Advertisement

A Case for Reforming Federal Deposit Insurance

  • John H. Boyd
  • Arthur J. Rolnick
Conference paper

Abstract

Federal deposit insurance has long been regarded as one of our most successful government programs. It is now in need of serious repair. Established in 1933 to stem an instability problem in banking, deposit insurance succeeded as well as Congress could have hoped. More recently, however, as federally insured institutions have become less regulated, a problem with deposit insurance has surfaced. In order to allow banks to survive in a more competitive environment, Congress and bank regulators, over the past eight years, have relaxed the regulatory reins. But they did not, as some advised, reform deposit insurance.2 As a result, banks have become more competitive but at the expense of taking on considerably more risk. In effect, a fundamentally difficult problem with deposit banking has been exchanged for one with deposit insurance.

Keywords

Moral Hazard Deposit Insurance Bank Failure Moral Hazard Problem Bank Risk 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Association of Reserve City Bankers, 1988. Beyond Capital Regulation: Strengthening the FDIC Insurance Fund and Systematic Liquidity. Recommendations of the Special Task Force, Asset Liability Committee (March), Chicago.Google Scholar
  2. Benveniste, Larry, John H. Boyd and Stuart Greenbaum, 1988. Bank Capital Regulation. Monograph prepared for Association of Reserve City Bankers, Banking Research Center, Conference on Bank Capital Issues, December 14–16, Northwestern University, Evanston, Ill.Google Scholar
  3. Boyd, John H. and Stanley L. Graham, 1988. The Profitability and Risk Effects of Allowing Bank Holding Companies to Merge with other Financial Firms: A Simulation Study. Quarterly Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (Spring), 3–20.Google Scholar
  4. Chari, V.V., 1988. Time Consistency and Optimal Policy Design, Quarterly Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, (Fall), 17–31.Google Scholar
  5. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 1984. The First Fifty Years. Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  6. Federal Reserve System, 1988. Capital: Risk-Based Capital Guidelines. 12CFR Part 225, Appendix B [Regulation Y: docket #R-0628].Google Scholar
  7. Friedman, Milton, 1960. A Program for Monetary Stability. New York, New York, Fordham University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Friedman, Milton and Anna, J.Schwartz, 1963. A Monetary Eistory of the United States, 1867–1960, Princeton, New Jersey, University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Kareken, John H., 1983. Deposit Insurance Reform or Deregulation is the Cart not the Horse. Quarterly Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (Spring), 1–9.Google Scholar
  10. Keeley, Michael, C., 1988. Deposit Insurance, Risk, and Market Power in Banking Working Paper No.88–07, Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco.Google Scholar
  11. Kydland, Finn, E. and Edward, C. Prescott, 1977. Rules Rather than Discretidn: The Inconsistency of Optimal Plans. Journal of Political Economy 85 (June), 473–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lucas, Robert E.Jr., 1981. Studies in Business-Cycle Theory. Cambridge Massachusetts, The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  13. Shadow Financial Regulatory Committee. An Outline of a Program for Deposit Insurance Reform. December 5, 1988. Statement No. 38. Mid America Institute for Public Policy Research, Chicago.Google Scholar
  14. Simons, Henry, 1936. Rules Versus Authorities in Monetary Policy. Journal of Political Economy, 44 (February), 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin · Heidelberg 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • John H. Boyd
  • Arthur J. Rolnick

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations