Banking Commission Essays - Systemic Risk, , Term Papers

Banking Commission "More than 70% of commercial bank assets are held by organizations that are supervised by at least two federal agencies; almost half attract the attention of three or four. Banks devote on average about 14% of their non-interest expense to complying with rules" (Anonymous 88). A fool can see that government waste has struck again. This tangled mess of regulation, among other things, increases costs and diffuses accountability for policy actions gone awry. The most effective remedy to correct this problem would be to consolidate most of the supervisory responsibilities of the regulatory agencies into one agency. This would reduce costs to both the government and the banks, and would allow the parts of the agencies not consolidated to concentrate on their primary tasks. One such plan was introduced by Treasury Secretary Lloyd Bentsen in March of 1994. The plan called for folding, into a new independent federal agency (called the Banking Commission), the regulatory portions of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), the Federal Reserve Board, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), and the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS). This plan would save the government $150 to $200 million a year. This would also allow the FDIC to concentrate on deposit insurance and the Fed to concentrate on monetary policy (Anonymous 88). Of course this is Washington, not The Land of Oz, so everyone can't be satisfied with this plan. Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan and FDIC Chairman Ricki R. Tigert have been vocal opponents of the plan. Greenspan has four major complaints about the plan. First, divorced from the banks, the Fed would find it harder to forestall and deal with financial crises. Second, monetary policy would suffer because the Fed would have less access to review the banks. Thirdly, a supervisor with no macroeconomic concerns might be too inclined to discourage banks from taking risks, slowing the economy down. Lastly, creating a single regulator would do away with important checks and balances, in the process damaging state bank regulation (Anonymous 88). To answer these criticisms it is necessary to make clear what the Fed's job is. The Fed has three main responsibilities: to ensure financial stability, to implement monetary policy, and to oversee a smoothly functioning payments system (delivering checks and transferring funds) (Syron 3). The responsibilities of the Fed are linked to the banking system. For the Fed to carry out its job it must have detailed knowledge of the working of banks and financial markets. Central banks know from the experience of financial crises that regulatory and monetary policy directly influence each other. For example, a banking crises can disturb monetary policy, discouraging lending and destroying consumer confidence, they can also disrupt the ability to make or receive payments by check or to transfer funds. It is for these reasons that it is argued that the Fed must maintain a regulatory role with banks. The Treasury plan would leave the Fed some access to the review of banks. The Fed, which lends through its discount window and operates an interbank money transfer system, would have full access to bank examination data. Because regulatory policy affects monetary policy and systemic risk, it is necessary that the Fed have at least some jurisdiction. The Fed must be able to effectively deal with current policy concerns. The Banking Commission would be mainly concerned with the safety and stability of the banks. This would encourage conservative regulations, and could inhibit economic growth. The Fed clearly has a hands on knowledge of the banking system. "The common indicators of monetary policy - the monetary aggregates, the federal funds rate, and the growth of loans - are all influenced by bank behavior and bank regulation. Understanding changes and taking action in a timely fashion can be achieved only by maintaining contact with examiners who are directly monitoring banks" (Syron 7). The banking system is what ultimately determines monetary policy. It is only common sense to have personnel in the Fed that have a better understanding of the system other than just through financial statements and examination reports. The Fed also needs the authority to change bank behavior that is inconsistent with its established monetary policy and with financial stability. This requires both the responsibility for writing the regulations and the responsibility for enforcing those regulations through bank supervision. State banking charters have already started to be affected. Under the proposed plan, state chartered banks would be subject to two regulators. While the federal bank would have only one. Thus, making the state bank charter less attractive. However, an increasing number

German Battleship Bismarck in World War II

German Battleship Bismarck in World War II Bismarck was the first of two Bismarck-class battleships that were ordered for the Kriegsmarine in the years prior to World War II. Built by Blohm and Voss, the battleship mounted a main battery of eight 15 guns and was capable of a top speed of over 30 knots. Quickly identified as a threat by the Royal Navy, efforts to track Bismarck were underway after its commissioning in August 1940. Ordered on its first mission into the Atlantic the following year, Bismarck won a victory over HMS Hood at the Battle of the Denmark Strait, but soon came under a combined attack by British ships and aircraft. Damaged by an aerial torpedo, Bismarck was sunk by British surface ships on May 27, 1941. Design In 1932, German naval leaders requested a series of battleship designs intended to fit within the 35,000 ton limit imposed on leading maritime nations by the Washington Naval Treaty.  Initial work began on what became the Bismarck-class the following year and initially centered around an armament of eight 13 guns and a top speed of 30 knots. In 1935, the signing of the Anglo-German Naval Agreement accelerated German efforts as it allowed the Kriegsmarine to build up to 35% of the total tonnage of the Royal Navy. Additionally, it bound the Kriegsmarine to the Washington Naval Treaty tonnage restrictions. Increasingly concerned about Frances naval expansion, German designers sought to create a new type of battleship that would out-class the newer French vessels. Design work moved forward with debates ensuing over the caliber of the main battery, type of propulsion system, and thickness of the armor.  These were further complicated in 1937 with the departure of Japan from the treaty system and implementation of an escalator clause that increased the tonnage limit to 45,000 tons. When German designers learned that the new French Richelieu-class would mount 15 guns, the decision was made use similar weapons in four two-gun turrets. This battery was supplemented by a secondary battery of twelve 5.9 (150 mm) guns. Several means of propulsion were considered including turbo-electric, diesel geared, and steam drives. After assessing each, turbo-electric drive was initially favored as it had proven effective aboard the American Lexington-class aircraft carriers. Construction As construction moved forward, the new class propulsion came to be  geared turbine engines turning three propellers. For protection, the new class mounted an armor belt ranging in thickness from 8.7 to 12.6. This area of the ship was further protected by 8.7 armored, transverse bulkheads. Elsewhere, armor for the conning tower was 14 on the sides and 7.9 on the roof. The armor scheme reflected the German approach of maximizing protection while maintaining stability. Ordered under the name  Ersatz Hannover, the lead ship of the new class, Bismarck, was laid down at Blohm Voss in Hamburg on July 1, 1936. The first name served as an indication that the new vessel was replacing the old pre-dreadnought Hannover. Sliding down the ways on February 14, 1939, the new battleship was sponsored by  Dorothee von Là ¶wenfeld, granddaughter of Chancellor Otto von Bismarck. Bismarck would be followed a second battleship of its class, Tirpitz, in 1941. Fast Facts: Battleship Bismarck General Nation: Nazi GermanyType: BattleshipShipyard: Blohm Voss, HamburgLaid Down: July 1, 1936Launched: February 14, 1939Commissioned: August 24, 1940Fate: Sunk in action, May 27, 1941 Specifications Displacement: 45,451 tonnesLength: 450.5mBeam (Width): 36mDraft:: 9.3-10.2mPropulsion: 12 High-pressure Wagner boilers powering 3 Blohm Voss geared turbines at 150,170 horsepowerSpeed: 30.8 knotsRange: 8,525 nautical miles at 19 knots, 4,500 nautical miles at 28 knotsComplement: 2,092: 103 officers, 1,989 enlisted Armament Guns 8Ãâ€"380 mm/L48.5 SK-C/34 (4 turrets with 2 guns each)12Ãâ€"150 mm/L55 SK-C/2816Ãâ€"105 mm/L65 SK-C/37 / SK-C/3316Ãâ€"37 mm/L83 SK-C/3012Ãâ€"20 mm/L65 MG C/30 (Single)8Ãâ€"20 mm/L65 MG C/38 (Quadruple) Aircraft 4Ãâ€" Arado Ar 196 A-3 seaplanes, using 1 double-ended catapult Early Career Commissioned in August 1940, with Captain  Ernst Lindemann in command, Bismarck departed Hamburg to conduct sea trials in Kiel Bay.  Testing of the ships armament, power plant, and seakeeping abilities continued through the fall in the relative safety of the Baltic Sea. Arriving at Hamburg in December, the battleship entered the yard for repairs and alterations. Though scheduled to return to Kiel in January, a wreck in the Kiel Canal prevented this from occurring until March. Finally reaching the Baltic, Bismarck resumed training operations. With World War II underway, the German Kriegsmarine envisioned using Bismarck as a raider to attack British convoys in the North Atlantic. With its 15 guns, the battleship would be able to strike from a distance, inflicting maximum damage while placing itself at minimal risk. Bismarck, photographed from Prinz Eugen, in the Baltic at the outset of Operation Rheinà ¼bung, May 1941. Bundesarchiv, Bild 146-1989-012-03 / Lagemann / CC-BY-SA 3.0 The battleships first mission in this role was dubbed Operation Rheinà ¼bung (Exercise Rhine) and proceeded under the command of  Vice Admiral Gà ¼nter Là ¼tjens. Sailing in tandem with the cruiser Prinz Eugen, Bismarck departed Norway on May 22, 1941, and headed towards the shipping lanes. Aware of Bismarcks departure, the Royal Navy had begun moving ships to intercept. Steering north and west, Bismarck headed for the Denmark Strait between Greenland and Iceland. Battle of the Denmark Straight Entering the strait, Bismarck was detected by the cruisers HMS Norfolk and HMS Suffolk which called for reinforcements. Responding were the battleship HMS Prince of Wales and the battlecruiser HMS Hood. The two intercepted the Germans at the south end of the strait on the morning of May 24. Less than 10 minutes after the ships opened fire, Hood was struck in one of its magazines causing an explosion that blew the ship in half. Unable to take on both German ships alone, Prince of Wales broke off the fight. During the battle, Bismarck was hit in a fuel tank, causing a leak and forcing a reduction in speed (Map). Bismarck fires on HMS Prince of Wales during the Battle of the Denmark Strait. Bundesarchiv Bild 146-1984-055-13 Sink the Bismarck! Unable to continue with his mission, Là ¼tjens ordered Prinz Eugen to continue on while he turned the leaking Bismarck toward France. On the night of May 24, aircraft from the carrier HMS Victorious attacked with little effect. Two days later aircraft from HMS Ark Royal scored a hit, jamming Bismarcks rudder. Unable to maneuver, the ship was forced to steam in a slow circle while awaiting the arrival of the British battleships HMS King George V and HMS Rodney. They were sighted the following morning and Bismarcks final battle commenced. Bismarck burning in the distance as HMS Rodney (right) fires, May 27, 1941. Public Domain Assisted by the heavy cruisers HMS Dorsetshire and Norfolk, the two British battleships pummeled the stricken Bismarck, knocking its guns out of action and killing most of the senior officers on board. After 30 minutes, the cruisers attacked with torpedoes. Unable to resist further, Bismarcks crew scuttled the ship to prevent its capture. British ships raced in to pick up the survivors and rescued 110 before a U-boat alarm forced them to leave the area. Close to 2,000 German sailors were lost.

Business Analysis Of Deutsche Bank Research Paper

Business Analysis Of Deutsche Bank - Research Paper Example On the other hand, Wall Street's S&P 500 index rose only 3%. (Deutsche Bank Group Annual Report, 2005). The value of the bank therefore rose by 10 billion to 45.42 billion. (Deutsche Bank Group Annual Report, 2005) Increase firm value and increase dividends is reflecting good performance during the year 2004. The increase in stock price might also be as a result of the announcement of the higher dividends, thus signalling some positive information about the profitability of the company to potential investors who increase their bids for the stock thereby causing the rise in its price. Basic Earnings per share, the portion of the bank's profit allocated to each outstanding shareholder and which serves as an indicator of profitability also witnessed an increase from 5.02 in 2004 to 7.62 in 2005. This represents a percentage increase of The diluted earnings per share represents the earnings per share, including common stock, preference shares, unexercised stock options, unexercised warrants, and some convertible bonds. The figures for Deutsche Bank during the periods 2004 and 2005 were 4.53 and 6.95 respectively. This translates to a percentage increase from 2004 to 2005 of: The average equity shares outstanding in 2004 and 2005 were 493 and 463 respectively. This reflects a decrease in the number of shares by 493million-463million = 30million. This decrease might be attributed to redemption of shares through share repurchases. For example the company completed its share buy bank program in 2005. (Deutsche Bank Annual Report, 2005). The average shares outstanding for diluted shares, that is, taking into account preference shares and the number of shares that will be outstanding after all stock options, warrants, and convertible bonds would have been exercised in addition to ordinary shares amounted to 532million and 509million respectively. This also represents a drop in the number by 532million - 509 million = 23million. This drop might also be attributed to a redemption of some of the convertible issues such as bonds and warrants and as a result of out-of-the-money stock options at the maturity date. Deutsche Bank had a post-tax return on average shareholders equity of 9.1% and 12.5% in 2004 and 2005 respectively. This represents an increase by 3.4 which represents a percentage increase of: More revenue was generated to for shareholders, that is after paying off preference shareholders, bond holders and warrant holders in 2005 than in 2004. the company had a post-tax return on active equity of 14.8% and 21.7% for 2004 and 2005 respectively this also represents a very high percentage increase and also goes a long way to conclude that more shareholder value was created in 2005 as opposed to 2006 as can be