The Cost of Banking Panics in an Age before 'Too Big to Fail'

36 Pages Posted: 8 Dec 2011

Date Written: November 28, 2011

Abstract

How costly were the banking panics of the National Banking Era (1861-1913)? I combine two hand-collected data sets - the weekly statements of the New York Clearing House banks and the monthly holding period return of every stock listed on the NYSE - to estimate the cost of banking panics in an era before “too big to fail.” The bank statements allow me to construct a hypothetical insurance contract which would have allowed investors to insure against sudden deposit withdrawals and the cross-section of stock returns allow us to draw inferences about the marginal utility during panic states. Panics were costly. The cross-section of gilded-age stock returns imply investors would have willing paid a 14% annual premium above actuarial fair value to insure $100 against unexpected deposit withdrawals The implied consumption of stock investors suggests that the consumption loss associated with National Banking Era bank runs was far more costly than the consumption loss from stock market crashes.

Keywords: Bank panics, asset pricing, Financial Crises, Asset Pricing, Trading volume, Bond Interest Rates, Economic History, Financial Markets and Institutions, General, International, or Comparative

JEL Classification: G01, G12, N2

Suggested Citation

Chabot, Benjamin Remy, The Cost of Banking Panics in an Age before 'Too Big to Fail' (November 28, 2011). FRB of Chicago Working Paper No. 2011-15, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1969879 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1969879

Benjamin Remy Chabot (Contact Author)

Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago ( email )

230 South LaSalle Street
Chicago, IL 60604
United States

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Downloads
176
Abstract Views
1,088
Rank
310,453
PlumX Metrics