American Economic Review Vol. 91 No. 2 2001
Financial Intermediation without Exclusivity
Abstract
Futures exchanges and other financial intermediaries assume counterparty risks and demand in return guarantees that these counterparties will deliver on their promises. It is often argued that to attract volume, financial intermediaries would settle for excessively low contractual guarantees. In Tano Santos and José Scheinkman (2001) we model financial intermediation in an environment where traders may choose to default, and we examine the characteristics of the equilibrium. In particular, we investigate whether competition implies excessively low standards. We show that in fact, when society punishes default and intermediaries can impose collateral requirements to effectively limit the size of positions, competition leads to a (constrained) optimal amount of contractual guarantees. In Santos and Scheinkman (2001) we assume that exchanges cannot control the size of the positions taken by individuals, but we preclude investors from participating in more than one exchange. This ignores the effect that trading with one financial intermediary may have on the risks faced by other intermediaries. Financial intermediaries typically cannot control the amount of risk that counterparties will take with other intermediaries. In this paper we examine the effect of dropping this exclusivity assumption. We show that the constrained optimum can no longer be implemented as a standard Nash equilibrium with free entry. Nonetheless this allocation is the only one that can be sustained as an anticipatory equilibrium (Charles Wilson (1977)). To break a candidate anticipatory
- DOI
- 10.1257/aer.91.2.436
- Volume
- 91
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 436-439
- Language
- en
- Sources
- bibtex:phds-export.bib crossref openalex