Research ArticleOpen AccessGoogle Scholar indexed
Disproportionate Safety Preference and the Innovation of Fintech Shadow Banking
University of the Sunshine Coast, Queensland, Australia
- 1 University of the Sunshine Coast, Queensland, Australia
Theoretical Economics Letters·Volume 12 (2022)·Pages 629–635·Published 7 June 2022·DOI10.4236/tel.2022.123035
Copy link · social · email
Abstract
There has been a dramatic shift in financial intermediation in the last 10 - 15 years from traditional banks to shadow banks (non-depository institutions that rely on originate-to-distribute lending model). We link this rise to an emerging literature that shows that certain and uncertain utility functions are different with a disproportionate preference for certainty. We show that such a preference plays a role in diverting lending away from the traditional banking model to the shadow banking model. Furthermore, a low interest-rate environment emerges as the key contributing factor in the dramatic rise of shadow banking.
KeywordsFintech Shadow BanksCertain UtilityUncertain UtilitySecuritization
- Allais, M. (1953). Le comportement de l’homme rationnel devant le risque: Critique des postulats et axiomes de l’ecole americaine. Econometrica, 21, 503-546. https://doi.org/10.2307/1907921
- Andreoni, J., & Sprenger, C. (2010). Certain and Uncertain Utility: The Allais Paradox and Five Decision Theory Phenomena. Levine’s Working Paper Archive.
- Andreoni, J., & Sprenger, C. (2012). Risk Preferences Are Not Time Preferences. American Economic Review, 102, 3357-3376. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.102.7.3357
- Buchak, G., Matvos, G., Piskorski, T., & Seru, A. (2018). Fintech, Regulatory Arbitrage, and the Rise of Shadow Banks. Journal of Financial Economics, 130, 453-483. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2018.03.011
- Diecidue, E., Schmidt, U., & Wakker, P. P. (2004). The Utility of Gambling Reconsidered. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 29, 241-259. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:RISK.0000046145.25793.37
- Gneezy, U., List, J. A., & Wu, G. (2006). The Uncertainty Effect: When a Risky Prospect Is Valued Less Than Its Worst Possible Outcome. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 121, 1283-1309. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/121.4.1283
- Nielson, W. S. (1992). Some Mixed Results on the Boundary Effect. Economics Letters, 39, 275-278. https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-1765(92)90260-6
- Schmidt, U. (1998). A Measurement of the Certainty Effect. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 42, 32-47. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmps.1997.1197
- Serfilippi, E., Carter, M., & Guirkinger, C. (2019). Insurance Contracts When Individuals “Greatly Value” Certainty: Results from a Field Experiment in Burkina Faso. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 180, 731-743. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2019.07.017
- Siddiqi, H. (2017). Certain and Uncertain Utility: A New Perspective on Financial Innovation. Economics Letters, 158, 7-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2017.06.009
- Simonsohn, U. (2009). Direct Risk Aversion: Evidence from Risky Prospects Valued Below Their Worst Outcome. Psychological Science, 20, 686-692. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02349.x