Author
Abstract
This article provides a rationale for why past and present efforts to regulate systemic risk have failed to create incentives for bankers to limit their own excessive risk taking. Specifically, the bureaucratic proclivity to systemize and generalize regulation leads large, systemically important financial institutions to conduct business and to analyze risk in a single, uniform way. This proclivity generates error and has the unintended consequence of increasing systemic risk in the economy by causing a herding effect. In other words, by reducing the heterogeneity of firm behavior in an economy, regulation—even regulation aimed at reducing systemic risk—often increases such risk. The second insight is that rational regulators will be averse to type I risk, which is defined as the perceived risk that a systemically important financial institution will be mischaracterized as nonsystemically important and left underregulated. The professional consequences of such an error in categorization would be significant for the regulator or bureaucracy making such an error, and therefore regulators will attempt to avoid this type of error at all costs. Type II error occurs when regulators characterize institutions that are not systemically important as being systemically important. There are few bureaucratic consequences for regulators who commit this type of error. As such, type I risk leads to the overcategorization of financial firms as systemically risky, which leads to homogeneous regulation and herding. These problems exacerbate the ongoing dialectic between government, which seeks to control excessive risk taking, and the banking sector, which seeks to engage in such risk taking because the owners of the firms in this sector can diversify their holdings and thereby obtain the rewards of such risk taking without experiencing the consequences.
Suggested Citation
Jonathan Macey, 2017.
"Error and Regulatory Risk in Financial Institution Regulation,"
Supreme Court Economic Review, University of Chicago Press, vol. 25(1), pages 155-192.
Handle:
RePEc:ucp:scerev:doi:10.1086/694089
DOI: 10.1086/694089
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.
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:ucp:scerev:doi:10.1086/694089. 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: Journals Division (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/SCER .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.