下面為大家整理一篇優(yōu)秀的essay代寫范文- Community Banks in the United States，供大家參考學(xué)習(xí)，這篇論文討論了美國(guó)的社區(qū)銀行。近幾年來(lái)，從各方面的指標(biāo)來(lái)看，美國(guó)的社區(qū)銀行表現(xiàn)相當(dāng)強(qiáng)勁。社區(qū)銀行的資產(chǎn)收益率跟凈資產(chǎn)收益率表現(xiàn)類似，已經(jīng)穩(wěn)穩(wěn)地高于歷史最好業(yè)績(jī)時(shí)的基準(zhǔn)。社區(qū)銀行持續(xù)健康的一個(gè)有力指標(biāo)是新社區(qū)銀行持續(xù)創(chuàng)建的比率。美聯(lián)儲(chǔ)始終認(rèn)為，社區(qū)銀行將始終成為美國(guó)經(jīng)濟(jì)一個(gè)充滿活力和勇于創(chuàng)新的行業(yè)。

essay代寫范文

　　Community Banks have long played an important role in the U.S. economy. However, after entering the 21st century, community Banks are confronted with a changing business environment and face many major challenges. Ben Bernanke, chairman of the federal reserve, speaks at the national convention and the world conference on technology in Las Vegas, Nevada, on March 8. This paper discusses the robustness of community Banks, their role in the economy, and how the federal reserve, the regulator of community Banks, is adapting to the new environment.

　　

　　By all measures, community Banks have generally performed strongly recently. For example, the average return on equity, which fell in the wake of the 2001 recession, is still stable and rising slightly. Generally speaking, the return on assets of community Banks is similar to that of return on equity, and has been steadily higher than the benchmark of the best performance in history. Net interest margins are still higher than at big Banks, and have widened even since 2003. In terms of various indicators to measure the quality of loans, the performance of community Banks is also quite high. Moreover, the fed's on-site and off-site inspection systems only detected potential problems at a handful of community Banks. The capital adequacy ratio of community Banks is still very high, and there is still a lot of room for community Banks to continue absorbing savings.

　　

　　A strong indicator of the continued health of community Banks is the rate at which new community Banks are created. For example, if we define a community bank as a bank or savings institution with total real assets of about $1 billion, there will be about 700 new community Banks established from the beginning of 2000 to the end of 2005, with an average annual growth rate of 120. Clearly, many people are still optimistic about the future of community banking. The fed has always believed that community banking will remain a vibrant and innovative sector of the U.S. economy.

　　

　　At the same time, community Banks are also facing great challenges. Trans-regional expansion of bank operation, rapid update of financial service technology, increasing importance of non-bank financial service institutions, evolution of economic growth model and other factors are changing the banking industry. While many of the changes have improved the efficiency of the financial system as a whole, they have reduced the cost to Banks' customers; But it should also be acknowledged that these changes are new challenges, even daunting ones, for community Banks.

　　

　　We have seen major changes in the structure of American banking in recent decades. By that definition, the share of banking assets owned by community Banks fell from 20% in 1994 to around 12% in 2005. The total number of community Banks fell from more than 10, 000 in 1994 to about 7, 200 in 2005. Other definitions of community banking and other measures of industry structure, such as the share of total savings, have also recently shown a downward trend.

　　

　　Much of the focus on community banking can be attributed to mergers. A recent study by fed staff found that more than 3,500 Banks and thrifts merged between 1994 and 2003. In 92% of mergers, the target institution's total assets are at least $1 billion. Although bank mergers declined from the late 1990s, at least 200 mergers were completed each year from 2000 to 2005.

　　

　　Research by our fed staff and other economists shows that community Banks continue to play an important role not only in providing financial services, particularly for small businesses, but also in providing financial retail services nationwide. Indeed, researches on community Banks habitually believe that the central principle of "community Banks" is Relationship finance. Relationship finance means that the value-added of financial services mainly depends on the continuous personal contacts between bankers and clients. Personal contacts speed up the flow of information and allow for more personalized services. Relationship finance strengthens the domestic economy by effectively providing credit and other financial services.

　　

　　However, recent research also confirms what many community bankers say: traditional concepts of relationship finance are changing with the nature of the community bank-client relationship.

　　

　　The traditional research paradigm holds that small businesses and households are often opaque. In other words, information about these potential customers is costly and difficult to quantify. Thus, effective provision of credit to these customers requires intimate interaction to obtain "soft" or qualitative information, such as the borrower's personal qualities or information about local market conditions and investment opportunities. This research paradigm argues that big Banks have a comparative advantage in lending to relatively transparent customers because they can obtain "hard" or quantifiable information from them, such as standardised accounting data. Community Banks, on the other hand, have a comparative advantage in lending to opaque small businesses and households.

　　

　　Yet this division of Labour between big and small Banks has begun to blur. Today, bankers and researchers are well aware that low-cost information processing fees, improved credit scoring system and more mature management techniques are increasingly reducing the opacity of information of many small businesses and households. Credit card borrowing is proof of that. Technological and financial innovations, including economies of scale in credit scoring, securitisation and data processing, have combined to make credit card borrowing a "hard" information, transaction-driven business. It is very different from traditional unsecured personal borrowing, which relies heavily on personal knowledge and personal relationships.

　　

　　Some of the latest data from the fed's small business finance survey may provide useful information about how the role of markets and community Banks is changing. The fed does this every five years. The latest figures are from the end of 2003, and these are preliminary figures that will be released later this year. These figures are based on our survey of more than 4,200 small businesses nationwide, representing approximately 6.3 million small businesses across the United States. Surveys show that small businesses are the main users of financial services. For example, the share of small businesses doing some kind of financial business in a bank or savings institution rose from 92 percent in 1998 to 96 percent in 2003. There are many types of financial businesses that are gaining share, especially in the area of "financial management services". Financial management services include the following services, such as check clearing, cash management, letter of credit and credit card processing.

　　

　　According to these surveys, community Banks remain important providers of these services, despite increasing competitive pressures. About 37 percent of small businesses that reported using Banks and thrifts in 2003 used community Banks, down from 42 percent in 1998. Over the same period, the share of small businesses using financial services provided by non-depository financial institutions shot up from 40% in 1998 to 54% in 2003.

　　

　　While the survey shows that community Banks face increasing competition and competition from non-deposit financial institutions, it also highlights the importance of community Banks' traditional strengths, such as local branch offices. In 2003, for example, the median distance between the headquarters of small businesses and their Banks or thrifts was three miles, roughly the same as in 1998. Part of the reason for the success of nondepository financial institutions may be that the median distance between small business customers and their nondepository financial institutions has plummeted from 83 miles in 1998 to 37 miles in 2003. Much of the change is due to the closer relationship between customers and non-depository financial institutions that provide loans. Proximity and convenience are important.

　　

　　The data collected as part of the bank's community reinvestment act activities also demonstrate the importance of proximity to customers. The CRA act is known to focus on financial services and borrowing provided by Banks within the local community. Using CRA and other data, we can approximate the share of loans that deposit-taking financial institutions lend to small businesses in the local market. The data also show increased competitive pressure from borrowers outside the market between 1996 and 2004. This conclusion does not surprise you at all. But in dollar terms, the share of loans to small businesses from outside the market has not risen above 18% in any given year. The vast majority of small business owners borrow from local lenders.

　　

　　We know that community banking is complicated. From a financial point of view, the community bank performance is still quite strong, there is still considerable room to enter the community bank. However, new technologies and new management methods have nearly obliterated the information advantages of some traditional relational finance, and community Banks have lost some market shares to large Banks and non-deposit financial institutions. But the data also suggest that many customers want local financial services; They value proximity and convenience. I believe that community Banks' ability to provide strong relationships and personalized financial services remains an important reason for their continued success.

　　

　　Like community Banks, bank supervisors must adapt to changing financial and economic conditions. Below we discuss some of the recent ways in which the federal reserve has regulated community Banks, and would like to briefly comment on some of the major financial risks we have observed.

　　

　　In the 1990s, bank regulators began to adopt a more forward-looking, risk-focused regulatory approach. In this approach, regulators assess business activities that appear to pose the greatest risk, mainly through on-site inspections. At the same time, special attention will be paid to procedures for Banks to assess, monitor and manage those risks. The purpose of this kind of regulation is to solve the problems in management and internal control before financial performance suffers significant losses rather than afterwards.

　　

　　To adapt, the federal reserve and other financial regulators must also consider the competitive pressures facing community Banks. This pressure has made the cost of regulation for community Banks a big problem. Wherever possible, we have simplified the regulatory process and worked to remove unnecessary regulatory measures. For example, based on industry feedback and regulatory experience, the fed recently revised the policy reporting rules for small bank holding companies to increase the total assets of eligible companies from $150 million to $500 million. These revisions are in line with changes in the banking and economic environment since the first policy reports were issued in 1980. Although only 6% of the assets of all bank holding companies were affected by the revision, the revision exempts about 85% of the total bank holding companies from reporting to the fed, thereby reducing the regulatory burden on many small firms. The companies will also be exempt from submitting uniform risk-based capital guidelines, and will be allowed to submit short semi-annual reports instead of uniform quarterly financial budgets. Under the revised terms, the exemption will not extend to bank holding companies with large non-bank businesses or large off-balance sheet businesses that hold large amounts of public debt or stock. Of course, we and other bank regulators will continue to strengthen prudential capital standards for all deposit-taking institutions, including deposit-taking institutions that are part of bank holding companies that are exempt.

　　

　　Regulators have adjusted their procedures to take into account the needs of other community banking institutions. It is well known that the big Banks must accept the minimum capital standards in the new Basel capital accord. Similarly, federal bank regulators are considering changes to existing capital adjustment guidelines to regulate Banks that are not subject to the new Basel capital accord. These possible changes to Basel 1 are intended to increase the risk sensitivity of the framework and to help eliminate any unfair competition arising from the implementation of Basel 2.

　　

　　The recent changes to the CRA rules provide another example that regulators are taking into account the uniqueness of community Banks. Last year, the federal reserve and other federal regulators jointly issued final CRA regulations. The regulation proposes that Banks with assets between $250 million and $1 billion are called small and medium-sized Banks, thereby reducing the full compliance burden. Smaller Banks now submit fewer data and reports to regulators, and they meet only two sets of cross-cutting CRA tests -- optimized lending tests and community development tests -- rather than the three-part CRA standard that only large Banks must accept. These changes are intended to reduce the operating costs of small Banks and improve regulatory flexibility, but still meet CRA's community development goals.

　　

　　The fed has also become increasingly reliant on automated off-site testing tools to determine testing objectives and limit the burden of on-site inspections. Since the late 1990s, for example, fed regulators have overseen many small bank holding companies using an off-site testing program. We support the plan. The plan is to set up a target detection system aimed at identifying the negative factors in the parent company or non-bank institutions of insured deposit institutions. The plan could prompt us to restrict on-the-spot testing of bank holding companies that might pose a risk to insured deposit-taking institutions. We also use statistical models to detect the state of state Banks, which can quickly resolve any problems that arise between routine scheduled field tests. This year, we fully updated these models to improve their capabilities. As a result of these efforts, today's regulators can carry out more off-site regulatory activities, which helps reduce the burden of on-site inspections on institutions like community Banks.

　　

　　In addition to these changes, the fed is participating in an ongoing joint inter-agency review of bank regulation under the economic growth and regulatory documentation reduction act. The purpose of this assessment is to simplify testing procedures and regulatory requirements at the appropriate time, but these changes must follow the objective of maintaining the safety and soundness of the bank. The fed also supports changes to various regulations that would ease the regulatory burden. These include changes recently proposed to allow regulators to widen the time interval between on-site inspections. For well-run, well-capitalised Banks of $500m, the gap between on-site inspections can be 18 months. The change triples the current threshold for bank size and makes it possible for some 1,200 community Banks to comply with the proposal for expanded on-site inspections.

　　

　　Well-run and innovative community Banks will continue to play an important role in the U.S. economy. Community Banks provide their customers with the necessary financial services and make major contributions to the sustained growth of the local and national economies. Community Banks have done well over the past decade. But neither bankers nor regulators should be complacent. There is no doubt that we will continue to be asked to assess changes in the environment and adjust accordingly. Changes in the environment are often complex, difficult to understand, and even more difficult to predict.