buy custom Emerging Markets essay

buy custom Emerging Markets essay In emerging markets, there is a mixture of ownership of banks by the natives and the foreigners. Both the domestic and foreign-owned banks responded to the GFC in different ways that cannot be easily analyzed. Reports by the majority of central banks in nations that own both small and large shares of foreign banks showed that; there has been no main distinction between reactions of domestic owned and foreign-owned banks throughout the crisis. Both the domestic and foreign-owned took preventive measures to mitigate the risk associated with lending, and lowered their off-balance sheet dealings and in derivatives in the foreign exchange market. However, the crucial difference was that while the domestic banks increased household lending and kept secured loans unchanged the foreign-owned banks lowered household lending and increased secured loans. Another distinction was that local banks were concerned with attaining stable financial support in the retail market. This is by giving desirable deposit rates. In most of the countries where foreign-owned banks have a significant role in domestic financial transactions, the principal question was whether the foreign-owned banks took part in ensuring financial stability is maintained in the time of crisis. Experience varied e.g.inMexico some branches particularly those whose parents had problems reduced their lending faster than the others, and they were later followed by domestic banks. Most of the foreign banks in Mexico ended up lending their parent banks. While some parent, banks transferred loans to their subsidiaries in order to lower the leverage of the head office. Foreign subsidiaries also lowered their risk by being cautious on the trading activities they carried out in the foreign exchange markets. (Bordo Redish, 2011) Branch banking looked more desirable to host country as it facilitated transfer of technology and knowledge to the E.M.E.s. (I.M.F, 2011) Because of this crisis, the attention of E.M.E.s changed from financial stability. Subsidiaries have, therefore, become more desirable due to the possibility of controlling their assets more closely than branches. Some countries are, however, drifting away from foreign banks branches. Some like China prefer foreign banks to be in the form of branches this is mostly due to many activities in foreign bank branches. In conclusion, in most E.M.E.s where foreign-owned banks have minor roles in local financial activities the reactions of both the domestic and foreign banks were minor and mainly in the form of funding and lending. In emerging market economies where foreign banks are vital to the financial sector their reaction depended on how exposed the parent bank is the financial status of the subsidiaries, and the significance of subsidiaries to the parent institutions. (Bordo Redish, 2011) This made the banking system of Australia to be flexible at the time of the global financial crisis. This is particularly because there are only a few leading banks that carry around 75% of the banking sector. The banking system has only four key banks. This is as a result of slow growth of the other smaller banks that are dependent on securitization and have inadequate access to funding. These small banks are also acquired from time to time by the large banks. (Davis, 2011) Profitable banking sector in Australia also enabled it to cope with GFC. Banks in Australia had conventional lending practices, enhanced by the strong supervision by APRA. This facilitated high performance of these banks. Strict controls and regulations also ensured that the level of non-performing loans is low. (I.M.F, 2011) Australian banking system has capital that is higher than the regulatory minimums and is dominated by banks that are locally owned. These banks are the main players in the financial market. The four key ones and they are collectively large when compared to the banking system. (Davis, 2011) One weakness with Australia at the time of GFC was that two of its main hedge funds had fallen in July 2007. There were also the financial difficulties of the great security market which had just been floated. This led to the rise of credit spreads and worries in the banking sector. This was indicated by a rise in number of people willing to hold exchange settlement account balances. The financial system in Germany was relatively stable. This was because there was proper financial intermediation in the economy. Lending to customers was also at a low cost and this enabled most of the natives to get access to loan facilities. (I.M.F, 2011) Some of the weaknesses in Germany included; low profitability even when adjustments for risk have been made. This was partly due to poor regulation and supervision of the banking sector and this made Germany vulnerablee to the GFC. (I.M.F, 2011) There is also vulnerability to excessive political pressure which makes decision making not be purely on the interest of the economy. Before the GFC, both Australia and the emerging markets sourced their funding both locally and from foreigners. However, Australia had a well controlled banking system which controlled the funding while in the emerging markets, there were no controls, and they were, therefore, more prone to financial crisis from oversees. (Davis, 2011) After the GFC banks both in Australia and emerging market countries were faced by high cost of funding. When the global securitization markets were closed this hit the Australian security market badly and while local issuance went on for some time, ultimately local markets also failed. The banks that relied on international financing faced increased cost of funding. Banks emerging economies countries were also increasingly depending on foreign sources so as to finance the rising level of credit. This made them charge a higher cost to borrowers. (Jang, Sheridan, 2012) The worldwide economic slowdown together with uncertainties brought about the re-ratings of borrowers downwards and eventually the stock market collapsed globally, and this was indicated in the stock prices, in Australia. (Davis, 2011) In the beginning, of the GFC, before the Lehman Brothers failed in September 2008, the cost of borrowing was high and asset and equity prices were low. This led to problems in listed property and financial institutions. These companies could no longer sustain their complicated business models. In the emerging markets, the funding of banks had two main attributes, first there was slow growth in the domestic deposits than in lending, and secondly, banks in emerging markets were increasingly their dependency on oversees sources in order to be able to fund the increasing level of credit. Almost all emerging markets recorded negative growth in funding from oversees. (Davis, 2011) The main difference between Australia and the emerging markets is that after GFC Australia was able to cope with the crises. This is because its banking system was properly regulated and, therefore, was not adversely affected. The emerging economies, on the other hand, had poorly controlled banking systems, which highly depended on foreign banks. Therefore, they were not able to hedge against the risk associated with GFC. (Jang, Sheridan, 2012) Buy custom Emerging Markets essay

USS Minnesota (BB-22) in the Great White Fleet

USS Minnesota (BB-22) in the Great White Fleet USS Minnesota (BB-22) - Overview: Nation: United States Type: Battleship Shipyard: Newport News Shipbuilding Drydock Company Laid Down: October 27, 1903 Launched: April 8, 1905 Commissioned: March 9, 1907 Fate: Sold for scrap, 1924 USS Minnesota (BB-22) - Specifications Displacement: 16,000 tons Length: 456.3 ft. Beam: 76.9 ft. Draft: 24.5 ft. Speed: 18 knots Complement: 880 men Armament 4 Ãâ€" 12 in./45 cal guns8 Ãâ€" 8 in./45 cal guns12 Ãâ€" 7 in./45 cal guns20 Ãâ€" 3 in./50 cal guns12 Ãâ€" 3 pounders2 Ãâ€" 1 pounders4 Ãâ€" 21 in. torpedo tubes USS Minnesota (BB-22) - Design Construction: With construction beginning on the Virginia-class (USS Virginia, USS Nebraska, USS Georgia, USS , and USS ) of battleship in 1901, Secretary of the Navy John D. Long consulted the US Navys system of bureaus and boards for their input regarding the design of capital ships. While their thoughts centered on equipping the next class of battleships with four 12 guns, energetic debate continued over the types secondary armament. Following extensive discussions, it was decided to arm the new type with eight 8 guns placed in four waist turrets. These were to be supported by twelve rapid-fire 7 guns. Achieving a compromise with this armament, the new class pushed forward and on July 1, 1902 approval was received for construction of two battleships, USS Connecticut (BB-18) and USS (BB-19). Dubbed the Connecticut-class, this type would ultimately comprise six battleships. Laid down on October 27, 1903, work commenced on USS Minnesota at the Newport News Shipbuilding Drydock Company. Less than two years later, the battleship entered the water on April 8, 1905, with Rose Schaller, the daughter of a Minnesota state senator, acting as sponsor. Building continued for nearly two years before the ship entered commission on March 9, 1907, with Captain John Hubbard in command. Though the US Navys most modern type, the Connecticut-class was made obsolete that December when British Admiral Sir John Fisher introduced the all-big gun HMS Dreadnought. Departing Norfolk, Minnesota steamed north for a shakedown cruise off New England before returning the Chesapeake to take part in the Jamestown Exposition that April to September. USS Minnesota (BB-22) - Great White Fleet: In 1906, President Theodore Roosevelt became concerned about the US Navys lack of strength in the Pacific due to the increasing danger posed by Japan. To demonstrate to the Japanese that the United States could easily switch its main battle fleet to the Pacific, he directed that a world cruise of the countrys battleships be planned. Dubbed the Great White Fleet, Minnesota, still commanded by Hubbard, was directed to join the forces Third Division, Second Squadron. Both the flagship of the division and squadron, Minnesota embarked Rear Admiral Charles Thomas. Other elements of the division included the battleships USS Maine (BB-10), USS Missouri (BB-11), and USS Ohio (BB-12). Leaving from Hampton Roads on December 16, the fleet sailed south through the Atlantic and made visits to Trinidad and Rio de Janeiro before reaching Punta Arenas, Chile on February 1, 1908. Passing through the Straits of Magellan, the fleet cruised in review off Valparaiso, Chile before making a port call at Cal lao, Peru. Departing on February 29, Minnesota and the other battleships spent three weeks conducting gunnery practice off Mexico the following month. Making port at San Francisco on May 6, the fleet paused in California for a short time before turning west for Hawaii. Steering southwest, Minnesota and the fleet arrived at New Zealand and Australia in August. After enjoying festive and elaborate port calls, which included parties, sporting events, and parades, the fleet moved north to the Philippines, Japan, and China. Concluding goodwill visits in these countries, Minnesota and the fleet transited the Indian Ocean and passed through the Suez Canal. Arriving in the Mediterranean, the fleet divided to show the flag in numerous ports before rendezvousing at Gibraltar. Reunited, it crossed the Atlantic and reached Hampton Roads on February 22 where it was greeted by Roosevelt. With the cruise over, Minnesota entered the yard for an overhaul that saw a cage foremast installed. USS Minnesota (BB-22) - Later Service: Resuming duty with the Atlantic Fleet, Minnesota spent much of the next three years employed off the East Coast though it did make one visit to the English Channel. During this period, it received a cage mainmast. In early 1912, the battleship shifted south to Cuban waters and in June aided in protecting American interests on the island during an insurrection known as the Negro Rebellion. The following year, Minnesota moved to the Gulf of Mexico as tensions between the United States and Mexico increased. Though the battleship returned home that fall, it spent much of 1914 off Mexico. Making two deployments to the area, it helped support the US occupation of Veracruz. With the conclusion of operations in Mexico, Minnesota resumed routine activities off the East Coast. It continued in this duty until being moved to the Reserve Fleet in November 1916. USS Minnesota (BB-22) - World War I: With the US entry into World War I in April 1917, Minnesota returned to active duty. Assigned to Battleship Division 4 in the Chesapeake Bay, it commenced operations as an engineering and gunnery training ship. On September 29, 1918, while conducting training off Fenwick Island Light, Minnesota struck a mine which had been laid by a German submarine. Though no one on board was killed, the explosion caused substantial damage to the battleships starboard side. Turning north, Minnesota limped to Philadelphia where it underwent five months of repairs. Emerging from the yard on March 11, 1919, it joined the Cruiser and Transport Force. In this role, it completed three trips to Brest, France to help return American servicemen from Europe. Completing this duty, Minnesota spent the summers of 1920 and 1921 as a training ship for midshipmen from the US Naval Academy. With the end of the latter years training cruise, it moved into reserve before being decommissioned on December 1. Idle for the next three years, it was sold for scrap on January 23, 1924 in accordance with the Washington Naval Treaty. Selected Sources DANFS: USS Minnesota (BB-22)NHHC: USS Minnesota (BB-22)NavSource: USS Minnesota (BB-22)