial crisis, significant regulatory actions have been taken aimed at limiting risks emanating from banks’ trading activities. The goal of this article is to look at the alternative reforms in the US, the UK and the EU, specifically with respect to the role of proprietary trading. Our conclusions can be summarized as follows: First, the focus on a prohibition of proprietary trading, as reflected in the Volcker Rule in the US and in the current proposal of the European Commission (Barnier proposal), is inadequate. It does not necessarily reduce risk-taking and it is likely to crowd out desired trading activities, thereby possibly affecting financial stability negatively. Second, trading separation into legally distinct or ring-fenced entities within the existing banking organizations, as suggested under the Vickers proposal for the UK and the Liikanen proposal for the EU, is a more effective solution. Separation limits cross-subsidies between banking and proprietary trading and diminishes contagion risk, while still allowing for synergies and risk management across banking, non-proprietary trading, and proprietary trading.

Suggested Citation

  • Jan-Pieter Krahnen & Felix Noth & Ulrich Schüwer, 2017. "Structural Reforms in Banking: The Role of Trading," Journal of Financial Regulation, Oxford University Press, vol. 3(1), pages 66-88.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:refreg:v:3:y:2017:i:1:p:66-88.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/jfr/fjw018
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or

    for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kurz, Michael & Kleimeier, Stefanie, 2019. "Credit Supply: Are there negative spillovers from banks’ proprietary trading? (RM/19/005-revised-)," Research Memorandum 026, Maastricht University, Graduate School of Business and Economics (GSBE).
    2. Kurz, Michael & Kleimeier, Stefanie, 2019. "Credit Supply: Are there negative spillovers from banks’ proprietary trading?," Research Memorandum 005, Maastricht University, Graduate School of Business and Economics (GSBE).
    3. Götz, Martin & Krahnen, Jan Pieter & Tröger, Tobias, 2017. "Five years after the Liikanen Report: What have we learned?," SAFE White Paper Series 50, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE.
    4. Kurz, Michael & Kleimeier, Stefanie, 2019. "Credit Supply: Are there negative spillovers from banks’ proprietary trading?," Research Memorandum 005, Maastricht University, Graduate School of Business and Economics (GSBE).
    5. Giamattei, Marcus & Huber, Jürgen & Lambsdorff, Johann Graf & Nicklisch, Andreas & Palan, Stefan, 2020. "Who inflates the bubble? Forecasters and traders in experimental asset markets," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    6. Krause, Thomas & Sondershaus, Talina & Tonzer, Lena, 2016. "The Role of Complexity for Bank Risk during the Financial Crisis: Evidence from a Novel Dataset," IWH Discussion Papers 17/2016, Halle Institute for Economic Research (IWH).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • 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

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:refreg:v:3:y:2017:i:1:p:66-88.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/jfr .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.