Skip to main content

Bernanke: Don’t Break Up the Big Banks

May 16, 2016
In a blog posting ahead of his speech today on a Minneapolis Fed panel, Ben Bernanke has come out vehemently opposed to any effort that would break up the so-called “Too Big to Fail” banks

In a blog posting ahead of his speech today on a Minneapolis Fed panel, Ben Bernanke has come out vehemently opposed to any effort that would break up the so-called “Too Big to Fail” banks.

The former Federal Reserve chairman used his Brookings Institution blog to insist that efforts to slice up super-sized banks would create more harm than good.

“Even putting aside the short-term costs and disruptions that would likely be associated with breaking up the largest banks, in the long run, a U.S. financial industry without large firms would likely be less efficient, providing fewer services at higher cost,” he claimed. “From a national perspective, this strategy could also involve ceding leadership in the industry, and the associated jobs and profits, to other countries. It’s true that economists disagree on the returns to size in banking. There are no doubt diseconomies of scale as well (e.g., ‘Too Big to Manage.’) But uncertainty about the costs and benefits of size can itself be a reason for caution in applying arbitrary size limits, particularly in a world in which firms and business models are heterogeneous.”

Bernanke also stressed that smaller banks can create more harm than good, especially during periods of economic downturn.

“Financial panics can occur in systems dominated by small banks as well as by large ones, as was the case in the United States in the Great Depression,” Bernanke continued. “In contrast, Canada, which has only large banks, did relatively well in both the Depression and in the recent crisis. The basic elements of a financial panic—broad-based loss of confidence in banks, runs by providers of short-term funding, fire sales of bank loans and other assets, disruption of credit flows—can arise even without large banks.”

Bernanke acknowledged the 2008 failure of Lehman Brothers as playing a role in the subsequent recession, but he warned that that the doomed institution was not example of being too big to fail. “Factors other than size, including complexity, opacity, illiquidity, and interconnectedness with other firms, contributed to the catastrophic effects of Lehman’s collapse, as did the fact that the government did not have the legal authorities it needed to manage Lehman’s demise in a more orderly way,” Bernanke insisted.

About the author
Published
May 16, 2016
CoreLogic Chief Economist On Witnessing The Insurance Crisis Firsthand

"I could have lost all my equity,” says Selma Hepp, who lives and works on the frontline of housing's biggest challenge in 2025

Jan 20, 2025
Bill Pulte Trump’s Pick For FHFA Director

The founder and CEO of private equity firm, Pulte Capital Partners, LLC, will oversee plans to end GSE conservatorship

Jan 17, 2025
How To Help Borrowers Spot Red Flags Of Mortgage Fraud

Nine years after a foreclosure relief scam unfolded, the FTC is releasing seized funds. Lessons for LOs abound in how it all went down.

L.A. Wildfires Worsen California Insurance Crisis

Home insurers nowhere to be found during "one of the worst wildfire incidents on record”

Jan 13, 2025
FHFA Director Sandra Thompson To Resign On Eve Of Trump Inauguration

Thompson’s departure clears the way for Trump appointee to take over

Jan 10, 2025
CFPB Accuses Experian Of 'Sham' Consumer Dispute Investigations

The alleged conduct results in errors remaining on consumer reports, and errors being reinserted even after resolution

Jan 07, 2025