"Fed Should Push to Cut Biggest Banks Down to Size": Simon Johnson

What do you think about the moral hazards of "Too Big To Fail" and financial monopolies or near monopolies such as overly consolidated banking and mortgage industries?

Simon Johnson

Daniel Tarullo, a governor of the Federal Reserve System, spoke for the first time last week about potentially imposing a size cap on the largest U.S. banks.
[…]
Capping bank size is the modern equivalent of trust busting, and attracts support from across the political spectrum. People on the right and left don’t understand why megabanks should get implicit government subsidies and worry that top executives of very large banks have become too powerful.

Both concerns are legitimate and need to be addressed. Now the Fed is pushing in the same direction.

So writes Simon Johnson, former chief economist, International Monetary Fund, currently a professor of entrepreneurship, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Sloan School of Management.

Read his whole article: Fed Should Push to Cut Biggest Banks Down to Size – Bloomberg.

Questions: What impact would capping banks sizes have on the real estate and insurance industries? Would capping only US banks cause problems? If they are capped, would they then be automatically allowed to "fail": go through governmental takeovers, bankruptcy proceedings, reorganizations, etc.? Would those things be sufficient to avoid a repeat of the 2008 crash? What other regulatory changes should be seriously considered?


If you are an investor in 1-4 unit properties in Arizona, California, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, or Washington, please do the financially responsible thing and make sure you have proper Landlord Insurance with PropertyPak™. We love focusing on real estate and the economy in general, but we are also here to serve your insurance needs.

Hill & Usher (PropertyPak™ is a division) has many insurance offerings. See our menu above for more info and links.

Did this post help you? Let us know by leaving your comment below.

Note: This blog does not provide legal, financial, or accounting advice. Seek professional counsel.

Furthermore, we, as insurance producers, are prohibited by law from disparaging the insurance industry, carriers, other producers, etc. With that in mind, we provide links without staking out positions that violate the law. We provide them solely from a public-policy standpoint wherein we encourage our industry to be sure our profits, etc., are fair and balanced.

We do not necessarily fact checked the contents of every linked article or page, etc.

If we were to conclude any part or parts of our industry are in violation of fundamental fairness and the legal standards of a state or states, we'd address the issue through proper, legal channels. We trust you understand.

The laws that tie our tongues, so to speak, are designed to keep the public from losing confidence in the industry and the regulatory system overseeing it. Insurance commissioners around the country work very hard to analyze rates and to not allow the industry to be damaged by bad rate-settings and changes in coverages. The proper way for people in the industry to deal with such matters is by adhering to the laws, rules, and regulations of the applicable states and within industry associations where such matters may be discussed in private without giving the industry unnecessary black eyes. Ethics is very high on the list in the insurance industry, and we don't want to lose the people's trust. That said, the industry is not perfect; but what industry is?

For our part, we believe in strong regulations and strong regulators.

We welcome your comments and ask you to keep in mind that we cannot and will not reply in any way or ways where any insurance commissioner could rightly say we've violated the law of the given state.

We are allowed to share rating-bureau data/reports and industry-consultant opinions but make clear here that those opinions are theirs and do not necessarily reflect our position.

Subscribe