The too-big-to-fail phenomenon received ample attention after the US government bailed out several large financial institutions in 2008 and 2009. One way to gauge the market impacts of implicit government guarantees is to compare the borrowing costs of financial firms with those of nonfinancial companies. If large financial institutions have lower borrowing costs than others, it stands to reason that investors believe that the implied state support means less risk. But does that tell the whole story? With its ambiguous conclusion, this report from economists Javed I. Ahmed, Christopher Anderson and Rebecca E. Zarutskie may leave readers with more questions than answers. Nonetheless, getAbstract recommends it to financial regulators and professionals.
In this summary, you will learn
- What the perceived safety of government guarantees has to do with borrowing cheaply and
- Why size may be behind lower borrowing costs for financial institutions.
About the Authors
Javed I. Ahmed and Rebecca E. Zarutskie are economists at the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Christopher Anderson is a PhD candidate at Harvard Business School.