Consumer Shadow Banks

35 Stan. L. & Pol'y Rev. 226

58 Pages Posted: 12 Mar 2024

See all articles by Todd Phillips

Todd Phillips

Georgia State University - J. Mack Robinson College of Business

Matthew A. Bruckner

Howard University School of Law

Date Written: June 07, 2024

Abstract

There is no risk-free way to engage in bank-like activities. Entities that take deposits, transmit money, or otherwise provide custody of funds all generally engage in maturity transformation, a process that turns short-term debts into longer-term investments. Maturity transformation is inherently dangerous. Firms that engage in these activities also face moral hazard, whereby they may act contrary to their customers' interests. Without government intervention and a backstop, institutions that engage in these activities are liable to run, harming their customers. For that reason, the government heavily regulates bank, serves as their lender of last resort, and provides their depositors with insurance. Scholars have long been wary of "shadow banks:" nonbanks that perform bank-like activities without the guardrails that protect bank depositors. 
Shadow banks are not just limited to the largest financial institutions, like those that helped exacerbate the great financial crisis. Retail consumers send and receive payments with P2P platforms, purchase and hold stablecoins, and make deposits in crypto and imitation banks-all of which require maturity transformation-without understanding these institutions' inherent instability and the risks of loss that they pose. Although consumers have seen runs, deposit insurance means they have likely never been harmed by one, and they do not understand the differences between their banks and the "consumer shadow banks" that perform the same or similar functions. 
In this paper, we argue that consumer shadow banks can be "abusive" and should be regulated by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). Accordingly, we urge the CFPB to enact regulations providing minimum standards for their provision, including capital, liquidity, lending limits and limits on extending credit to insiders, safety and soundness standards, and stress testing where appropriate, and subject these firms to supervision.

Keywords: Shadow bank, Crypto, CFPB, stablecoin, money transmitters, imitation banks

Suggested Citation

Phillips, Todd and Bruckner, Matthew A., Consumer Shadow Banks (June 07, 2024). 35 Stan. L. & Pol'y Rev. 226
, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4726443 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4726443

Todd Phillips (Contact Author)

Georgia State University - J. Mack Robinson College of Business ( email )

P.O. Box 4050
Atlanta, GA 30303-3083
United States

Matthew A. Bruckner

Howard University School of Law ( email )

2900 Van Ness Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20008
United States

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics

Downloads
253
Abstract Views
1,052
Rank
240,260
PlumX Metrics