<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>EconStor Collection: Economic Review (Vol. 93-95), Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta</title>
    <link>http://hdl.handle.net/10419/57660</link>
    <description />
    <textInput>
      <title>The Collection's search engine</title>
      <description>Search the Channel</description>
      <name>search</name>
      <link>http://www.econstor.eu/simple-search</link>
    </textInput>
    <item>
      <title>Too big to fail after FDICIA</title>
      <link>http://hdl.handle.net/10419/57671</link>
      <description>Title: Too big to fail after FDICIA
&lt;br/&gt;
&lt;br/&gt;Authors: Wall, Larry D.
&lt;br/&gt;
&lt;br/&gt;Abstract: In 1993, when this article was originally published, Congress had recently passed the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991 (FDICIA) to reduce taxpayers' exposure to financial system losses, including their exposure at too big to fail financial institutions. In his new preface, the author observes that, by passing FDICIA, Congress was signaling that it was serious about ending 100 percent de facto deposit insurance. He notes that FDICIA's least-cost resolution provisions were partially successful, terminating 100 percent de facto deposit insurance for most banks. The recent financial crisis demonstrated, though, that too big to fail has still not been eliminated for the very largest banks. To provide a background for the debate about what should be done to eliminate the persistent problems with existing too big to fail policies, this article outlines what Congress originally intended FDICIA to accomplish. From its 1993 perspective, the article reviews the controls FDICIA placed on regulators' ability to protect or extend the lives of large banks while keeping other policy tools for dealing with systemic risk. The article also discusses some lingering systemic risk issues, including the effect of a large bank's failure on financial derivatives markets and the effect of unexpected massive losses at one or more banks, as well as FDICIA's provisions designed to reduce systemic risk.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 Oct 2009 22:58:59 GMT</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>The evolution of the check as a means of payment: A historical survey</title>
      <link>http://hdl.handle.net/10419/57670</link>
      <description>Title: The evolution of the check as a means of payment: A historical survey
&lt;br/&gt;
&lt;br/&gt;Authors: Quinn, Stephen; Roberds, William
&lt;br/&gt;
&lt;br/&gt;Abstract: Though checks' popularity is now waning in favor of electronic payments, checks were, for much of the twentieth century, the most widely used noncash payment method in the United States. How did such a relatively inefficient form of payment become so dominant? This article traces the historical evolution of the check, focusing on its relation to complementary and competing payment technologies. Originating in the eastern Mediterranean during the first millennium as a convenient form of payment between local merchants, checks became more versatile through the development of negotiability in sixteenth-century Europe. The suppression of banknotes in eighteenth-century England further promoted the use of checks. In the United States, nineteenth-century legislation discouraged other payment methods and eventually led to a nationwide check payment system. In the twentieth century, under the Federal Reserve's leadership, checks expanded rapidly and became the nation's default payment method. The authors discuss some persistent historical themes surrounding checks: checks' ease of use, which provides advantages over other payment methods but creates risk to businesses and banks; checks' sophistication, which evolved through centuries of legal precedent and operational experimentation; and checks' high costs relative to other forms of payment. Checks' traditional dominance of the U.S. payment system, the authors conclude, resulted from historical happenstances. These events gave the check relative advantages that are only now being overcome by electronic payment technologies.</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Oct 2007 22:58:59 GMT</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Financial development, remittances, and real exchange rate appreciation</title>
      <link>http://hdl.handle.net/10419/57669</link>
      <description>Title: Financial development, remittances, and real exchange rate appreciation
&lt;br/&gt;
&lt;br/&gt;Authors: Acosta, Pablo A.; Baerg, Nicole Rae; Mandelman, Federico S.</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 Oct 2008 22:58:59 GMT</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>New financing trends in Latin America: An overview of selected issues and policy challenges</title>
      <link>http://hdl.handle.net/10419/57668</link>
      <description>Title: New financing trends in Latin America: An overview of selected issues and policy challenges
&lt;br/&gt;
&lt;br/&gt;Authors: Tovar, Camilo E.; Quispe-Agnoli, Myriam
&lt;br/&gt;
&lt;br/&gt;Abstract: During the past fifteen years, financial markets in Latin America have experienced a major transformation. This process and its effects on the nature of risks and policy challenges in Latin America were the focus of a May 2007 conference in Mexico City sponsored by the Representative Office for the Americas of the Bank for International Settlements and the Americas Center of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta. This article summarizes the papers presented at the conference as well as the discussions among participants from central banks, finance ministries, multilateral institutions, academia, and the private sector. In the first conference session, participants examined the shift from crossborder financing toward domestic financing, which has allowed domestic capital markets to expand and become deeper, more diversified, and less dependent on bank financing. The development of domestic bond markets and the resulting policy challenges were the focus of two conference sessions. Issues discussed included the benefits for sovereigns of issuing in local currency, the pros and cons of doing so in domestic vis-à-vis international markets, the criteria for determining whether to issue domestically or cross-border, the status of private markets, the role of structured finance, and whether developing these markets remains a policy objective for de-dollarizing the region's economies. In the final sessions, participants debated the implications that new financial markets have for monetary policysuch as markets' effect on policy transmission and the authorities' role in developing these marketsand for financial stability.</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Oct 2007 22:58:59 GMT</pubDate>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

