Nonbank financial intermediaries (NBFIs) have grown significantly relative to banks. We argue that this growth reflects a transformation of the activities and risks of banks and NBFIs, driven at least in part by changes in bank regulation. We document through new regulatory data, case studies, and empirical analyses that banks remain special as providers of both routine and emergency liquidity to NBFIs and that the sectors have become increasingly interdependent. We discuss some potential regulatory responses, including considering the two sectors holistically and exploring new ways to internalize the costs of systemic risk arising from bank-NBFI interconnectedness.

In this paper, we use methods from social network analysis to assess the relative importance of financial centers around the world. Using data from virtually the entire universe of global equity activity, we present complete rankings for 45 separate locations for the period 1990–2006. Our analysis constructs a network measure of prestige based on their ability to attract global IPOs. U.S. exchanges are effectively the unique hosts for cross-border equity activity from many other locations. Moreover, they are the destination of choice for most companies coming from locations with highly prestigious exchanges. We also document the emergence of several competing stock exchanges from developed and emerging market economies. The ascent of these stock markets, however, might reflect improved conditions in a growing global market rather than a decline in the competitiveness of U.S. exchanges.

This paper explores the empirical relevance of banking market structure on growth. There is substantial evidence of a positive relationship between the level of development of the banking sector of an economy and its long‐run output growth. Little is known, however, about the role played by the market structure of the banking sector on the dynamics of capital accumulation. This paper provides evidence that bank concentration promotes the growth of those industrial sectors that are more in need of external finance by facilitating credit access to younger firms. However, we also find evidence of a general depressing effect on growth associated with a concentrated banking industry, which impacts all sectors and all firms indiscriminately.

Foreign banks pulled significant funding from their US branches during the Great Recession. We estimate that the average-sized branch experienced a twelve percent net internal fund “withdrawal,” with the fund transfer disproportionately bigger for larger branches. This internal shock to the balance sheet of US branches of foreign banks had sizable effects on their lending. On average, for each dollar of funds transferred internally to the parent, branches decreased lending supply by about forty to fifty cents. However, the extent of the lending effects was very different across branches depending on their pre-crisis modes of operation in the United States.

Globalization of banking raises questions about banks’ liquidity management, their response to liquidity shocks, and the potential for international shock propagation. We conjecture that global banks manage liquidity on a global scale, actively using cross‐border internal funding in response to local shocks. Having global operations insulates banks from changes in monetary policy, while banks without global operations are more affected by monetary policy than previously found. We provide direct evidence that internal capital markets are active in global banks and contribute to the international propagation of shocks. This feature was at play during the financial crisis of 2007–2009.

This paper tests how competition in local U.S. banking markets affects the market structure of nonfinancial sectors. Theory offers competing hypotheses about how competition ought to influence firm entry and access to bank credit by mature firms. The empirical evidence, however, strongly supports the idea that in markets with concentrated banking, potential entrants face greater difficulty gaining access to credit than in markets in which banking is more competitive.