Title: RE: [PEN-L:30334] Re: Re: Re: congress and the banks
On the consolidation of banks:
It should be mentioned that the trend does not always mean increased monopolization of banking services. One thing is that with the breaking down of barriers to interstate banking in the U.S., a lot
The local monopolies of banking -- especially in rural areas -- also
tended to make the risks of banking failure more local. Sort of like an
electricity grid. When it is more local, failures are more common, but
localized. When a more national system goes down
On Wed, Sep 18, 2002 at
Title: RE: [PEN-L:30338] Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: congress and the banks
Michael Perelman writes:
The local monopolies of banking -- especially in rural areas -- also
tended to make the risks of banking failure more local. Sort
of like an electricity grid. When it is more local, failures
yes, but the contagion is more likely the more integrated the system.
On Wed, Sep 18, 2002 at 08:52:45AM -0700, Devine, James wrote:
Michael Perelman writes:
The local monopolies of banking -- especially in rural areas -- also
tended to make the risks of banking failure more local. Sort
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Further, the banks have been suffering from competition from other sectors, such as money market mutual funds and (for corporations) the commercial paper market. There is no trend toward monopolization of financial markets, as far as I can tell, so those with sufficient
In a message dated 9/18/2002 12:27:43 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
yes, but the contagion is more likely the more integrated the system.
I agree, though not just viewing contagion as a local vs. national issue, but as a single financial service provider vs. financial
Devine, James wrote:
Michael Perelman writes:
The local monopolies of banking -- especially in rural areas -- also
tended to make the risks of banking failure more local. Sort
of like an electricity grid. When it is more local, failures are more
common, but localized. When a more
