The big banks aren't monopolies.
The real risk of the mega banks is that they pose a systemic risk to the economy if something goes wrong. Substantively, the government can't let those banks fail. That means that, not only do the customers of the core bank receive government protection (i.e. via the FDIC), but the non-insured customers ALSO receive government protection (such as counterparties to investment banking transactions).
Given this special benefit, these banks deserve special regulation and careful consideration.
I think they need more strigent capital requirements and they should be paying insurance premiums to the FDIC and other government bodies which reflect all of their liabilities, not just those normally insured. Dodd-Frank was right on this.
There are some pros to having megabanks - the government/Fed was able to use the megabank structures to manage the 2008 downturn (it used Citi, B of A, Wells Fargo, JPM, and other holding cos as entities which it could keep solvent no matter what.) And these banks are likely able to leverage economies of scale better than smaller banks.
As for breaking them up, I don't think that's as important as making sure the overall system has enough capital and enough oversight.
The real risk of the mega banks is that they pose a systemic risk to the economy if something goes wrong. Substantively, the government can't let those banks fail. That means that, not only do the customers of the core bank receive government protection (i.e. via the FDIC), but the non-insured customers ALSO receive government protection (such as counterparties to investment banking transactions).
Given this special benefit, these banks deserve special regulation and careful consideration.
I think they need more strigent capital requirements and they should be paying insurance premiums to the FDIC and other government bodies which reflect all of their liabilities, not just those normally insured. Dodd-Frank was right on this.
There are some pros to having megabanks - the government/Fed was able to use the megabank structures to manage the 2008 downturn (it used Citi, B of A, Wells Fargo, JPM, and other holding cos as entities which it could keep solvent no matter what.) And these banks are likely able to leverage economies of scale better than smaller banks.
As for breaking them up, I don't think that's as important as making sure the overall system has enough capital and enough oversight.