While it is tempting to focus on new financial innovations in helping explain recent financial turmoil, more traditional causes should not be overlooked. As on many previous occasions, very rapid credit growth led to major increases in asset prices, which in turn encouraged consumption and investment decisions which could yet prove unsustainable. The natural “procyclicality” of the financial system could perhaps be contained through the introduction of a “new macrofinancial stability framework”. There are many practical impediments to realising such a suggestion, but there are also grounds for belief that these impediments could be removed.

In the U.S., as in most countries with well-developed securities markets, derivative securities enjoy special protections under insolvency resolution laws. Most creditors are “stayed” from enforcing their rights while a firm is in bankruptcy. However, many derivatives contracts are exempt from these stays. Furthermore, derivatives enjoy netting and closeout, or termination, privileges which are not always available to most other creditors. The primary argument used to motivate passage of legislation granting these extraordinary protections is that derivatives markets are a major source of systemic risk in financial markets and that netting and closeout reduce this risk. To date, these assertions have not been subjected to rigorous economic scrutiny. This paper critically re-examines this hypothesis. These relationships are more complex than often perceived. We conclude that it is not clear whether netting, collateral, and/or closeout lead to reduced systemic risk, once the impact of these protections on the size and structure of the derivatives market has been taken into account.

This paper studies the country-level reaction of bank credit default swap (“CDS”) spreads and stock prices to bailout announcements in the US and five European countries in October 2008. Bailouts announcements are associated with bank CDS spreads narrowing, both for domestic and foreign banks, pointing to an important role for cross-border exposures. Movements in bank stock prices show mixed reactions, both domestically and cross-border, with banks receiving favorable government support outperforming foreign rivals. By January 2010, bank CDS spreads had stabilized at higher levels reflecting greater default risk, while bank stock prices remained significantly below their pre-crisis levels.

I describe household behavior in boom and bust economic cycles with a particular focus on the recent financial crisis. The behaviors are motivated by cognitive limitations and psychological bias. In boom times, households’ extrapolation bias and groupthink lead to chasing and extending asset bubbles (like tech stocks and real estate). Increasing use of debt spurs the economy and eventually overburdens households. In bust times, the biases and fear lead to selling previously popular assets at low prices. Households generally respond to bust times by spending less, repaying debt and saving more, which drags on an already slow economy. In addition, households influence businesses and governments into actions during the cycle. In the recent boom, predatory lenders preyed on cognitive limitations and biases of subprime borrowers to sell them high cost mortgages that they would not be able to repay. Another contributing factor is that during boom times, household attention is not focused on financial regulation. This is when business influences the political process and laws are enacted to loosen market regulation. These changes may extend the boom period into bubble territory. During bust times, public outcry influences politicians to tighten business regulation, likely inhibiting the economic rebound. Thus, household behavior plays an important role in economic boom/bust cycles.

We employ a new data set comprised of disaggregate figures on clearing house loan certificate issues in New York City to document how the dominant national banks were crucial providers of temporary liquidity during the Panic of 1907. Clearing house loan certificates were extensions of credit by the New York Clearing House to its members. These certificates were transferable to other clearing house members as a form of final payment for settlement of interbank payments. The certificate issues allowed borrowing banks to maintain (and increase) loans, fulfill cash payment upon depositor withdrawal demands, and enabled gold imports, which took two to three weeks to arrive. The large, New York City national banks acted as private liquidity providers by requesting (and the New York Clearing House issuing) a volume of clearing house loan certificates in excess of their own immediate liquidity needs, in accord with their role as central reserve city banks in the national banking system.

Drawing on a unique dataset of flow-of funds and balance sheet data, this paper analyzes the impact of financial crises on aggregate corporate financing and expenditure in a range of countries. Investment and inventory contractions are the main contributors to lower GDP growth after crises, with a much greater effect in emerging market countries. The debt–equity ratio is correlated with investment and inventory declines following crises. Econometric analysis suggests that financial crises have a greater impact on expenditure and the financing of corporate sectors in emerging markets than in industrial countries. Industrial countries appear to benefit from a pick-up in bond issuance in the wake of banking crises. Although companies in emerging market countries hold more precautionary liquidity, this is evidently not sufficient to prevent a greater amplitude of response of expenditure to shocks.

This paper analyzes the interactions between government's indebtedness, sovereign default risk and the size of the informal sector. We test an underlying theory that suggests that in societies with limited tax enforcement, the presence of informality constrains the set of pledgeable fiscal policy alternatives, increases public debt and the implied probability of sovereign debt restructuring. The hypotheses that we test in our empirical analysis are: a larger size of the informal sector is associated with (1) higher public indebtedness, (2) higher interest rates paid on sovereign debt, (3) a higher level of financial instability and (4) a higher probability of sovereign default. The empirical results from cross-country panel regressions show that after controlling for previously highlighted variables in the literature that could explain the variation in financial instability, sovereign default risk and public indebtedness, the size of informality remains as a significant determinant of these variables.

We review key characteristics of the hedge fund industry, and identify conditions under which this sector can pose a threat to financial stability. Direct regulation of hedge funds that increases transparency does not appear feasible, may create a moral-hazard problem, and may reduce market liquidity. Indirect regulation by prime brokers and market discipline by creditors, counterparties, and investors have been effective in limiting the risks from the hedge fund sector. To reduce systemic risks, more regulation of prime brokers is warranted to avoid competitive dynamics from undermining counterparty risk management practices.