HERE’S a puzzle: in bustling Manhattan, where bank branches abound, people pay much more for the privilege of stashing their cash than in sleepy Kansas. Greater competition should reduce charges and fees. Yet there is no sign of such a relationship. That is because much of the competition is phoney, according to a new working paper*.
Antitrust authorities typically gauge competition by looking at how many different banks operate in a given area. But the authors argue that this ignores the fact that a handful of big asset-management firms have large holdings in many of these “competing” banks (see chart). An investor who owns shares in two rival banks would naturally be reluctant for them to compete away profits. To please their shareholders, the banks might keep charges and fees high.
The authors calculate the extra degree of market concentration implied by American banks’ common ownership. In 2013 this additional concentration was so great that it would typically be associated with an increase of 11% in fees on current accounts, and a rise of 20% in the minimum balance at which banks stop levying fees. Where common...Continue reading
from Economics http://ift.tt/1ZcjVwR
via IFTTT
No comments:
Post a Comment