The major supervisory initiatives post-FDICIA: Are they based on the goals of PCA? Should they be?
The prompt corrective action provisions in FDICIA 1991 provide the supervisors with an unambiguous goal: "to resolve the problems of insured depository institutions at the least possible long-term cost to the deposit insurance fund." Yet performance of the regulators in achieving this goal has been lacking in that substantial losses continue to be imposed on the insurance funds when banks fail. Is PCA misguided, or are there incentive defects in the law and how the requirements are being administered? This paper analyzes these issues in the context of recent proposals to reform the deposit insurance system.
|Date of creation:||2002|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: 1000 Peachtree St., N.E., Atlanta, Georgia 30309|
Web page: http://www.frbatlanta.org/
More information through EDIRC
|Order Information:|| Email: |
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Robert A. Eisenbeis, 1997. "Bank deposits and credit as sources of systemic risk," Economic Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, issue Q 3, pages 4-19.
- Altman, Edward I. & Bharath, Sreedhar T. & Saunders, Anthony, 2002. "Credit ratings and the BIS capital adequacy reform agenda," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 26(5), pages 909-921, May.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:fip:fedawp:2002-31. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Elaine Clokey)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.