<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Ulrich Schüwer | Macro Paper Warehouse</title><link>https://macropaperwarehouse.com/authors/ulrich-schuwer/</link><description>Ulrich Schüwer</description><generator>Hugo -- gohugo.io</generator><language>en-us</language><atom:link href="https://macropaperwarehouse.com/authors/ulrich-schuwer/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>Unequal and Unstable: Income Inequality and Bank Risk</title><link>https://macropaperwarehouse.com/papers/unequal-and-unstable-income-inequality-and-bank-risk/</link><guid>https://macropaperwarehouse.com/papers/unequal-and-unstable-income-inequality-and-bank-risk/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;This paper documents that U.S. metropolitan statistical areas with higher income inequality have a larger share of failed banks, higher average bank default probabilities, and greater dispersion of bank risk, using cross-sectional regressions across 178 MSAs and 5,543 banks over 2000–2019 with the Gini coefficient measured from the 2006 American Community Survey. A move from the 25th to the 75th percentile of the Gini distribution (0.429 to 0.460) is associated with a 0.124 percentage point higher share of failed banks, a large effect relative to the 0.3 percent mean failure rate in the sample. To account for these patterns, the paper builds a general equilibrium model in the Allen and Gale (2000) tradition in which banks compete to lend to households that differ by income and finance housing purchases with mortgages; competition and deposit insurance together induce some banks to lend to low-income (subprime) households at rates that carry negative expected present value, creating a segment of endogenously risky banks that fail with positive probability in the bad state. Income inequality expands the subprime borrower pool both directly — by shifting more households below the endogenous income cutoff — and indirectly — by raising the equilibrium cutoff itself via higher housing prices — leading to a larger share of risky banks. A key counterfactual result is that if deposit insurance premiums fully reflected bank-specific risk (eliminating risk-shifting), all banks would be safe regardless of the income distribution, isolating risk-shifting as the necessary friction.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>