Risk-based capital standards presume a need for common capital standards across countries. The details of forging an agreement were left to the staffs of the primary bank regulators in each country, and compromises were inevitable. Although domestic constituencies' reactions to the proposals were invited, the arduous negotiations that led to the proposals generated intense pressure on the principals not to make changes. The European Community's approach to financial integration seems to be driven by a political desire to achieve an integrated market within Europe, despite significant institution al differences among countries. Underlying that desire is a belief that the market pressures that result from different regulatory systems operating in the same market will produce the right answer . The financial provisions of the U .S.-Canada free-trade agreement take a direction that, in my judgment, is more productive. The provisions are more limited in scope than are those of the European initiative. National treatment and national sovereignty are preserved. However, the delicate issue of national responsibility for failing institutions, and its relationship to monetary policies, is not addressed. A Better Alternative A productive basis for international regulation can be formulated around three principles: 1. free entry for foreign-owned subsidiaries chartered under the laws of the host country; 2. national treatment for those subsidiaries; and 3. national responsibility for (a) monetary policy, (b) prevention of unwarranted financial panics in domestically chartered institutions, whether foreign or domestically owned, and (c) supervision of all domestically chartered institutions, regardless of ownership.

Provides an in-depth overview of the Federal Reserve System, including information about monetary policy and the economy, the Federal Reserve in the international sphere, supervision and regulation, consumer and community affairs and services offered by Reserve Banks. Contains several appendixes, including a brief explanation of Federal Reserve regulations, a glossary of terms, and a list of additional publications.

The development of international financial centers (IFCs) has paralleled the rapid expansion of international banking and Eurocurrency activities. During the past decade and a half, the international banking and financial markets have experienced phenomenal growth along with the parallel expansion of IFCs. The size of the Eurocurrency market grew from $110 billion in 1970 to over $4,000 billion by 1987, while the total international assets of all banking institutions rose from $130 billion to $4,800 billion during the same period. Some of the preeminent IFCs are playing a major role in the international financial markets, as demonstrated by the size of their international assets: Bahamas ($144 billion), Cayman Islands ($174 billion), Singapore ($150 billion), Hong Kong ($130 billion), Bahrain ($46 billion), and Panama ($32 billion). The patterns of Euroborrowing and Eurolending activities in these IFCs have been undergoing major changes. These changes came about as a result of the introduction of the floating exchange rate system in 1973, recent financial deregulation, internationalization of the financial markets, securitization of financial assets and liabilities, and global financial innovations. Since the pioneering work of Kindleberger in 1974 on the formation of financial centers, there has not been a comprehensive study to reflect the recent developments, trends and the mystique that have surrounded the IFCs' functions and operations in the international money and capital markets.

Since the late 1950s the world's banks have expanded their global operations, with US institutions leading the way. As the recent global economic crisis shows, actions of private bankers can threaten capital markets, weaken national regulatory systems, and strain international cooperation-seriously endangering the world economy and the interests of nation states.