The Supreme Court’s recent decision allowing regional interstate banks has done away with one restriction in America’s banking o

admin2013-06-10  37

问题     The Supreme Court’s recent decision allowing regional interstate banks has done away with one restriction in America’s banking operation, although many others still remain. Although the ruling does not apply to very large money-center banks, it is a move in a liberalizing direction that could at last push Congress into framing a sensible legal and regulatory system that allows banks to plan their future beyond the next court case.
    The restrictive laws that the courts are interpreting are mainly a legacy of the bank failures of the 1930’s. The current high rate of bank failure—higher than at any time since the Great Depression—has made legislators afraid to remove the restrictions. While their legislative timidity is understandable, it is also mistaken. One reason so many American banks are getting into trouble is precisely that the old restrictions make it hard for them to build a domestic base large and strong enough to support their activities in today’s telecommunicating round-the-clock, around-the-world financial markets. In trying to escape from this restrictions, banks are taking enormous, and what should be unnecessary, risks. For example, would a large bank be buying small, failed savings banks at inflated prices if federal laws and states regulations permitted that bank to explain instead through the acquisition of financially healthy banks in the region? Of course not. The solution is clear. American banks will be sounder when they are not geographically limited. The house of Representative’s banking committee has shown part of the way forward by recommending common-sense, though limited, legislation for a five-year transition to nationwide banking. This would give regional banks time to group together to form counterweights to the big money-center banks. Without this breathing space the big money-center banks might soon extend across the country to develop. But any such legislation should be regarded as only a way station on the road towards a complete examination of America’s suitable banking legislation.

选项 A、concerned dissatisfaction
B、tolerant disapproval
C、uncaring indifference
D、great admiration

答案A

解析 考查细节分析能力。意为:忧虑和不满。第一段指出,最高法院 (the Supreme Court)最近一项裁决使地区性州际银行(regional interstate bank)在美国银行业务中摆脱了一项限制,虽然许多限制尚存。这项裁决(ruling)并不适用于金融中心银行,但是,它标志着向放宽的方向迈进了一步,放宽最终会使国会制定(framing)一个合理的法律法规制度,对银行的未来发展做出规划,而无需等待法院的再一次裁决(beyond the next court case)。文章最后一句指出,但是,这样的立法只能被看作是全面制定合理的美国银行法的一个小插曲。显然,在作者看来,美国国会需要全面修改现行银行法,而不应该仅停留在对它的修修补补上。
转载请注明原文地址:https://jikaoti.com/ti/2jsRFFFM
0

最新回复(0)