Bank Regulation in the US: History, Failures, and Policy
This paper examines the regulation of financial institutions in the United States, arguing that regulation is neither uniformly beneficial nor straightforwardly necessary. It traces the history of major US bank failures from the Panic of 1819 through the 2007–2009 financial crisis, reviews the policy steps taken in response—including the Federal Reserve's CCAR stress tests and quantitative easing—and analyzes why bank regulators focus on capital adequacy. The paper also outlines the responsibilities of key regulatory bodies such as the FDIC, OCC, and SEC, and compares the US regulatory framework with European approaches. A central thesis emerges: regulation in practice tends to protect large banks' market dominance while disadvantaging smaller competitors, with the Federal Reserve serving as a backstop that renders strict regulation functionally moot for systemically important institutions.
- Introduction: Overview of the paper's scope and central thesis
- Why Banks Are Regulated: Conventional and critical reasons for bank regulation
- History of Bank Failures in the US: Major US banking panics and failure statistics
- Steps Policy Makers Have Taken to Reduce Failure: CCAR stress tests and capital planning requirements
- Lessons Learned and Evaluating the Plan: ERM strategies and post-crisis liquidity lessons
- Why Bank Regulators Are Concerned About Capital Adequacy: Capital ratios, minimum requirements, and regulatory capture
- Responsibilities of Various Bank Regulatory Agencies: Roles of the Fed, FDIC, OCC, SEC, and others
- US Banking Regulation Compared with European Banking Regulation: Parallels between US and EU regulatory weaknesses
- Conclusion: Regulation protects big banks at the expense of smaller competitors
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper consistently challenges its own premise, using historical evidence to argue that regulation often produces the instability it is meant to prevent — a counterintuitive thesis well-supported by cited scholarship.
- It moves logically from abstract reasoning to concrete policy mechanisms (CCAR stress tests, QE) and then to comparative analysis, giving the argument both theoretical grounding and real-world application.
- The use of diverse sources — academic journals, government agencies, think tanks, and financial press — demonstrates broad research engagement appropriate to the topic's complexity.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper employs critical synthesis: rather than simply summarizing what regulations exist, it marshals multiple scholarly perspectives (Wallison, Posner, Flegm, Ayadi et al.) to build a sustained argument that regulatory capture and moral hazard undermine the stated goals of bank regulation. This technique — using sources against the conventional wisdom of the field — is a strong model for argumentative academic writing.
Structure breakdown
The paper follows a clear expository-argumentative structure: it opens with a thesis-forward introduction, then addresses causes of regulation, historical failures, policy responses, evaluation frameworks, capital adequacy rationale, agency responsibilities, and international comparison before concluding with a synthesis. Each section advances the overarching argument rather than simply reporting information, giving the paper coherent forward momentum throughout its roughly 2,500 words.
Introduction
The regulation of financial institutions in the US is a controversial subject, as there are arguments both for and against regulation. However, regulation is for the most part an accepted way of life, and most people assume that without it banks would cause untold problems for themselves and the broader economy. Ironically, the reality appears to be just the opposite. Regulation tends to lead to reckless behavior, after which intervention by central banks is needed to prevent collapse (Posner, 2014; Wallison, 2005). This paper discusses why banks are regulated, the history of bank failures, the steps policy makers have taken to address those failures, lessons learned, why bank regulators are concerned with capital adequacy, the responsibilities of various bank regulating agencies, and how US regulation compares to European regulation both in practice and in spirit.
Why Banks Are Regulated
Conventional reasons for why banks are regulated include the risk of bank instability, deposit insurance, the need for a central bank to serve as a lender of last resort, and the role of the central bank in monetary policy and large-dollar payments (Wallison, 2005). However, there are risks on the other side of regulation that are often underestimated, and history shows that they are not insignificant. For example, the savings-and-loan industry scandal hurt taxpayers and the economy significantly. The banking and savings-and-loan industries had been heavily regulated prior to their collapse in the 1980s and 1990s, and regulation, rather than mitigating risk, quite possibly intensified that collapse (Barth, Trimbath & Yago, 2006; Wallison, 2005).
Investors can be lulled into a false sense of security when they believe that sufficient or effective regulation is in place. Yet regulation can go sideways and lead to an environment in which risk is ignored and unethical practices are encouraged. The decision of the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) to allow fair value accounting is one such example of regulatory standards opening a Pandora's box of problems — seen in companies from Enron to Lehman Brothers — where mark-to-market accounting was not only used but exacerbated by auditing firms like Arthur Andersen, which were permitted to act in an advisory role rather than purely as independent auditors. The problem became a major issue in 2008, as Young (2008) notes: "As investors tried to delve into the details of the value of CDO assets and the reliability of their cash flows, the extraordinary complexity of the instruments provided a significant impediment to insight into the underlying financial data" (p. 34). The FASB sought to serve various interests at once — economic, financial, and accounting — and in doing so its regulation became ineffective (Flegm, 2008). Wallison (2005) blames market discipline, but regulation can have a significant impact on market discipline as well.
In short, regulation is not a one-size-fits-all solution. There are effective regulations and there are ineffective ones; there are regulations that promote stability and regulations that trigger instability. Wallison (2005) gives the example of how the best regulations are sometimes those that apply to the regulators themselves: "The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991 (FDICIA) added significant new regulations, including draconian penalties for violating the regulations or the orders of bank and S&L supervisors. Ironically, however, the most successful elements of FDICIA were rules governing the behavior of the regulators themselves" (pp. 14–15).
The conclusion Wallison (2005) draws is that banks are regulated not so much out of necessity but because of the interplay between private and public organizations, which results in government attempting to leverage control over private institutions through regulation. That control is never total, and loopholes tend to be found that enable firms to skirt regulations or bend the rules to their advantage. Regulation can often be seen as much a punitive measure against banks as a friendly peace offering. Some regulations promote laxity in terms of capital restraints; others are highly restrictive. One of the reasons for the Federal Reserve's liquidity injections since 2019 — criticized as the start of QE-4, the fourth round of what has become known as quantitative easing — was that banking regulations had forced big banks to tie up capital to ensure they could withstand shocks like those that collapsed some firms in 2008 (Mauldin, 2020).
History of Bank Failures in the US
As the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) notes, there were 559 bank failures between 2001 and 2020 alone (FDIC, 2020). The vast majority occurred between 2008 and 2014 and resulted from the global economic crisis following the implosion of the US housing market bubble. The main highlights of bank failures in US history include: the Panic of 1819; the Panic of 1837; the Panic of 1873; the Panic of 1907; the Great Depression; the savings and loan crisis of the 1980s and 1990s; and the financial crisis of 2007–2009 (Manuel, 2020). In 1930, the first year of the Great Depression, more than 1,300 banks failed (Manuel, 2020). The FDIC was established three years later via the Glass-Steagall Act, with the purpose of providing insurance on deposited money to prevent bank runs and collapses.
What causes bank failures? The answer is straightforward: banks fail when their assets fall below the market value of their liabilities. This is one reason banks faced dire straits in 2008, as mark-to-market accounting in use at the time led to exaggerated price swings in the marketplace and caused book values to plummet (Flegm, 2008). Traditionally, banks have sought to borrow money when failure risk rises. If a bank must sell liquid assets to cover obligations, it will do so, but when those assets are underpriced the resulting losses can be catastrophic. This dynamic explains why central banks around the world have adopted unconventional monetary policy — commonly known as quantitative easing (QE) — in recent years.
Conclusion
Regulation of financial institutions is an issue that is often viewed as an unqualified necessity. Regulators are cast as a line of defense, and banks as forces that would otherwise run unchecked. The reality, however, is quite different. Small banks are kept out of the industry by regulators who, in effect, protect the market dominance of the largest institutions, as Posner (2014) explains. Regulation functions primarily to prevent competitors of the major banks from entering the market.
The major banks are only marginally regulated, and whenever they face capital adequacy problems the Federal Reserve intervenes, providing liquidity and adding trillions to its balance sheet if necessary. The concept of being "too big to fail" captures this dynamic precisely. It describes the nature of the relationship between the financial institutions that dominate the market and the regulators who nominally oversee them. Regulators are not in a position to allow these banks to fail, and therefore they are not in a meaningful position to regulate them. Their practical function is to regulate small banks and prevent them from succeeding — preserving, rather than challenging, the existing concentration of financial power.
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.