Экология. НОВ.2019_Сборник_контрольных_работ_для_заочников_ФЗО_1. Технологический университет
 Скачать 1.02 Mb.
|
Вариант 2 для направления подготовки 38.03.01 Экономика (Экономика предприятий и организаций)Прочитайте и устно переведите текст на русский язык. BANK HOLDING COMPANIES Until the 1960s, bank holding companies (BHCs) were a minor part of the US banking scene, controlling about 15% of total bank deposits. By the 1990s, 92% of banks were owned by BHCs. They became popular in the 1950s when banks found they could establish a bank holding company to circumvent the regulations: only wholly owned banking subsidiaries were required to conform to banking regulations. The Bank Holding Company Act, 1956, defined a BHC as any firm holding at least 25% of the voting stock of a bank subsidiary. It required BHCs to be registered with the Federal Reserve. The purpose of the Act was to restrict BHC activity but by granting them legal status, it actually encouraged their growth. BHCs could circumvent the interstate branching laws, via ‘‘multi-bank’’ holding companies. The BHC organisational framework also meant banks could diversify into non-bank financial activities such as credit card operations, mortgage lending, data processing, investment management advice and discount brokerage. They were also attractive for tax reasons. However, they could not engage in certain financial businesses (for example, securities) excluded by Glass Steagall, or in businesses not closely related to banking, as specified in the regulations. The Amendment (1970) to the 1956 Act increased control by the Federal Reserve over BHCs, which in turn tried to limit BHCs to offering banking products, and engaging in non-banking financial activities. However, the bank holding company structure continued to expand, with BHCs acquiring domestic and overseas banks. In 1987, the Supreme Court ruled that section 20 of the Glass Steagall Act did not extend to subsidiaries of commercial banks. It meant they could offer investment banking services, provided they were not ‘‘engaged principally’’ in the said activities. In 1987, the Federal Reserve allowed BHCs (see below) to create section 20 subsidiaries which could undertake securities activities if the revenues generated did not exceed 5% (later raised to 10%, then 25% in 1996) of total BHC revenue. These subsidiaries captured substantial market share in some areas. For example, in 1997, JP Morgan and Chase were in the top 10 underwriters of domestic equity and debt. Pressure to repeal the Glass Steagall Banking Act increased, especially in the 1990s. In June 1991 a key House of Representatives Committee, considering a Banking Reform Bill, voted in favour of breaking down barriers between banking and commerce. But most aspects of this legislation collapsed in November 1991. In October 1993, Lloyd Bentsen, the Treasury Secretary, set out an agenda for banking reform. Unlike the failed attempt at reform in 1991, the Bentsen agenda did not call for a repeal of Glass Steagall, but did support reforms for interstate banking (see below). The Chairman of the House banking committee (Mr Leach) claimed his top priority was to repeal Glass Steagall. Finally, in November 1999, the Gramm Leach Bliley Financial Modernisation Act (GLB) was signed into law by President Clinton. The GLB Act was passed at a time when technology and other factors were eroding the boundary between commercial and investment banking. Investment banks had been able to enter retail banking through money market funds, cash management accounts and non-bank banks – though legislation put an end to the latter (see below). Merrill Lynch, an investment bank, owns two thrifts, and together with other subsidiaries engages in a limited amount of deposit taking and lending. From 1987, commercial banks began to offer some investment banking services through section 20 subsidiaries. According to Sweeney (2000), 43% of banks offered insurance products in 1998, a year before the new legislation (see below) was passed. Perhaps the greatest pressure was competitive: it was increasingly difficult for US banks to compete in global markets with the European universal banks. (Шпетный К.И., Калмыкова Е.И., Захарова М.А., Казанчян К.П. Английский язык для экономистов) II. Письменно переведите 2 и 3 абзац. III. Найдите абзац, где выражается основная идея текста. Вариант 3 для направления подготовки 38.03.01 Экономика (Экономика предприятий и организаций)Прочитайте и устно переведите текст на русский язык. MERCHANT BANKS Barings, the oldest of the UK merchant banks, was founded in 1762. Originally a general merchant, Francis Baring diversified into financing the import and export of goods produced by small firms. The financing was done through bills of exchange. After confirming firms’ credit standings, Barings would charge a fee to guarantee (or ‘‘accept’’) merchants’ bills of exchange. The bills traded at a discount on the market. Small traders were given muchneeded liquidity. These banks were also known as ‘‘accepting houses’’ – a term employed until the early 1980s. They expanded into arranging loans for sovereigns and governments, underwriting, and advising on mergers and acquisitions. Financial reforms,28 including the Financial Services Act (1986), changed merchant banking. The reforms allowed financial firms to trade on the London Stock Exchange, without buying into member firms. Fixed commissions were abolished, and dual capacity dealing for all stocks was introduced. This change eliminated the distinction between ‘‘brokers’’ and ‘‘jobbers’’. Most stock exchange members acted as ‘‘market makers’’, making markets in a stock and brokers, buying and selling shares from the public. These changes made it attractive for banks to enter the stockbroking business, and most of the major banks (both clearing and merchant) purchased broking and jobbing firms or opted for organic growth in this area. The majority of the UK merchant banks began to offer the same range of services as US investment banks, namely, underwriting, mergers and acquisitions, trading (equities, fixed income, proprietary), asset or fund management, global custody and consultancy. As merchant banks became more like investment banks, the terms were used interchangeably and, in the new century, ‘‘merchant bank’’ has all but disappeared from the vocabulary. The UK’s financial regulator, the Financial Services Authority (FSA), has been more sanguine on the conflict of interest issue, even though many of the US investment banks that are party to the April 2003 agreement have extensive operations in London. In a July 2002 discussion paper, the FSA acknowledged the presence of US banks operating in London. The study also identifies a number of conflicts of interest, the main one being when the remuneration of research analysts is dependent on the corporate finance or equity brokerage parts of an investment bank, which generate revenues from underwriting and advisory or brokerage fees. There were no specific accusations of bias, and the FSA noted that institutional investors, who are well informed, are more dominant in the UK markets. However, the paper reports the results of a study by the FSA comparing recommendations on FTSE 100 companies made by firms acting as corporate broker/advisor to the subject company to those made by independent brokers with no such relationship. The main finding was that the firms acting as corporate brokers/advisors to the subject company made nearly twice as many buy recommendations as the independent brokers. Having identified potential conflicts of interest, the FSA noted that many are currently covered under Conduct of Business rules, Code of Market Conduct and insider trading laws. The paper concluded by suggesting four possible options: (1) the status quo; (2) all research reports from investment banks or related firms to be clearly labelled as advertising; (3) following the US route, though this option would require a far more prescriptive approach, which is at odds with the UK’s emphasis on principles; or (4) letting market forces do their job, because investors know who the client firms of investment banks are, and discount any reports coming from their research department. These options were put forward for further discussion, and in 2003 the FSA published a consultative paper (CP171, 2003). It appears the FSA will continue with a principles-based approach, but like the US authorities, recommends analysts should not be involved in any marketing activities undertaken by the investment bank, nor should the investment banking department influence the way analysts are paid. The FSA also suggests that analysts working for a bank underwriting a share issue for a firm should be banned from publishing any research on this firm. There are objections to the last proposal: it is argued that the analyst at the underwriting firm is the best informed about the firm about to go public, so stopping the publication of their reports will mean the market is missing out on a good source of information. Also, what if more than one bank is underwriting a rights issue? Unlike the USA, the banks will not be required to fund independent research. Nor will analysts be required to certify that any published report reflects their personal opinion. However, the FSA has announced plans to educate the public on the risk associated with stock market investments, which is in line with their statutory duties. (Шпетный К.И., Калмыкова Е.И., Захарова М.А., Казанчян К.П. Английский язык для экономистов) II. Письменно переведите 3 и 4 абзац. III. Найдите абзац, где выражается основная идея текста. |