There are three categories of innovation: institutional, product, and process. Institutional innovations relate to the creation of new types of financial firms such as specialist credit card firms, investment consulting firms and related services, and direct banks. Product innovation relates to new products such as derivatives, securitization, and foreign currency mortgages. Process innovations relate to new ways of doing financial business, including online banking and telephone banking.[1]
Background
Financial innovations emerge as a result of a complex interaction between and among household savings and borrowing needs, firm financing needs, the need to identify and manage risks, advances in financial theory and information technology, financial sector profit motives, and, finally, macroeconomic and regulatory factors.[2] Furthermore, distinct financial innovations may arise in different ways depending on whether they are products, platforms, or processes. Several explanations for the emergence of financial innovation have been presented.
Economic theory has much to say about what types of securities should exist, and why some may not exist (why some markets should be "incomplete") but little to say about why new types of securities should come into existence.
One interpretation of the Modigliani–Miller theorem is that taxes and regulation are the only reasons for investors to care what kinds of securities firms issue, whether debt, equity, or something else. The theorem states that the structure of a firm's liabilities should have no bearing on its net worth (absent taxes). The securities may trade at different prices depending on their composition, but they must ultimately add up to the same value.
The traditional account of the determinants of financial innovation in economics is the rationalist approach, which is found in Proposition I of the Modigliani and Miller (M&M) irrelevance theory.[3] According to Proposition I, a company's worth is determined by its potential to generate profits and the risk of its underlying assets. The M&M theory remains true only when substantial assumptions about market flaws are made. These imperfections include information asymmetries, adverse selection and agency problems,[4] incomplete markets,[5] regulation and taxes,[6] and other frictions that limit market participants' ability to maximize utility and would necessitate financial innovations to reduce.[5]
Parallel to the M&M theorem go the works of Markowitz on risk modeling, Eugene Fama on efficient financial markets, William F. Sharpe on quantifying the value of an asset, and Black, Scholes, and Merton on the value of risk laid the path for financial innovations to arise.[7] Yet, the M&M concept has a fundamental problem. The dominant perspective in M&M theory is demand-driven, which overlooks that financial innovations might represent a technological push, meaning they can originate irrespective of market demand reasons. For a long period, the push-pull argument dominated technical thought.[8] Industrial technologists have determined that both elements (push and pull) are relevant.[8] Following this conclusion, the emphasis has shifted to comprehending the confluence of economic, political, institutional, and technological elements, underpinning innovations.[9]
Furthermore, there should be little demand for specific types of securities. The capital asset pricing model, first developed by Jack L. Treynor and William Sharpe, suggests that investors should fully diversify and their portfolios should be a mixture of the "market" and a risk-free investment. Investors with different risk/return goals can use leverage to increase the ratio of the market return to the risk-free return in their portfolios. However, Richard Roll argued that this model was incorrect, because investors cannot invest in the entire market. This implies there should be demand for instruments that open up new types of investment opportunities (since this gets investors closer to being able to buy the entire market), but not for instruments that merely repackage existing risks (since investors already have as much exposure to those risks in their portfolio).
If the world existed as the Arrow–Debreu model posits, then there would be no need for financial innovation. The model assumes that investors are able to purchase securities that pay off if and only if a certain state of the world occurs. Investors can then combine these securities to create portfolios that have whatever payoff they desire. The fundamental theorem of finance states that the price of assembling such a portfolio will be equal to its expected value under the appropriate risk-neutral measure.
Academic literature
Tufano (2003) and Duffie and Rahi (1995) provide useful reviews of the literature.
The extensive literature on principal–agent problems, adverse selection, and information asymmetry points to why investors might prefer some types of securities, such as debt, over others like equity. Myers and Majluf (1984) develop an adverse selection model of equity issuance, in which firms (which are trying to maximize profits for existing shareholders) issue equity only if they are desperate. This was an early article in the pecking order literature, which states that firms prefer to finance investments out of retained earnings first, then debt, and finally equity, because investors are reluctant to trust any firm that needs to issue equity.
Duffie and Rahi also devote a considerable section to examining the utility and efficiency implications of financial innovation. This is also the topic of many of the papers in the special edition of the Journal of Economic Theory in which theirs is the lead article. The usefulness of spanning the market appears to be limited (or, equivalently, the disutility of incomplete markets is not great).
Allen and Gale (1988) is one of the first papers to endogenize security issuance contingent on financial regulation—specifically, bans on short sales. In these circumstances, they find that the traditional split of cash flows between debt and equity is not optimal, and that state-contingent securities are preferred. Ross (1989) develops a model in which new financial products must overcome marketing and distribution costs. Persons and Warther (1997) studied booms and busts associated with financial innovation.
The fixed costs of creating liquid markets for new financial instruments appears to be considerable. Black and Scholes (1974) describe some of the difficulties they encountered when trying to market the forerunners to modern index funds. These included regulatory problems, marketing costs, taxes, and fixed costs of management, personnel, and trading. Shiller (2008) describes some of the frustrations involved with creating a market for house price futures.
Examples
Spanning the market
Some types of financial instrument became prominent after macroeconomic conditions forced investors to be more aware of the need to hedge certain types of risk.
Interest rate swaps were developed in the early 1980s after interest rates skyrocketed
Collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) were heavily influenced by the popularization of the copula technique[10] However, they also played a role in the 2008 financial crisis.
Futures, options, and many other types of derivatives have been around for centuries: the Japanese rice futures market started trading around 1730. However, recent decades have seen an explosion use of derivatives and mathematically complicated securitization techniques. From a sociological point of view, some economists argue that mathematical formulas actually change the way that economic agents use and price assets. Economists, rather than acting as a camera taking an objective picture of the way the world works, actively change behavior by providing formulas that let dispersed agents agree on prices for new assets.[11] See Exotic derivative, Exotic option.
Avoiding taxes and regulation
Miller (1986) placed great emphasis on the role of taxes and government regulation in stimulating financial innovation.[6] The Modigliani–Miller theorem explicitly considered taxes as a reason to prefer one type of security over another, despite that corporations and investors should be indifferent to capital structure in a fractionless world.
The development of checking accounts at U.S. banks was in order to avoid punitive taxes on state bank notes that were part of the National Banking Act.
Some investors use total return swaps to convert dividends into capital gains, which are taxed at a lower rate.[12]
Many times, regulators have explicitly discouraged or outlawed trading in certain types of financial securities. In the United States, gambling is mostly illegal, and it can be difficult to tell whether financial contracts are illegal gambling instruments or legitimate tools for investment and risk-sharing. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) is in charge of making this determination. The difficulty that the Chicago Board of Trade faced in attempting to trade futures on stocks and stock indexes is described in Melamed (1996).
In the United States, Regulation Q drove several types of financial innovation to get around its interest rate ceilings, including eurodollars and NOW accounts.
Role of technology
Some types of financial innovation are driven by improvements in computer and telecommunication technology. For example, Paul Volcker suggested that for most people, the creation of the ATM was a greater financial innovation than asset-backed securitization.[13] Other types of financial innovation affecting the payments system include credit and debit cards and online payment systems like PayPal.
These types of innovations are notable because they reduce transaction costs. Households need to keep lower cash balances—if the economy exhibits cash-in-advance constraints then these kinds of financial innovations can contribute to greater efficiency. One study of Italian households' use of debit cards found that ownership of an ATM card resulted in benefits worth €17 annually.[14]
These types of innovations may also affect monetary policy by reducing real household balances. Especially with the increased popularity of online banking, households are able to keep greater percentages of their wealth in non-cash instruments. In a special edition of International Finance devoted to the interaction of e-commerce and central banking, Goodhart (2000) and Woodford (2000) express confidence in the ability of a central bank to maintain its policy goals by affecting the short-term interest rate even if electronic money has eliminated the demand for central bank liabilities,[15][16] while Friedman (2000) is less sanguine.[17]
A 2016 PwC report pointed to the "accelerating pace of technological change" as the "most creative force—and also the most destructive—in the financial services ecosystem".[18]
The advancement of technology has enabled a segment of underserved clients to access more complex investing alternatives, such as social trading tools and platforms, and retail algorithmic trading.[19] The first ones help inexperienced investors gain expertise and knowledge, for example, by copy trading, which allows them to imitate top-performing traders' portfolios (e.g., eToro, Estimize, Stocktwits). The second option allows investors with minimum technical skills to build, backtest, and implement trading algorithms, which they may then share with others (Streak, Quantopian & Zipline, Numerai).[20] These solutions, mostly provided by FinTechs, provide simple and fast ways to optimize returns. They are also less expensive than traditional investment management since, unlike traditional investment management, most social trading platforms do not demand a minimum investment to get started.[20]
In developed markets, the amount of algorithm trading is now approximately 70-80%.[21] Advances in computer computing power, data collecting, and telecommunications all contributed to the creation of algorithmic trading.[22]
Consequences
Financial innovations may influence economic or financial systems. For instance, financial innovation may affect monetary policy effectiveness and the ability of central banks to stabilize the economy. The relationship between money and interest rates, which can define monetary policy effectiveness, is affected by financial innovation. Financial innovation also influences firm profitability, transactions, and social welfare.[23]
According to the traditional innovation-growth theory, financial innovations assist in increasing the quality and diversity of banking services, allow risk sharing, complete the market, and, ultimately, improve allocative efficiency. Thus, concentrating on the positive aspects of financial innovation.[24][25][26][27]
The innovation fragility perspective, on the other hand, focuses on the "dark" side of innovation. It specifically identified financial innovations as the root cause of the recent Global Financial Crisis, leading to unprecedented credit expansion that fueled the boom and subsequent bust in housing prices, engineering securities perceived to be safe but exposed to overlooked risks, and assisting banks in developing structured products to capitalize on investors' misunderstandings of financial markets.[28][29][30]
There is no definitive evidence of whether financial innovation benefits or damages the financial industry. Nevertheless, there is compelling evidence that financial innovation is linked to higher levels of economic growth.[31] Similarly, there is evidence that financial innovation promotes bank expansion and financial depth.[32]
Criticism
Some economists argue that financial innovation has little to no productivity benefit: Paul Volcker stated that "there is little correlation between sophistication of a banking system and productivity growth",[13] that there is no "neutral evidence that financial innovation has led to economic growth",[33] and that financial innovation was a cause of the financial crisis of 2007–2010,[34] while Paul Krugman states that "the rapid growth in finance since 1980 has largely been a matter of rent-seeking, rather than true productivity".[35]
1 2 Miller, Merton H. (1986). "Financial Innovation: The Last Twenty Years and the Next". The Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis. 21 (4): 459–471. doi:10.2307/2330693. JSTOR2330693. S2CID154745008.
↑ Mandelbrot, Benoît B.; Hudson, Richard L. (2006). The (mis)behavior of markets: a fractal view of financial turbulence; [with a new preface on the financial crisis] (1. publ. paperbacked.). New York: Basic Books. ISBN978-0-465-04357-6.
↑ Goodhart, Charles A. E. (2000). "Can Central Banking Survive the IT Revolution?". International Finance. 3 (2): 189–209. doi:10.1111/1468-2362.00048.
Allen, Franklin; Douglas Gale (1988). "Optimal Security Design". The Review of Financial Studies. 1 (3): 229–263. doi:10.1093/rfs/1.3.229.
Duffie, Darrell; Rohit Rahi (1995). "Financial Market Innovation and Security Design: An Introduction". Journal of Economic Theory. 65 (1): 1–42. doi:10.1006/jeth.1995.1001.
Melamed, Leo (1996). Leo Melamed: Escape to the Futures (Firsted.). Wiley. ISBN978-0-471-11215-0.
Myers, Stewart C.; Majluf, Nicholas S. (1984). "Corporate financing and investment decisions when firms have information that investors do not have". Journal of Financial Economics. 13 (2): 187–221. doi:10.1016/0304-405X(84)90023-0. hdl:1721.1/2068.
Persons, John C.; Warther, Vincent A. (1997). "Boom and Bust Patterns in the Adoption of Financial Innovations". The Review of Financial Studies. 10 (4): 939–967. doi:10.1093/rfs/10.4.939.
Ross, Stephen A. (1989). "Institutional Markets, Financial Marketing, and Financial Innovation". The Journal of Finance. 44 (3): 541–556. doi:10.2307/2328769. JSTOR2328769.
Tufano, Peter (2003). "Chapter 6 Financial innovation". The Handbook of the Economics of Finance. Vol.1A. Elsevier. pp.307–335. ISBN978-0-0804-9507-1.
Related Research Articles
Finance is the study and discipline of money, currency and capital assets. It is related to but distinct from economics, which is the study of the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services. Based on the scope of financial activities in financial systems, the discipline can be divided into personal, corporate, and public finance.
In finance, speculation is the purchase of an asset with the hope that it will become more valuable shortly. It can also refer to short sales in which the speculator hopes for a decline in value.
Financial economics is the branch of economics characterized by a "concentration on monetary activities", in which "money of one type or another is likely to appear on both sides of a trade". Its concern is thus the interrelation of financial variables, such as share prices, interest rates and exchange rates, as opposed to those concerning the real economy. It has two main areas of focus: asset pricing and corporate finance; the first being the perspective of providers of capital, i.e. investors, and the second of users of capital. It thus provides the theoretical underpinning for much of finance.
In finance, the capital asset pricing model (CAPM) is a model used to determine a theoretically appropriate required rate of return of an asset, to make decisions about adding assets to a well-diversified portfolio.
Investment banking pertains to certain activities of a financial services company or a corporate division that engages in providing advisory-based services on financial transactions for clients, such as institutional investors, corporations, and governments. Traditionally associated with corporate finance, such a bank might assist in raising financial capital by underwriting or acting as the client's agent in the issuance of debt or equity securities. An investment bank may also assist companies involved in mergers and acquisitions (M&A) and provide ancillary services such as market making, trading of derivatives and equity securities, FICC services or research. Most investment banks maintain prime brokerage and asset management departments in conjunction with their investment research businesses. As an industry, it is broken up into the Bulge Bracket, Middle Market, and boutique market.
In corporate finance, capital structure refers to the mix of various forms of external funds, known as capital, used to finance a business. It consists of shareholders' equity, debt, and preferred stock, and is detailed in the company's balance sheet. The larger the debt component is in relation to the other sources of capital, the greater financial leverage the firm is said to have. Too much debt can increase the risk of the company and reduce its financial flexibility, which at some point creates concern among investors and results in a greater cost of capital. Company management is responsible for establishing a capital structure for the corporation that makes optimal use of financial leverage and holds the cost of capital as low as possible.
In finance, the beta is a statistic that measures the expected increase or decrease of an individual stock price in proportion to movements of the stock market as a whole. Beta can be used to indicate the contribution of an individual asset to the market risk of a portfolio when it is added in small quantity. It refers to an asset's non-diversifiable risk, systematic risk, or market risk. Beta is not a measure of idiosyncratic risk.
A corporate bond is a bond issued by a corporation in order to raise financing for a variety of reasons such as to ongoing operations, mergers & acquisitions, or to expand business. It is a longer-term debt instrument indicating that a corporation has borrowed a certain amount of money and promises to repay it in the future under specific terms. Corporate debt instruments with maturity shorter than one year are referred to as commercial paper.
Active management is an approach to investing. In an actively managed portfolio of investments, the investor selects the investments that make up the portfolio. Active management is often compared to passive management or index investing.
A structured product, also known as a market-linked investment, is a pre-packaged structured finance investment strategy based on a single security, a basket of securities, options, indices, commodities, debt issuance or foreign currencies, and to a lesser extent, derivatives. Structured products are not homogeneous — there are numerous varieties of derivatives and underlying assets — but they can be classified under the aside categories. Typically, a desk will employ a specialized "structurer" to design and manage its structured-product offering.
A market anomaly in a financial market is predictability that seems to be inconsistent with theories of asset prices. Standard theories include the capital asset pricing model and the Fama-French Three Factor Model, but a lack of agreement among academics about the proper theory leads many to refer to anomalies without a reference to a benchmark theory. Indeed, many academics simply refer to anomalies as "return predictors", avoiding the problem of defining a benchmark theory.
Sanford "Sandy" Jay Grossman is an American economist and hedge fund manager specializing in quantitative finance. Grossman’s research has spanned the analysis of information in securities markets, corporate structure, property rights, and optimal dynamic risk management. He has published widely in leading economic and business journals, including American Economic Review, Journal of Econometrics, Econometrica, and Journal of Finance. His research in macroeconomics, finance, and risk management has earned numerous awards. Grossman is currently Chairman and CEO of QFS Asset Management, an affiliate of which he founded in 1988. QFS Asset Management shut down its sole remaining hedge fund in January 2014.
Robert Alan Jarrow is the Ronald P. and Susan E. Lynch Professor of Investment Management at the Johnson Graduate School of Management, Cornell University. Professor Jarrow is a co-creator of the Heath–Jarrow–Morton framework for pricing interest rate derivatives, a co-creator of the reduced form Jarrow–Turnbull credit risk models employed for pricing credit derivatives, and the creator of the forward price martingale measure. These tools and models are now the standards utilized for pricing and hedging in major investment and commercial banks.
In corporate finance, the pecking order theory postulates that the cost of financing increases with asymmetric information.
Zvi Bodie is an American economist, author and professor. He was the Norman and Adele Barron Professor of Management at Boston University, teaching finance at Questrom for 43 years before retiring in 2015. His textbook, Investments, (with Kane and Marcus) is the market leader and is used in the certification programs of the CFA Institute and the Society of Actuaries. Bodie's work has centered on pension finance and investment strategy. He continues to do consulting work and media interviews.
The following outline is provided as an overview of and topical guide to finance:
Robert (Bob) Arthur Haugen was a financial economist and a pioneer in the field of quantitative investing and low-volatility investing. He was President of Haugen Custom Financial Systems and also consulted and spoke globally.
Financialization is a term sometimes used to describe the development of financial capitalism during the period from 1980 to present, in which debt-to-equity ratios increased and financial services accounted for an increasing share of national income relative to other sectors.
George S. Oldfield is a financial economist. He has been published extensively, and is cited for his work on the effects of a firm's unvested pension benefits on its share price published in the Journal of Money, Credit and Banking in 1977.
Factor investing is an investment approach that involves targeting quantifiable firm characteristics or “factors” that can explain differences in stock returns. Security characteristics that may be included in a factor-based approach include size, low-volatility, value, momentum, asset growth, profitability, leverage, term and carry.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
This article incorporates textfrom this source, which is available under the CC BY 4.0 license.
