No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Regulatory Reform for the Deposit Financial Institutions–Retrospect and Prospects
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 19 October 2009
Extract
Regulatory reform relating to commercial banks and other deposit financial institutions has been frequently observed to be “crisis-bred.” The National Banking Act, along with fundamental but complementary legislation of 1863 and 1864, was in large measure stimulated by problems of the Civil War. The Federal Reserve Act was an outgrowth of the Panic of 1907 which vividly demonstrated the need for a central bank. The McFadden Act of 1927, the Glass-Steagall Act of 1932, the Reconstruction Finance Act of 1932, the Federal Home Loan Bank Act of 1932, the Home Owners' Loan Act of 1933, the Emergency Banking Act and the Banking Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Banking Act of 1935 all reflected reactions to crises of various dimensions.
- Type
- Reform of Financial Institutions and Markets: A Progress Evaluation
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © School of Business Administration, University of Washington 1974
References
1 For additional details, see the “roundup” on state legislation by Caryl Austrian in the American Banker, beginning February 1, 1974.
2 For example, First International Bancshares, Inc., application to acquire Citizens First National Bank of Tyler (1974 Federal Reserve Bulletin 43) and First City Bancorporation of Texas, Inc., application to acquire The Lufkin National Bank (1974 Federal Reserve Bulletin).
3 In this context, it is interesting to note that the recent federal legislation on NOW accounts prohibits only interest-bearing NOW accounts in states other than New Hampshire and Massachusetts. It is legally arguable that SLAs and MSBs are not prevented from using noninterest-bearing NOW accounts. Connected by wire, they could get directly into the third–party payments system.