5 ms·
This is interesting. Competition aside, I would think that having fewer big banks is worse than many smaller banks because big banks become “too big to fail” su
by throwaway894345 4y ago
This is interesting. Competition aside, I would think that having fewer big banks is worse than many smaller banks because big banks become “too big to fail” such that tax payers end up needing to bail out the bank itself (rather than stopping with the depositors). I’m surprised to hear this is how the Canadian system is set up?
- Xeoncross 4y agoI mean, it's not like the citizens get to decide what is in their best interest. Even in modern democracies laws are still mostly written, presented, and decided by lobbyists. Doesn't seem to matter the structure of the government, the people with the money make the rules when leaders integrity can be purchased.
- zarzavat 4y agoIt’s how every country is set up, including the US. Having smaller banks doesn’t affect systemic risk much if there’s still big banks that are too big to fail, and the US has plenty of those. Even if we lived in a world where big banks didn’t exist, the benefit to systemic risk might be smaller than you’d think, as bank failures tend to be correlated.
- dsq 4y agoThis is the case in most of the developed world. 2-5 giants and another few minnows. The US banking sector with thousands of independent banks is unique, at least in the West.