The Legal Foundations of Financial Collapse

Carolyn Sissoko
{"title":"The Legal Foundations of Financial Collapse","authors":"Carolyn Sissoko","doi":"10.1108/17576381011055325","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to analyze the consequences of the “safe harbor” provisions of the US Bankruptcy Code that were enacted from 1984 through 2005 and that protect certain financial contracts from standard bankruptcy procedures. Design/methodology/approach - Qualitative methods are used to evaluate whether these provisions of the Bankruptcy Code were successful in their stated goal of reducing systemic risk in the financial system. A model of systemic risk is presented verbally in order to frame the discussion. Findings - Recent evidence indicates that the “safe harbor” provisions, in fact, destabilized the financial system by encouraging collateralized interbank lending, discouraging careful analysis of the credit risk of counterparties and increasing the risk that creditors will run on a financial firm. Practical implications - This paper indicates that the rewriting of the Bankruptcy Code to favor financial firms has had a profoundly destabilizing effect on the financial system. To put the financial system on more secure foundations, the author proposes that large complex financial institutions be prohibited from posting collateral on over the counter derivative transactions and that the repo-related bankruptcy amendments passed in 2005 be repealed. Originality/value - This paper proposes an original framework for understanding systemic risk which drives the results in the paper.","PeriodicalId":10000,"journal":{"name":"CGN: Securities Regulation (Sub-Topic)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2009-10-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"27","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CGN: Securities Regulation (Sub-Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/17576381011055325","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 27

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to analyze the consequences of the “safe harbor” provisions of the US Bankruptcy Code that were enacted from 1984 through 2005 and that protect certain financial contracts from standard bankruptcy procedures. Design/methodology/approach - Qualitative methods are used to evaluate whether these provisions of the Bankruptcy Code were successful in their stated goal of reducing systemic risk in the financial system. A model of systemic risk is presented verbally in order to frame the discussion. Findings - Recent evidence indicates that the “safe harbor” provisions, in fact, destabilized the financial system by encouraging collateralized interbank lending, discouraging careful analysis of the credit risk of counterparties and increasing the risk that creditors will run on a financial firm. Practical implications - This paper indicates that the rewriting of the Bankruptcy Code to favor financial firms has had a profoundly destabilizing effect on the financial system. To put the financial system on more secure foundations, the author proposes that large complex financial institutions be prohibited from posting collateral on over the counter derivative transactions and that the repo-related bankruptcy amendments passed in 2005 be repealed. Originality/value - This paper proposes an original framework for understanding systemic risk which drives the results in the paper.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
金融崩溃的法律基础
目的-本文的目的是分析1984年至2005年颁布的美国破产法“安全港”条款的后果,该条款保护某些金融合同免受标准破产程序的影响。设计/方法/方法-使用定性方法来评估《破产法》的这些条款是否成功地实现了其降低金融体系系统性风险的既定目标。一个系统风险的模型被口头提出,以框架讨论。最近的证据表明,“安全港”条款实际上破坏了金融体系的稳定,因为它鼓励了银行间抵押贷款,阻碍了对交易对手信用风险的仔细分析,增加了债权人对金融公司的挤兑风险。实际影响-本文表明,重写破产法以支持金融公司已经对金融体系产生了深远的不稳定影响。为了使金融体系建立在更安全的基础上,作者建议禁止大型复杂金融机构在场外衍生品交易中提供抵押品,并废除2005年通过的与回购相关的破产修正案。原创性/价值——本文提出了一个理解系统性风险的原创性框架,该框架推动了本文的结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Misaligned Incentives in Markets: Envisioning Finance That Benefits All of Society Enforcement Against the Biggest Banks Perspectives on U.S. Financial Regulation Transatlantic Extraterritoriality and the Regulation of Derivatives: The Need for an Integrated Approach between Washington and Brussels, the Uncertainties of BREXIT and New Directions in the US Corporate Governance Oversight and Proxy Advisory Firms
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1