The economic advisers of the 1924 Dawes Committee enacted currency and banking reforms as a means of resolving financial and geopolitical problems. Although the committee members stated that they had no plans to resolve the Ruhr occupation, evidence from the technical advisers demonstrated the opposite. Economists Edwin Kemmerer, Joseph Davis and Arthur Young sought to appease Franco-Belgian demands for a resolution to the reparations debate by balancing the German budget and reorganising the banking system, thereby also addressing the question of military occupation. This research delves into the advisers’ reports on public finance, currency stabilisation and the gold standard, arguing that their attempts to assuage reparation-related concerns rested on major reforms to German central banking.

This paper looks at the urgent and ongoing need to change the business models of global systemically important banks — particularly those that dominate the OTC derivatives markets which carry massive counterparty risk via collateralisation practices. It explores the three main lessons of the financial crisis: too big to fail, excess leverage and conflicts of interest. While regulatory reforms have been plentiful, none have adequately addressed the main source of the problems which lie in the very nature of the business models of large interconnected banks.

Trust allows financial transactions to take place when contracts are incomplete and the cost of negotiating too great for the parties involved. Banking covers many different types of transactions in assets with different levels of incomplete contracts. Investment banks have traditionally dealt with assets with incomplete contracts and often traded on informal and opaque markets. The creation of new global banks combined know-how, capital and collateral to generate enormous growth in these markets. While global banks developed trust with counterparties in specific markets, the opacity combined with limited liability structures also created principal-agent problems. The scandals which emerged are a reflection of these agency problems and have left trust in the banks greatly diminished. If levels of trust remain so low, this will be consistent with ongoing bank vulnerability, less lending to finance risky but profitable investment projects, and consequently lower economic activity. Regulation can support private incentives to accept codes of conduct which enhance trust.

In the aftermath of the economic crisis of 1997–1998, South Korea undertook a number of reforms in financial supervision. Questions have been raised, however, as to whether Korea has in fact succeeded in creating a system of financial supervision capable of dealing with certain risks and responding to new challenges. This article examines Korea's recent experience in financial instability resulting from misconduct by credit card companies as a case in point and argues that the postcrisis reform in financial supervision was limited to changing formal institutions for financial supervision and that further reforms will have to be undertaken in other related institutions if Korea is to improve its financial supervision.