Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
On Systemically Important Financial Institutions And Progressive Systemic Mitigation, James B. Thomson
On Systemically Important Financial Institutions And Progressive Systemic Mitigation, James B. Thomson
James Thomson
One of the most important issues in the regulatory reform debate is that of systemically important financial institutions. This paper proposes a framework for identifying and supervising such institutions; the framework is designed to remove the advantages they derive from becoming systemically important and to give them more time-consistent incentives. It defines the four C’s of systemic importance (contagion, concentration, correlation, and conditions) as criteria for classifying firms as systemically important that goes beyond binary classification based on size alone (the classic doctrine of too big to let fail); it also discusses the concept of progressive systemic mitigation.
An End To Too Big To Let Fail? The Dodd–Frank Act’S Orderly Liquidation Authority, Thomas J. Fitzpatrick Iv, James B. Thomson
An End To Too Big To Let Fail? The Dodd–Frank Act’S Orderly Liquidation Authority, Thomas J. Fitzpatrick Iv, James B. Thomson
James Thomson
One of the changes introduced by the sweeping new fi nancial market legislation of the Dodd–Frank Act is the provision of a formal process for liquidating large fi nancial fi rms—something that would have been useful in 2008, when troubles at Lehman Brothers, AIG, and Merrill Lynch threatened to damage the entire U.S. fi nancial system. While it may not be the end of the too-big-to-fail problem, the orderly liquidation authority is an important new tool in the regulatory toolkit. It will enable regulators to safely close and wind up the affairs of those distressed fi nancial fi rms whose …
Psaf, Economic Capital And, James B. Thomson
Psaf, Economic Capital And, James B. Thomson
James Thomson
The 1980 Monetary Control Act requires the Reserve Banks to recover their costs of providing payments services over time, including a normal return on capital – that is, the same after tax return on equity that a private firm would require. To date, this private sector adjustment factor has been estimated and applied as a single hurdle rate for all Reserve Bank payments services. Capital budgeting theory suggests that firms should use a different hurdle rate for each distinct type of activity according to its risks. For Reserve Bank payments services, this might entail estimating separate private sector adjustment factors …