Law Commons^™

American Parent Bank Liability For Foreign Branch Deposits: Which Party Bears Sovereign Risk?, Adam Telanoff

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Regulatory Conflicts: International Tender And Exchange Offers In The 1990s, John C. Maguire

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Basel Iii And Credit Risk Measurement: Variations Among G20 Countries, Matt Schlickenmaier

San Diego International Law Journal

Most countries require banks to hold extra capital to protect against unforeseen financial calamities; banks with riskier loans must hold more capital than those with safer loans. Basel II, a set of international banking standards, allows banks to measure a loan’s risk in different ways: some banks make their own judgments; others use outside agencies. The recent mortgage crisis prompted banks to reevaluate these methods, in part due to banks having failed to perceive the high level of risk inherent in securitized mortgages. The international community’s response was Basel III, an updated version of its previous standards. This Comment will …

Bank Capital Regulation By Enforcement: An Empirical Study, Julie A. Hill

Indiana Law Journal

Improving commercial bank capital requirements has been a top priority on the regulatory agenda since the beginning of the 2008 financial crisis. Unfortunately, some of the information necessary to make informed decisions about capital regulation has been missing. Existing regulations establish numerical capital requirements. Regulators, however, have significant discretion to set higher capital requirements for individual banks. In considering necessary reforms, regulators often focus on specific numerical requirements but sometimes ignore enforcement efforts. Without clear information about capital enforcement, it is impossible to make informed judgments about the current capital regulation system.

This Article provides a more complete picture of …

Beyond Bailouts: Federal Tools For Preventing State Budget Crises, Brian D. Galle, Kirk J. Stark

Indiana Law Journal

More than two years after the official end of the Great Recession, state governments still face significant budget deficits that cannot be addressed without further drastic spending cuts or substantial revenue increases. The structural origins of the ongoing state fiscal crisis are well known. Excessively procyclical revenue structures, combined with spending obligations that increase with economic downturns, have resulted in a budget dynamic for the states that is not sustainable over the long term. The consensus solution to this problem is for states to save money during boom times (via budget stabilization or “rainy day” funds) and to draw on …