[This article is a reexamination of the clearing and settlement process in financial markets (particularly the futures market) and its performance during the 1987 stock market crash. It provides both some institutional background and some conceptual perspective on the problems faced by the system during the week of October 19. Much of the discussion is based on the useful analogies that can be drawn between the clearinghouse and other financial intermediaries, such as banks and insurance companies. A major conclusion is that the Federal Reserve played a vital role in protecting the integrity of the clearing and settlements system during the crash.]

This article is a reexamination of the clearing and settlement process in financial markets (particularly the futures market) and its performance during the 1987 stock market crash. It provides both some institutional background and some conceptual perspective on the problems faced by the system during the week of October 19. Much of the discussion is based on the useful analogies that can be drawn between the clearinghouse and other financial intermediaries, such as banks and insurance companies. A major conclusion is that the Federal Reserve played a vital role in protecting the integrity of the clearing and settlements system during the crash.

Financial stability is an important goal of policy, but the relation of financial stability to economic performance and even the meaning of the term itself are poorly understood. This paper explores these issues in a theoretical model. We argue that financial instability, or fragility, occurs when entrepreneurs who want to undertake investment projects have low net worth; the heavy reliance on external finance that this implies causes the agency costs of investment to be high. High agency costs in turn lead to low and inefficient investment. Standard policies for fighting financial fragility can be interpreted as transfers that maintain or increase the net worth of potential borrowers.