Similarly, supervisors, the implementation arm of bank regulators, are able to be much more intrusive and tough on banks and financial institutions than they were, and are much less willing to give the benefit of the doubt.
And in the market more broadly, there is a sense that certain kinds of bad assets should be avoided. First is, we continue to have a system where financial risk and intermediation are highly concentrated, more concentrated than pre-crisis. This is better in the U. The continued lack of competition in the system means there are fewer alternatives for businesses to borrow from when there are problems. What we saw in and was, once the crisis hit, it required very large measures on the part of central banks and governments to keep the situation from spiraling out of control.
In particular, they very much limited the ability of the Federal Reserve to either purchase a wide range of assets in the midst of a big selloff or bail out institutions that are not banks, narrowly defined.
Practically every other major central bank has more powers to do that since the crisis, whereas the Federal Reserve, as a result of Dodd-Frank, has far less power, far less capacity to do that. And so even if Dodd-Frank has helped on some fronts to make a crisis less likely, Dodd-Frank contains in it restrictions on government and central bank action that are likely to make whatever next crisis happens be worse.
Three, in particular, have been raised by the administration and the current Republican leadership in Congress, and have some merit. And it raises the potential that in bad times the crisis could come from the nonbank part of the system anyway.
This is not a partisan issue. Republican vice chair of the FDIC, Thomas Hoenig, a former Federal Reserve bank president, for example, is a strong advocate of more capital for the banking system, as are some Republicans in Congress. They make the misleading claim that having more capital constrains the amount of lending available in the society.
This is untrue. January 18, AM. Dora Mekouar. But what would happen if one did? Back to top. The next highest California again gets the 53rd. New York gets the 54th. Florida gets the 55th. And so on all the way to the th seat.
The bottom line is this: With 3. They'd get the th, th, th and th seats, in addition to their automatic seat, in case you were wondering. The five unlucky states that would lose one seat each? Minnesota, California, Texas, Washington and Florida. The size of the US House of Representatives has been capped at voting members by law for over a century. So Congress could add seats to the House for Puerto Rico.
When Alaska and Hawaii became states, the number of voting representatives was briefly increased to before returning back to with the next census. And then maybe reduce the number with the next census. Puerto Rico currently has one, non-voting resident commissioner. Electoral College watch. The Banking Ombudsman is a senior official appointed by the Reserve Bank of India to redress customer complaints against deficiency in certain banking services covered under the grounds of complaint specified under Clause 8 of the Banking Ombudsman Scheme As amended upto July 1, As on date, twenty Banking Ombudsmen have been appointed with their offices located mostly in state capitals.
The addresses and contact details of the Banking Ombudsman offices have been provided under Annex I of the Scheme. The Banking Ombudsman can receive and consider any complaint relating to the following deficiency in banking services:.
Non-adherence by the bank or its subsidiaries to the instructions of Reserve Bank on credit card operations. Non-disbursement or delay in disbursement of pension to the extent the grievance can be attributed to the action on the part of the bank concerned, but not with regard to its employees ;.
Refusal to issue or delay in issuing, or failure to service or delay in servicing or redemption of Government securities;. Any other matter relating to the violation of the directives issued by the Reserve Bank in relation to banking or other services.
A customer can also lodge a complaint on the following grounds of deficiency in service with respect to loans and advances. The Banking Ombudsman may also deal with such other matter as may be specified by the Reserve Bank from time to time. One can file a complaint before the Banking Ombudsman if the reply is not received from the bank within a period of one month after the bank concerned has received one's complaint, or the bank rejects the complaint, or if the complainant is not satisfied with the reply given by the bank.
One has not made the complaint within one year from the date of receipt of the reply of the bank or if no reply is received, and the complaint to Banking Ombudsman is made after the lapse of more than one year and one month from the date of complaint made to the bank.
The subject matter of the complaint is not pertaining to the grounds of complaint specified under Clause 8 of the Banking Ombudsman Scheme. If the complaint is for the same subject matter that was settled through the office of the Banking Ombudsman in any previous proceedings.
0コメント