Abstract
Congress, late in 1991, enacted a banking reform measure that (i) authorizes $70 billion of additional FDIC funding, (ii) enhances bank regulation and supervision, and (Hi) adopts a “trip wire” system for increasingly severe regulation based on a bank's capital. Congress rejected a number of key elements of the Treasury proposal submitted early in 1991, such as interstate banking and expanded bank powers. The Congressional action does not end the debate over banking reform. In due time, other attempts likely will be made to restructure the banking system along the lines of the Treasury proposal.The Treasury proposal's positive points failed to offset its fundamental problems. The Congressional action, though not subject to the Treasury proposal's problems, falls short of complete deposit insurance reform. Both proposals fail to recognize that regulatory oversight is a poor substitute for market discipline in the current financial environment.This paper reviews problems with the financial reform process and failure of the Treasury proposal to recognize these problems. It also reviews alternative approaches to deposit insurance reform.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
