Abstract

The current paradigm of corporate governance theory suggests that the Japanese main bank system and the German universal bank system encourage socially optimal corporate decisionmaking. Unlike their Japanese and German counterparts, American banks are barred from taking an active role in corporate governance, both by laws restricting share ownership, and by legal rules which hold banks liable for exerting managerial control over borrowers. The debate among commentators has focused on whether the German and Japanese systems should be viewed as alternatives to the American model. In this article, Professors Macey and Miller challenge the current paradigm by demonstrating that powerful banks may prevent equity claimants from undertaking socially optimal risks, thereby hindering the development of robust capital markets. They conclude that the most effective model is one which large-block shareholders pose a credible threat to incumbent management and banks maximize their comparative advantage in controlling moral hazard.

Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.