This article argues that the British financial system in the era prior to World War I provides modern policymakers with a successful model of how to stabilize the banking system. This model had two components: incentives were structured to ensure that all banks that originated or traded assets on the money market sought only to trade in high-quality assets; and macro-prudential regulation promoted the segregation of money markets from capital markets, monitored the growth of money market credit, and restricted trade on the money market in assets issued by entities and sectors whose money market liabilities were growing so fast that the most reasonable explanation was that the money market was being used to finance longer-term investment. These facts indicate that policymakers can successfully stabilize the banking system through a combination of structural reform and regulation of the growth of credit.Recent empirical analysis of long-run cross-country banking data has found that there are two distinct eras of financial capitalism: the first includes the years from to , when London was the center of the world financial system, and is characterized by credit growth that matched GDP growth and by crises with real effects that are relatively small; the second extends from and is characterized by credit growth that greatly exceeds GDP growth and by crises with real effects that are markedly
This paper explains the process of competitive deregulation that led both the US and the UK to embrace universal banking and to abandon the functional separation of financial activities that had long characterized their financial systems. The paper argues that some of the consequences of favouring universal banking over functional separation that were understood in the 1930s were rarely voiced in years preceding deregulation. The principal argument offered in favour of separation was that the commercial banking system, which is supported by a government ‘safety net’, needs to be protected from the risks inherent in investment banking. By contrast, this paper argues that functional separation played an important role in protecting capital markets from the banking system. Universal banking is associated historically with thinly traded stock markets, and this paper argues that universal banking promotes the formation of a small group of large dealer‐banks which dominate the financial system and whose interests are best served by trading on nonpublic over‐the‐counter (OTC) markets. The paper finds that just such a group played a key role in the growing importance of such OTC markets in the US over the past few decades. The paper then argues that the benefits of the greater liquidity that large universal banks can provide to capital markets are offset by the dangers they create when they err. Because mistakes at these large banks are often allowed to grow in size to match the size of the banks, they distort prices on financial markets and sometimes create systemic risk. Two recent examples are given: J.P. Morgan Chase Bank's ‘London whale’ fiasco and UBS, Merrill Lynch and Citibank's exposures to subprime mortgages. Finally, the paper explains that the Senate Report on the Glass–Steagall Act indicates that the Act was designed in part to limit commercial bank participation in the margin loan market, as this activity makes possible a feedback loop between increases in the money supply and increases in asset prices, which in turn can generate an asset price bubble in capital markets. The recent crisis has led modern researchers to rediscover the relationship between margin lending, feedback loops, and asset price bubbles that was well understood by at least some legislators in the 1930s. The paper argues that the recent crisis demonstrates that modern banking regulation needs to be informed by an understanding of the consequences that may arise when a financial system is dominated by universal banks.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2025 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.