Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation

Online

99,00 € / $149.00*

* Prices subject to change. Shipping costs will be added if applicable.
Publication Date:
March 2010
ISSN:
1935-1682
DOI:
10.2202/1935-1682.2266

See all formats and pricing

Online
Individual Subscription Online only
Euro [D] 99.00
RRP for USA, Canada, Mexico
US$ 149.00 *
Print
Individual Subscription Online only
Euro [D] 345.00
RRP for USA, Canada, Mexico
US$ 473.00 *
Print + Online
Individual Subscription Online only
Euro [D] 414.00
RRP for USA, Canada, Mexico
US$ 568.00 *
*Prices subject to change. Shipping costs will be added if applicable.

Ed. by Auriol , Emmanuelle / Brunner, Johann / Fleck, Robert / Friebel, Guido / Ludwig, Sandra / Requate, Till / Schneider, Hilmar / Tsui, Kevin / Wichardt, Philipp

2 Issues per year

IMPACT FACTOR 2011: 0.550

 

 

VolumeIssuePage

Diversification in the Financial Services Industry: The Effect of the Financial Modernization Act

Faith R. Neale1 / Pamela Peterson Drake2 / Steven P. Clark3

1University of North Carolina at Charlotte, frneale@uncc.edu

2James Madison University, drakepp@jmu.edu

3University of North Carolina at Charlotte, spclark@uncc.edu

Citation Information: The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy. Volume 10, Issue 1, Pages –, ISSN (Online) 1935-1682, DOI: 10.2202/1935-1682.2266, March 2010

Publication History:
Published Online:
2010-03-08

Abstract

The intent of the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 (FSM) was to strengthen the overall financial services sector by allowing financial firms to diversify across industries within the financial sector. Similar to other studies of the reaction to this Act, we observe that investors consider the FSM to be good news. More interestingly, we also observe that systematic risk increased for some types of firms, but decreased for others as barriers were lowered. This finding is consistent with the idea that the reduction of regulation may increase systematic risk, but that the effects of deregulation on risk may be mitigated by anticipated effects of diversification. Specifically, bank holding companies that chose to diversify into other financial industries experienced increases in systematic risk while those that did not diversify realized decreases in systematic risk. Overall, we find that the systematic risk of financial firms converged and increased in the past few years as firms expanded into non-traditional businesses. In addition, we find that the Act reduced systematic risk for some firms, specifically those that diversified their product lines with insurance products.

Keywords: deregulation; Financial Services Modernization Act; Glass-Steagall; Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act; financial services industry

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.