There is some argument that the regulatory onslaught since the financial crisis has negatively affected market liquidity, causing higher liquidity costs and more illiquidity events.
Because of this, some commentators even say the regulatory burden should be rolled back.
Bill Dudley, president and CEO of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, spoke to these concerns at a liquidity forum hosted by the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association on Wednesday.
“Some opponents of tougher bank regulation claim that the increased regulatory requirements, such as the higher capital requirements and new liquidity standards, that have been imposed on large financial institutions in the aftermath of the financial crisis have reduced these firms’ market-making capacity,” he said to the crowd gathered in New York.
What Your Peers Are Reading
In the aftermath of the financial crisis, new regulations – such as the Basel III bank capital framework and the Dodd-Frank Act – were implemented to strengthen the financial system and to limit the risk of a future financial crisis.
“As a result, so the argument goes, this is leading to less liquidity for trading securities, and to more illiquidity events in which the prices of financial assets move sharply and become temporarily unmoored from their fundamental valuations,” Dudley said. “The contention is that higher liquidity costs and more frequent illiquidity events will, over time, drive up the borrowing costs of households, businesses and the U.S. government; and that this is a substantial, largely unintended cost imposed by tougher regulation.”
Dudley isn’t necessarily in favor of a regulatory rollback. Rather, he calls for more research and data to determine exactly what kind of impact regulation has on market liquidity.
“We certainly don’t want to undermine the progress we have made in making the financial system more robust and resilient. But if there are adjustments to regulation that could improve liquidity provision without increasing financial stability risks, we should be open to considering such changes,” he said. “I suspect, however, making this determination will require considerably more data, research and reflection before we reach any definitive conclusions.”