M
morganist
Quote from bwolinsky:
The caps effect will, in practice, limit liquidity in the capital markets.
There is nothing positive about that because rehypothecation will remove liquidity that any regular firm will provide and follow their own risk management policies. An artificial cap won't help because it will prolong the existence of inefficient firms that should cease to exist and cease to exist faster than if inefficient firms are prevented from meeting their own demise faster than they otherwise would have.
The firms that know how to use rehypothecation properly will be less profitable, even if it might prevent small systemic risks of firms without useful risk management controls. More liquidity will always be preferred to less, in every case. Less liquidity and inefficient overregulation reduces the efficiency of the capital markets when failure is the best regulator.
The cap will not prevent failure, but prolong the existence of firms that are <i>inefficient.</i> Letting inefficient firms fail faster is better than letting inefficient firms fail more slowly. The societal impact of failure is better than prolonging customer relationships with firms that will fail anyway.
I have to disagree with this and state that the problem is far worse than just failure and inefficiency of banks. If one bank is inefficient it will bring down others.
Rehypthecation sets the precedent to a domino effect of debt. This is the real danger here not whether the market is efficient or not. The days of working better or worse are gone. Under the current conditions we should be looking at trying to limit the risk of contagen of the financial crisis or reducing the effects of a collapse.