El cálculo de los costos del concepto de “demasiado grande para quebrar”

CAMBRIDGE – La idea de que algunos bancos son “demasiado grandes para quebrar” ha salido de la obscuridad del debate normativo y académico al debate público más amplio sobre las finanzas. Bloomberg News inició el examen público más reciente, al criticar el beneficio que semejantes bancos reciben y que, como ha demostrado un estudio publicado por el Fondo Monetario Internacional, es muy grande.

Los grupos de presión y los representantes de los banqueros quitaron importancia al editorial de Bloomberg por citar un solo estudio y por fiarse de las calificaciones de las agencias evaluadoras del riesgo crediticio para los bancos grandes, que mostraban que varios de ellos tendrían que pagar más por su financiación a largo plazo, si los mercados financieros no esperaran contar con el apoyo estatal en caso de que experimentaran dificultades.

Sin embargo, hay unos diez estudios recientes –y no sólo uno, en realidad– sobre el beneficio que los bancos demasiado grandes para quebrar reciben del Estado. Casi todos ellos apuntan en la misma dirección: un gran impulso de la subvención a los demasiado grandes para quebrar durante la crisis financiera y después de ella, gracias a lo cual resulta más barato a los grandes bancos endeudarse.

To continue reading, please log in or enter your email address.

Registration is quick and easy and requires only your email address. If you already have an account with us, please log in. Or subscribe now for unlimited access.

required

Log in

http://prosyn.org/NxBjQSz/es;
  1. An employee works at a chemical fiber weaving company VCG/Getty Images

    China in the Lead?

    For four decades, China has achieved unprecedented economic growth under a centralized, authoritarian political system, far outpacing growth in the Western liberal democracies. So, is Chinese President Xi Jinping right to double down on authoritarianism, and is the “China model” truly a viable rival to Western-style democratic capitalism?

  2. The assembly line at Ford Bill Pugliano/Getty Images

    Whither the Multilateral Trading System?

    The global economy today is dominated by three major players – China, the EU, and the US – with roughly equal trading volumes and limited incentive to fight for the rules-based global trading system. With cooperation unlikely, the world should prepare itself for the erosion of the World Trade Organization.

  3. Donald Trump Saul Loeb/Getty Images

    The Globalization of Our Discontent

    Globalization, which was supposed to benefit developed and developing countries alike, is now reviled almost everywhere, as the political backlash in Europe and the US has shown. The challenge is to minimize the risk that the backlash will intensify, and that starts by understanding – and avoiding – past mistakes.

  4. A general view of the Corn Market in the City of Manchester Christopher Furlong/Getty Images

    A Better British Story

    Despite all of the doom and gloom over the United Kingdom's impending withdrawal from the European Union, key manufacturing indicators are at their highest levels in four years, and the mood for investment may be improving. While parts of the UK are certainly weakening economically, others may finally be overcoming longstanding challenges.

  5. UK supermarket Waring Abbott/Getty Images

    The UK’s Multilateral Trade Future

    With Brexit looming, the UK has no choice but to redesign its future trading relationships. As a major producer of sophisticated components, its long-term trade strategy should focus on gaining deep and unfettered access to integrated cross-border supply chains – and that means adopting a multilateral approach.

  6. The Year Ahead 2018

    The world’s leading thinkers and policymakers examine what’s come apart in the past year, and anticipate what will define the year ahead.

    Order now