On the Relationship between Market Power and Bank Risk Taking

We analyse risk-taking behaviour of banks in the context of spatial competition. Banks mobilise unsecured deposits by offering deposit rates, which they invest either in a prudent or a gambling asset. Limited liability along with high return of a successful gamble induce moral hazard at the bank level. We show that when the market power is low, banks invest in the gambling asset. On the other hand, for sufficiently high levels of market power, all banks choose the prudent asset to invest in. We further show that a merger of two neighboring banks increases the likelihood of prudent behaviour. Finally, introduction of a deposit insurance scheme exacerbates banks’ moral hazard problem.

Inequality and Risk-Taking Behaviour

This paper investigates social influences on attitudes to risk and offers an evolutionary explanation of risk-taking by young low-ranked males. Becker, Murphy and Werning (2005) found that individuals about to participate in a status tournament may take fair gambles even though they are risk averse in both wealth and status. Here their model is generalised by use of the insight of Hopkins and Kornienko (2010) that in a tournament or status competition one can consider equality in terms of the status or rewards available as well as in initial endowments. While Becker et al. found that risk-taking is increasing in the equality of initial endowments, it is found here that it is increasing in the inequality of rewards in the tournament. Further, it is shown that the poorest will be risk loving if the lowest level of status awarded is sufficiently low. Thus, the disadvantaged in society rationally engage in risky behavior when social rewards are sufficiently unequal. Finally, as greater inequality in terms of social status induces gambling, it can cause greater inequality of wealth.

Still More On Why We Should Bury The Marginal Productivity Theory Of The Price Of Capital: A Supplementary Note

The purpose of this note is to supplement the author’s earlier remarks on the unsatisfactory nature of the neoclassical account of how the return on capital is determined. (See Strathclyde Discussion Paper 12-03: “The Marginal Productivity Theory of the Price of Capital: An Historical Perspective on the Origins of the Codswallop”). The point is made via a simple illustration that certain matters which are problematical in neoclassical terms are perfectly straightforward when viewed from a classical perspective. Basically, the marginalist model of the nature of an economic system is not fit for purpose in that it fails to comprehend the essential features of a surplus-producing economic system as distinct from one merely of exchange.