How Shape-Shifting Banks Foil Dodd-Frank Act
By Thomas F. Cooley, Paganelli-Bull Professor of Business and International Trade, and Kim Schoenholtz, Professor of Management Practice
For financial regulation to be effective, it should focus on economic function, rather than legal form.
So far, U.S. regulators have reacted passively to such moves by foreign banks to avoid the heightened capital requirements mandated by the Dodd-Frank Act.
That’s because Dodd-Frank failed to heed a fundamental law of architecture: Form must follow function. For financial regulation to be effective, it should focus on economic function, rather than legal form. If it doesn’t, institutions will quickly find new forms that free them of regulatory constraints. What walks like a duck and quacks like a duck must be regulated as a duck, even if it is legally a goose.
All too often financial regulation misses this obvious point. The result is regulatory arbitrage, as intermediaries alter their legal form to minimize their costs.
That would be fine if the costs of the risks carried by a large, complex investment bank -- a prime example of a “systemically important financial intermediary,” or SIFI, that Dodd-Frank sought to regulate -- were all its own. But that isn’t the case. When such institutions take risks, they can threaten the financial system and require public bailouts.
Read full article as published in Bloomberg View.
More Opinions from Thomas Cooley
- "Who Will Carry the Water?," 1.25.13
- "This economy could be as good as it gets," 9.10.12
- "The Euro Exit," 6.14.12
- "How Shape-Shifting Banks Foil Dodd-Frank Act," 4.17.12
- "The Battle Over Money Funds," 3.7.12
- "Not Even Close...," 12.21.11
- "Euro’s Fall May Doom All," 12.8.11
- "What Hamilton Can Teach the Euro Zone," 12.8.11
- "Clear thinking about economic policy," 11.9.11
- "Europe should avoid eating its seed corn," 10.21.11
- "Dodd-Frank: A Missed Opportunity," 8.29.11