Causes of banking crises: Deregulation, credit booms and asset bubbles, then and now

2012 ◽  
Vol 24 ◽  
pp. 270-294 ◽  
Author(s):  
Saktinil Roy ◽  
David M. Kemme
2015 ◽  
Vol 136 ◽  
pp. 233-236 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Fielding ◽  
Johan Rewilak

2016 ◽  
Vol 60 ◽  
pp. 360-377 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Scott Davis ◽  
Adrienne Mack ◽  
Wesley Phoa ◽  
Anne Vandenabeele

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. 179-192
Author(s):  
Ola Honningdal Grytten

The paper examines the importance of financial instability for the development of four Norwegian banking crises. The crises are the Post First World War Crisis during the early 1920s, the mid 1920s Monetary Crisis, the Great Depression in the 1930s, and the Scandinavian Banking Crisis of 1987–1993. The paper first offers a description of the financial instability hypothesis applied by Minsky and Kindleberger, and in a recent dynamic financial crisis model. Financial instability is defined as a lack of financial markets and institutions that provide capital and liquidity at a sustainable level under stress. Financial instability basically evolves during times of overheating, overspending and extended credit granting. This is most common during significant booms. The process has devastating effects after markets have turned into a state of negative development.The paper tests the validity of the financial instability hypothesis using a quantitative structural time series model. It reveals upheaval of 10 financial and macroeconomic indicators prior to all the four crises, resulting in a state of economic overheating and asset bubble creation. This is basically explained by huge growth in debts. The overheating caused the following banking crises. Finally, the paper discusses the four crises qualitatively. Again, the conclusion is that a significant increase in money supply and debt caused overheating, asset bubbles, and thereafter, financial and banking crises, which in turn spread to other markets and industries and caused huge slumps in the real economy.


2020 ◽  
Vol 47 (6) ◽  
pp. 1437-1465
Author(s):  
Vítor Castro ◽  
Rodrigo Martins

PurposeThis paper analyses the collapse of credit booms into soft landings or systemic banking crises.Design/methodology/approachA discrete-time competing risks duration model is employed to disentangle the factors behind the length of benign and harmful credit booms.FindingsThe results show that economic growth and monetary authorities play the major role in explaining the differences in the length and outcome of credit booms. Moreover, both types of credit expansions display positive duration dependence, i.e. both are more likely to end as they grow older, but hard landing credit booms have proven to be longer than those that land softly.Originality/valueThis paper contributes to our understanding of what affects the length of credit booms and why some end up creating havoc and others do not. In particular, it calls the attention to the important role that Central Bank independence plays regarding credit booms length and outcome.


2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Scott J. Davis ◽  
Adrienne Mack ◽  
Wesley Phoa ◽  
Anne Vandenabeele

2019 ◽  
Vol 31 (4) ◽  
pp. 729-751
Author(s):  
Vítor Castro ◽  
Rodrigo Martins

AbstractSome studies argue that credit booms that end up in banking crises are usually longer than those that end without creating havoc. However, they do not test this hypothesis empirically. This paper employs a duration model to assess the relationship between the length of credit booms and their outcome. The empirical analysis shows that credit expansions that end in banking crisis are indeed more prone to last longer than those that end softly. Furthermore, differences in length patterns are found to start in the build-up phase, extending to the unwinding phase of credit cycles.


2014 ◽  
Vol 2014 (178) ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Scott Davis ◽  
◽  
Adrienne Mack ◽  
Wesley Phoa ◽  
Anne Vandenabeele ◽  
...  

2009 ◽  
pp. 4-14 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. Gref ◽  
K. Yudaeva

Problems in the financial sector were at the core of the current economic crisis. Therefore, economic recovery will only become sustainable after taking care of the major weaknesses in the financial sector. This conclusion is relevant both for the US and UK - the two countries where crisis has started, and for other economies which financial institutions turned out to be fragile in the face of the swings in the risk appetite. Russia is one of the countries where the crisis has revealed serious deficiency in the financial sector. Our study of 11 banking crises during the last 25-30 years shows that sustainable economic recovery and decrease in the dependence on commodity prices will be virtually impossible without cleaning of balance sheets and capitalization of the financial sector.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document