Surname 1

Insert name

Course

Title

Date

Too big to fail

A financial institution so intertwined in the fabric of the state economy that its letdown

could be a basis a massive ripple consequence is considered “too big to fail”. Regrettably for the

taxpayers of any country, their hard earned money are the mere thing amid failure and salvation

for these corporations.Industry instability or poor management can ruin any industry, but the

bigger an organization gets, the bigger the guarantee damaged brought about by their failure. It is

thus the duty of an accountable administration to at no time leave their citizens susceptible to

such a disaster. The purpose of this essay is to validate that too big to fail strategy is what spun a

period of little growth into an awful monetary predicament from the time when there was the

Great Depression. It is a well documented that the what caused the economy of the United States

to start slipping in late 2007 was the housing market. As the economy was slipping, it still

succeeded to not slide into downturn status pending September 2008. It is less than spontaneous

that America's fifth principal financial organization, Lehman Brothers, filed for insolvency on

September 15, 2008, the very equivalent time the economy fell. The uncertainty of the market

headed to runs on finance organizations that in turn led to more bank letdowns, which led to

massive bailouts. The bailouts, though helpful at the time, pointed towards a first-time national

debt that had not been anticipated. Permitting securities companies banks, insurance companies,

Surname 2

holdings companies, amalgamations of the companies mentioned above to privatize profits and

expose losses due to irrational risk will ultimately ruin free enterprise as we discern it. Visit

myprivateresearcher.com for more information.

Currently, there is significant deliberation about the foundations of business cycles and

whether administration strategies can lessen them.” Just as there is no agreement now, modern-

day observers had numerous diverse views about the foundations of the Great Depression and the

fitting response to the administration. A limited number of economists implemented the Quantity

Theory of Money, which argues that variations in the money supply is the grounds for variations

in the rate level and can move the level of monetary activity for short epochs. These economists

claimed that the Fed ought to prevent devaluation by increasing the supply of money.

Too big to fail can be defined as “An organization whose letdown would severely hurt

the economy or financial constancy.” The Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland showed that an

economic establishment was well-thought-out systemically imperative if it met the “four C’s

principle”. The “four C’s” are a correlation, context, contagion, and concentration. An

establishment covered by Title II of the Dodd – Frank Bill (written to protect against too big to

fail policy in the future) must originate eighty-five percent of its revenue from financial

activities. This revenue that are going forward, the only corporations the administration will

consider systemically authoritative are financial institutions, which is an alteration from the

bailouts of Chrysler and General Motors. The bill is unclear however on how big equals too big.

Any covered organization with ten billion dollars in assets must have a risk committee. Visit

myprivateresearcher.com for more information. A enclosed company with over fifty billion

dollars in possessions must have a submitted plan on how to wind down in case of failure and

cannot have more than twenty-five percent of its assets be in the form of credit. Finally, a mega-

Surname 3

bank is one having over five hundred billion dollars in assets, and no more than ten percent can

be credit. Though the bill does make dissimilarities about how much money in possessions a

corporation must have to experience certain regulations, it leaves the designation of universal

significance up to regulators to decide as that corporation is failing. In 2008, Bear Sterns was the

fifth largest monetary institution in the United States and consequently considered systemically

vital but Lehman Brothers was the fourth largest.

Not only have we seen it before, but we have seen it since the passage of Gramm-Leach-

Bliley, in the form of the largest bailout in the recent past. The Financial Services Modernization

Act of 1999, more ordinarily known as the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, abolished the last lingering

parts of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933. This was done in order to offer more competition in the

financial facilities business. Visit myprivateresearcher.com for more information.

If larger banks are well-thought-out as safer investments than smaller banks are, they will

have the equivalent of a higher credit rating, which as consumers, we know means a lower

interest rate on credit. The mega-banks that have access to high credit lines at a low-interest rate

along with billions of dollars they hold in assets. This creates it conceivable for them to make

loans of the magnitude that large multinational companies require. Financial Institutions of this

size also make very substantial campaign contributions. The massive donations, along with the

unexpressed guarantees from the government that they will be saved by taxpayer money if they

do fail, allow these companies unjustified government influence. When campaign contributions

and lobbyists are effective, banks are helping to shape legislation as they did with the Financial

Services Modernization Act, which assures these banks can keep their dominance. These

competitive advantages cause the stock market, customers, and creditors to favor large banks,

accounting for less competition. In terms of long-term consequences, the government

Surname 4

intervention helped to alleviate the economy at an earlier rate than if the government had not had

intervened at all. If the government did not intervene and allowed the economy to correct itself

under the free market theory, then the rate at which the economy would take to recover would be

significantly longer, with higher unemployment rates. In addition to that, the US economy could

quite possibly have faced another great depression. However, despite stabilizing the economy at

a faster rate, there is a significant cost to the taxpayer and increase in the US’s national debt

which will take a considerable amount of time to recover

In the occasion of a budgetary crisis, the government will always attempt to stabilize the

economy by bailing out the largest and most interconnected corporations. In the case of the Great

Recession, the Toxic Asset Relief Program (TARP) was the way that policymakers attempted to

stave off depression. Although when TARP money started being infused into the economy, the

financial crisis plateaued and even started to get slightly better, the program was flawed. When

banks accepted taxpayer money in order to save them from their mistakes, there were no

conditions attached. The more guidelines that are positioned in the banking system, the more

business will be driven by the shadow banking system. It is widely speculated that the latest

financial crisis was started in the shadow banking system because of risky investments and

behavior considered unacceptable in mainstream banking. By letting large banks continue to

exist and peeling back regulations, there may be more business-driven back to institutions that

have some transparency and lower risk.

If there is a solution to too big to fail, the government has not implemented it yet. The

Volker Rule, which was cut out of the Dodd-Frank bill, was an attempt to reinstate a modified

version of the Glass-Steagall Act. If approved, this rule would have again restricted banks

Surname 5

proprietary trading, trading for their accounts, investing in or maintaining hedge funds or

sequestered equity funds, and proprietary trading for their profit.

Visit myprivateresearcher.com for more information.