Speech

For Release on Delivery Thursday, January 17, 1974 10:00 a.m. G.M.T. (6:00 a.m., E.D.T.) PROSPECTS FOR COMMERCIAL BANKS IN INTERNATIONAL MONEY AND CAPITAL MARKETS An American Perspective Paper by Andrew F. Brimmer Member Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System Presented at the Conference on World Banking Organized by The Financial Times with The Banker, The American Bankers Magazine, The Investors Chronicle and British Airways Royal Lancaster Hotel London, England January 17, 1974 Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page I. Introduction and Summary 1 II. Volume and Geographic Pattern of Foreign Lending by Banks in the United States 5 III. Expansion of Lending at Foreign Branches of U.S. Banks 6 IV. Characteristics of Activities at Foreign Branches of U.S. Banks 7 V. Profitability of Foreign Branches 19 Chart 1—Comparison of Rates of Return, 1972 25a VI. Controls on Foreign Lending 28 1 VII. Banks Reactions to Prospective Elimination of U.S. Capital Controls 35 VIII• Domestic Refinancing of Euro-dollar Borrowing by U.S. Bank Customers 44 IX. Geographic Focus of Foreign Branch Expansion 48 X. Concluding Observations 51 Table 1 - Claims on Foreigners Reported by Banks in the United States. Table 2 - Total Resources of Foreign Branches of U.S. Banks, by Major Geographic Area, 1969, 1971, 1973. Table 3 - Rates of Return on Domestic and Foreign Activities of U.S. Commercial Banks, by location of Foreign Branches, 1969 and 1972. Table 4 - Foreign Assets of U.S. Commercial Banks Reporting Under the VFCR Guidelines. Table 5 - Foreign Assets Held by U.S. Commercial Banks and U.S. Agencies and Branches of Foreign Banks, November 30, 1971 and June 30, 1973. Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Table of Contents- Continued Table 6 - Foreign Assets of U.S. Agencies and Branches of Foreign Banks. Table 7 - Foreign Assets of U.S. Nonbank Financial Institutions and Nonprofit Organizations. Table 8 - Banks Reactions to Prospective Elimination of U.S. Capital Controls: Expected Impact on Foreign Activities. Table 9 - Interest Rates on Deposits and Loans in New York and London, January 9, 1974. Table 10- Geographic Focus of Overseas Expansion by U.S. Banks, 1974-1979. Appendix Table I - Sources and Uses of Funds of Foreign Branches of U.S. Banks, September 30, 1969. Appendix Table II - Sources and Uses of Funds of Foreign Branches of U.S. Banks, September 30, 1971. Appendix Table III - Sources and Uses of Funds of Foreign Branches of U.S. Banks, September 30, 1973. Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis PROSPECTS FOR COMMERCIAL BANKS IN INTERNATIONAL MONEY AND CAPITAL MARKETS An American Perspective By Andrew F. Brimmer* I. Introduction and Summary For my participation in this Conference on World Banking, I decided to focus primarily on the overseas operations of American banks after 1974> I decided on this course for several reasons: I have followed the foreign activities of these institutions for a number of years in my capacity as the Member of the Federal Reserve Board with delegated authority from the Board to administer the Voluntary Foreign Credit Restraint Program (VFCR) limiting the ability of commercial banks to lend U.S.-source funds to their foreign customers. In addition, information on the activities of U.S. banks is much more readily available than it is for foreign banking institutions. Moreover, in recent years, U.S. commercial banks have become major—and in some cases dominant- forces in world money and capital markets, so an assessment of their ^Member, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. I am grateful to several persons on the Board's staff for assistance in the preparation of this paper« Mr. Fred B. Ruckdeschel prepared the sources and uses of funds statements for foreign branches of U.S. banks; Mrs. Martha Terrie did the computer programming for this part of the project. Mr. Michael D. O'Connor and Mrs. Ruth Robinson calculated the rates of return on the banks' foreign and domestic activity. Mr. Ruckdeschel, Ms. Ruth Logue and Ms. Nancy Farar summarized data relating to bankers' expectations regarding the effects on their foreign business of the removal of U.S. capital controls. Messrs. Yves Maroni and Robert F. Emery provided background information on the climate for foreign banks in Latin America and East Asia, respectively. Mr. Rodney Mills supplied data on Euro-dollar rates and the costs of reserve requirements, and Mr. Richard Puckett helped with the analysis of the effects of the latter on the competitive ability of U.S. banks. Mr. John Austin contributed to the project in a number of ways in its final stages. However, the views presented here are my own and should not be attributed to the staff. Nor should they be attributed to my colleagues on the Board. Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis - 2 - prospects may also provide insights into the outlook for banks generally. I have made such an assessment before, and this conference appeared to be a good occasion on which to return to the subject.^ Of even more importance, the removal of the U.S. capital controls programs by the end of 1974—to which the United States Government has committed itself—will certainly alter the environment in which American banks have conducted and developed their international business for the last decade. It will be recalled that these controls consist of the Interest Equalization Tax (administered by the Treasury Department) ; the regulations on foreign direct investment (administered by the Commerce Department), and the restraints on foreign lending by banks and nonbank financial institutions (administered by the Federal Reserve Board). This prospective development will have a significant impact on foreign institutions as well—especially on those centered in London. With this prospect in mind, late last year, I asked a nunjber of U.S commercial banks to share with me, on an informal basis, any thoughts they may have regarding the probable effects of these anticipated changes on the overseas business of their own organization. A summary of their answers is reported in this paper. When the results of that inquiry are combined with other informa- tion on recent trends in the foreign banking activity of U.S. commercial 11 17 See "American International Banking: Trends and Prospects, presented ~ before the 51st Annual Meeting of the Bankers Associations for Foreign Trade, Boca Raton, Florida, April 2, 1973. A version of that paper was published in Revue de la Banque, Brussels, Belgium, 1973, n° 6. Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis - 3 - banks, the following overview emerges: --In the years immediately ahead, the volume of foreign lending by U.S. banks will expand substantially. Most of that lending will continue along traditional lines. However, numerous innovations can be expected in types of activities (e.g., more entry into merchant banking, leasing, underwriting, data processing, etc.), and much of the expansion will be in relatively new geographic areas (e.g., Middle East, East Asia and the Pacific). —After the removal of U.S. capital controls, part of the business which U.S. banks are conducting from their foreign branches will return to their head offices. This will involve both deposit and lending activities. Yet, many banks expect the magnitude of the shift to be less than some observers now seem to anticipate. In particular, there appears to be little prospect that the short-term Euro-dollar market centered in London will migrate to New York. Aside from several natural advantages which London enjoys, a number of Government regulations affecting the money market in New York (including Federal Reserve regulations covering interest rates and reserve requirements) are said by banks to limit their competitive ability. --Some U.S. corporations may seek to refinance in the U.S. market the loans now outstanding in the Euro-currency markets. However, here also it appears that the volume of such shifting may be less than some observers seem to expect. Among the reasons for this are the relatively favorable terms on many of the loans and the desire to maintain foreign banking connections—especially in a world of floating exchange rates. --These conclusions suggest that a sizable part of both the medium- term and long-term markets in dollars will remain in London—not only for European borrowers and lenders but also for a number of American firms, for Japanese institutions, and for borrowers and depositors from the Middle East and other developing areas. --In the meantime, the intensive competition in the international money and capital markets will continue. This has already led to a significant erosion of profit margins for lenders—especially in that part of the market centered in London. For example, the rate of return on the assets at London branches of U.S. commercial banks in 1972 was in the neighborhood of .20 per cent; for banks with a long-established multi-country branch network it was higher (.63 per cent), while those with more recently built branch systems had a rate of return of .25 per cent. The average rate of return on shell branches in Nassau was .64 per cent. For all of the banks (except those with long-standing broadly-based net- works) , the rate of return on foreign assets was below that on 1 the banks domestic activity. For all Federal Reserve member banks, the average rate of return was .80 per cent in 1972. Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis - 4 - —Once"capital controls are removed, a number of American banks will scale down the volume of business done at their foreign branches. Yet, none of the large banks (including those recently arrived on the world financial scene) would expect to close their full-service branches. However, a number of smaller institutions operating shell branches in Nassau or the Cayman Islands would seriously consider closing such facilities. -—In the years ahead, most American banks would expect to focus the expansion of their overseas branch network in those geographical areas in which they have traditionally operated--i.e., London: Continental Europe; and South America and the Caribbean. (But in the latter areas, bankers anticipate that the political environment and other factors may become progressively less hospitable to foreign banks). However, an appreciable number also anticipate a much greater concentration of effort in East Asia and the Pacific and in the Middle East--in the latter case specifically because of the growing volume of oil revenues available for investment. China, the Soviet Union, and Eastern Europe may also offer expanding opportunities to lend but not to locate branches. These main points are amplified in the remainder of this paper. In Section II, the volume and geographic distribution of foreign lending by U.S. banks are traced. The expansion of lending at foreign branches of U.S. banks is discussed in Section III. The pattern of activities at these branches is sketched in Section IV. The profitability of foreign branch operations is estimated in Section V. Recent developments with respect to the Voluntary Foreign Credit Restraint Program are 1 summarized in Section VI. Banks reactions to prospective elimination of U.S. capital controls are summarized in Section VII. The extent to 1 which the banks corporate customers may seek to refinance in the U.S. the Euro-dollar borrowings they have outstanding is assessed in Section VIII. The geographic pattern of foreign branch expansion is outlined in Section IX. Finally in Section X, some concluding observations are presented. Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis II. Volume and Geographic Pattern of Foreign Lending by Banks in the United States On September 30, 1973, commercial banks in the United States reported $24.1 billion of claims on foreigners. (See Table 1, attached). This volume of foreign loans represented an increase of nearly three-fifths compared with the amount outstanding in September, 1971, and it was just about double the amount in September, 1969. Just over three-quarters ($18.7 billion) of the claims outstanding last September consisted of short-term claims—about the same proportion recorded two years earlier and slightly higher than in 1969. The division of claims among countries according to the stage of development has changed little in the last few years. On each of the dates shown, developed countries had received just over half the credits 1 to foreign borrowers reported by the banks head offices. Among developed countries, Japan (with one-quarter of the total) was the leading recipient- particular ly of short-term credit. Borrowers in the United Kingdom had received about 4 per cent of the total in both 1969 and 1971, but their share had climbed to 7 per cent by last year. In the case of less developed countries, approximately one-third of the total credits had been extended to borrowers in Latin America m 1969; their share had eased o,ff somewhat four years later. In passing, it should also be observed that U.S. banks added substantially to the volume of loans outstanding to the U.S.S.R. and 11 other Eastern European countries (included in "other areas in Table 1). However, the total amount of such loans remains fairly small. Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis - 6 - III. Expansion of Lending at Foreign Branches of U.S. Banks Since 1969, most of the growth in loans to foreigners by American commercial banks has occurred at their branches abroad and relatively very little at their head offices. These trends are dramatized in the following figures on outstanding claims (billions of dollars): Sept. 30 Sept. 30 Sept. 30 Location 1969 1971 1973 Head office 12.3 15.3 24.1 Foreign branches 29.9 55.4 109.3 Total 42.4 70.7 133.4 Foreign as per cent of total 70.9 78.2 82.0 1 Thus, in the last four years, the banks foreign branches accounted for well over four-fifths of the expansion in their international lending. To some extent, this reflected the impact of U.S. capital controls on the bank's ability to lend from their head offices. But--perhaps more importantly—it also reflects the increased sophistication of American banks in international finance generally and their greater concentration on foreign business opportunities. This is especially true of a number of the largest banks long-established in the field. Total resources of foreign branches of U.S. banks, by major geographic region, on September 30, 1969, 1971, and 1973, are shown in Table 2. Several features of the changing configuration of U.S. banking abroad stand out in these data. The continued concentration of activity in Europe is plainly evident. And within Europe, the continued attraction of the United Kingdom (which really means London) for American banks Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis - 7 - can also be seen. At the same time, however, the more rapid growth of branches in other areas compared with the U.K. is quite noticeable. For example, U.K. branches of U.S. banks had two-thirds of the total resources held by all branches in 1969. The U.K. share declined to just under three-fifths in 1971 and to one-half last year. The share of Europe as a whole declined from 85 per cent in 1969, to 80 per cent in 1971, and to 71 per cent in 1973. The most striking gains were made by branches in Latin America and the Caribbean—where the fraction of total branch resources held climbed from 7 per cent in 1969, to 12 per cent in 1971, and to 21 per cent last year. Virtually all of this gain was accounted for by so- 11 called "shell branches in Nassau and the Cayman Islands.— (The origin and nature of these essentially bookkeeping operations are discussed further below). Nearly all of these branches were established since 1969. By 1971, they had about 11 per cent of all reported branch assets, and the proportion had risen to 19 per cent by 1973. Branches in Asia and the Pacific had command of roughly 7-1/2 per cent of total branch resources in both 1969 and 1971; this had been expanded slightly to about 9 per cent by September of last year. IV. Characteristics of Activities at Foreign Branches of U.S. Banks The nature as well as the scope of activities at foreign branches of U.S. banks has changed substantially over the last several years. The changing character of these activities was traced in some detail in the */ In the statistics used in this paper, data for Nassau and the Cayman Islands are sometimes combined in the total for Latin America. From time to time, the Nassau-Cayman Islands branches are distinguished 11 from "the rest of Latin America. Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis - 8 - 2/ paper which I presented last April.- The framework developed at that time for the-assessment of those activities can be employed here. This approach involves the recasting of the balance sheets of the foreign branches to permit tracing their sources and uses of funds. The figures can also be organized to identify the principal market sectors in which their activities are concentrated, and their geographic location can be shown. The results of rearranging the balance sheet data for the foreign branches of U.S. banks within this framework are reported in Appendix Tables I, II, and III for September 30, 1969, 1971, and 1973, respectively. It may be recalled that one of the main objectives of many of 1 the foreign branches opened since the mid-1960s was the provision of funds to their U.S. parents—especially during episodes of domestic credit restraint in 1966 and 1969-70. These branches were also relied on to accumulate funds which could be rechanneled to other foreign offices in different parts of the world. Branches in U.K. were especially active along these lines. Cast in these roles, the branches were actually contributing to the financing of an internal commercial banking system of which they are a part. But the largest proportion of the foreign branches efforts has been concentrated in the inter-bank market. This market consists of a network of foreign commercial banks with reciprocal arrangements for holding deposits and extending credits. At some point, of course, the individual banks participating in the inter-bank market would have to attract resources from beyond the boundaries of the banking system. Yet, as a group, their net positions vis-a-vis each other are reported in the statistics. Banks in London lie at the heart of the inter-bank market, but its geographic 2/ See reference in footnote 1, p. 2. Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis - 9 - scope is far broader than the United Kingdom. Entry to the market is relatively easy, and this had permitted even fairly small banks to launch foreign branches which can quickly accumulate sizable footings on their balance sheets. Some of the foreign branches have been able to conduct a moderate volume of business with foreign governments and other official institutions. Initially, most of this business was probably the result of contacts developed by the parent banks. However, within the last year or so, a number of the branches have been venturing out on their own to arrange Euro-currency loans for foreign official bodies — including 3/ an increasing parade of borrowers from developing countries.- Some of them also have been able to attract official deposits. Basically, the principal motivation behind the opening of foreign branches by most of the U.S. banks which entered the field in recent years was to meet the financial needs of their foreign customers—particularly U.S. multi-national firms. It will be recalled that regulations were promulgated in January, 1968, which limited the ability of American corporations to finance their foreign investment with U.S.-source funds. These regulations made it increasingly necessary for these corporations to borrow abroad. Under these circumstances, many U.S. banks essentially followed customers overseas in an attempt to retain their business. Thus, the degree to which the foreign branches have been able to play a meaningful role in this market appears to be a good measuring rod of 1 their overall performance. This segment of the branches business has 3/ I discussed this subject in "International Capital Markets and the 11 Financing of Economic Development, a paper presented as the inaugural lecture in the Samuel Z. Westerfield, Jr., Distinguished Lecture Series, Atlanta University, Atlanta, Georgia, October 25, 1973. Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis - 10 - been defined as participation in the external market. Here one can trace changes in their liabilities to private foreign depositors and in their claims on private foreign borrowers. Internal Banking System Last September, the foreign branches of U.S. commercial banks as a group were raising and using only one-sixth of their total resources (which amounted to $109.3 billion) within the banking network of which they were a part. They had received only 1 per cent of the total from U.S. parents, and they had advanced 2 per cent to the latter—producing a small net claim on their U.S. head offices. On the same date, their liabilities to—and claims on—sister branches in other countries were about in balance and represented roughly 14 per cent of total resources. The intra-system sources and uses of funds in 1973 differed little from the pattern prevailing in 1971« However, both of these more recent patterns were in sharp contrast to that which emerged in 1969. In that year, the foreign branches were indebted to their U.S. parents in the amount of $704 million, while they had claims on the latter equal to 1 $11.8 billion. Thus, only 2-1/2 per cent of these branches total resources (of $29.9 billion) had originated with their parents, but roughly two-fifths of the total had been rechanneled to their head offices. Meeting part of the domestic needs of their parents (occasioned by restrictive monetary policy in the U.S.) was the largest single outlet 1 for the branches funds. Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis - 11 - The degree to which foreign branches contributed to the financing of their internal banking systems varied widely--depending on their geographic location. In 1969, branches in the United Kingdom (mainly London) and in Latin America (principally Nassau) were devoting over two-fifths of their resources to financing their parents. Branches in the rest of Europe were using under one-fifth--and those in Asia one- quarter--of their funds for the same purpose. On the other hand, branches in both Continental Europe and Asia were indebted to sister foreign branches for about one-fifth of their resources. By 1971, as already mentioned, the foreign branches were employing only a modest proportion of funds (5-1/2 per cent) to finance their parents; only those branches in Asia (excluding those in Hong Kong and Singapore) reported a fraction that was somewhat higher (13-1/2 per cent). However, the expanding volume of activity among the overseas branches themselves had become increasingly evident by 1971. For example, inter- branch transactions represented 14 per cent of total branch resources in that year. Roughly the same proportion held for branches in the U.K. But on the European continent, such transactions accounted for about one- quarter of the total. The branches in Hong Kong and Singapore were even more heavily engaged in activities internal to their banking systems- obtaining 40 per cent of their funds from other branches and redepositing with the latter 38 per cent of their total resources. Branches in the rest of Asia got one-third of their funds from sister institutions abroad-- but redeposited only 3-1/2 per cent with them. Essentially the same Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis - 12 - relationship held for branches in Latin America (excluding branches in Nassau and the Cayman Islands). Shell branches in the Caribbean received about 15 per cent of their resources from other branches and rechanneled about 6 per cent to them. In general, the pattern of inter-branch transactions in 1973 was similar to that sketched for 1971, but the proportion of total resources involved in such transactions was typically somewhat smaller. Nevertheless, the absolute amount of these reciprocal inter-branch balances outstanding has expanded greatly--rising from about $3 billion in 1969, to $8 billion in 1971, and to $15 billion in 1973. This was in sharp contrast to the trend of parent-branch reciprocal balances—which declined from about $11 billion in 1969, to $3 billion in 1971, to less than $2 billion in 1973. Activities in the Inter-Bank Market The inter-bank market has continued to be the main focus of business activity of foreign branches of U.S. banks with respect to their sources of funds. For instance, this market accounted for over half the total in each of the three years--i.e., 57 per cent in 1969; 52 per cent in 1971, and 54 per cent in 1973. But much greater variation has occurred in the proportion of total branch resources lent in the inter-bank market-- i.e., 23 per cent in 1969; 40 per cent in 1971, and 45 per cent in 1973. The principal explanation of the variation in the pace of inter-bank 1 lending is the changing demand for funds by the banks U.S. head offices• Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis - 13 - Branches located in different geographic areas, however, have exhibited a substantially different behavior toward the inter-bank market. Again the behavior of the London branches can be taken as a point of departure. Between 1969 and 1971, the importance of the inter- bank market as a source of funds for the U.K.-based institutions declined only slightly (from 62 per cent to 57) and remained fairly constant between 1971 and 1973. But the proportion of total funds put to work in this market rose appreciably—from one-quarter in 1969; to nearly one-half in 1971, and to almost three-fifths by 1973. Branches of U.S. banks on the European continent displayed a more divergent behavior. With respect to reliance on the inter-bank market as a source of funds, they became much more like branches in London over the four years under review. By 1973, they obtained the same fraction as London branches of their total resources (58 per cent) from this source. They behaved quite differently, however, in relying on the inter-bank market as a means of employing their funds. In 1969, less than one-fifth of the total had been let out in that market, and the proportion was still less than two-fifths in both 1971 and 1973. In contrast to the London branches, U.S. banking institutions in the rest of Europe had been slightly more successful in finding outlets in the external market and in channeling funds to other branches in their internal systems. Branches of U.S. banks in Asia apparently are becoming more like those in London in so far as reliance on the inter-bank market for funds is concerned. In 1969, the Asian branches got only 6 per cent of Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis - 14 - their total resources from this market. By 1971, branches in Hong Kong and Singapore had received one-quarter of their total funds from the inter- bank market, and the proportion rose further to over two-fifths in 1973• Branches in the rest of Asia continued to draw only a small fraction of their resources from this source. On the other hand, the Asian branches still do not look to the inter-bank market as a major outlet for their deposits. As one would expect, the behavior of the shell branches in Nassau and the Caymen Islands has paralled that of the branches of U.S. banks in London. It will be recalled that, in early 1969, the Federal Reserve Board began to authorize the creation of shell branches (a policy which I have personally never supported). The main objective was to enable smaller U.S. banks to have access to the Euro-dollar market—initially to service their foreign customers, As it developed, however, most of the Nassau units began to mobilize funds abroad for use by the U.S. parents during the period of domestic monetary restraint in 1969-70. Still later, a number of banks (including some of the largest in the country) opened shell branches mainly with the aim of benefiting from the favorable income tax laws in the Bahamas. These considerations had led 97 U.S. banks to establish shell branches in Nassau by the end of 1973. More recently, however, a number of American banks have found the overall environment in the Bahamas somewhat less hospitable. As a result, the Cayman Islands have become the principal focus of new shell branch formation, and by the end of last year 20 U.S. banks had opened such units in the Caymans. Moreover, in 1973, about 7 banks decided to relocate their shell branches from Nassau to the Cayman Islands. Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis - 15 - As already indicated, the Nassau-Caymans shell branches are essentially an extension of activities in the London market. This is reflected particularly in their behavior with respect to sources of funds. For example, the inter-bank market supplied 64 per cent of their resources in 1 9 6 9 p er cent in 1971, and 56 per cent in 1973—proportions that were virtually identical to those reported by the London branches. The 1 shell branches reliance on the inter-bank market as an outlet for funds has been somewhat less heavy than that of London branches, but it is significant—i.e., 19 per cent in 1969, 36 per cent in 1971, and 40 per cent in 1973. Branches*of US banks in the rest of South America and 0 0 the Caribbean have participated very little in the inter-bank market. However, in the last year or so, branches in Panama and the Netherlands Antilles have become quite active—especially in the inter-bank market. To some extent, this development reflects the increased efforts of those two countries in competition with the Bahamas and the Caymans by emphasizing the tax advantages which they also offer. From this review of U.S. branch participation in the inter- bank market, a conclusion of prime importance emerges: once a number of institutions had entered the market, they were open to a sizable inflow of deposits—despite the sharp decline in demand for such funds by their own internal banking systems. To employ such resources, the foreign branches began to participate progressively in what was basically a brokerage rather than a traditional banking business. Banks from other countries—particularly from Japan—also entered the race, and the competition */ In order to maintain confidential data in 1969, both Nassau-Cayman Islands and Hong Kong-Singapore are not separated from their respective regions. Thus, comparisons for these locations in 1971 and 1973 are made to their regions in 1969. Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis - 16 - in international capital markets became even more aggressive• This development led to a marked narrowing of lending margins, and this in turn has had a significantly adverse impact on the profitability of foreign branches of U.S. banks—particularly in London. These trends are discussed more fully below. Participation in the External Market Foreign branches of U.S. banks have expanded their holdings of private deposits, but the latter have represented substantially the same proportion of their total resources. In fact, the external market continues to be relatively insignificant as a source of funds. In all three years, the external market provided only one-sixth of the total resources held by all branches combined. Essentially this same proportion also held for branches in the United Kingdom and on the continent of Europe. With respect to uses of funds, however, the share put to work in the external market by all branches as a group rose slightly between 1969 and 1971, but it has remained static since then. The fraction was 18 per cent in 1969 and about 30 per cent in both 1971 and 1973. In the case of the United 1 Kingdom, about 14 per cent of the branches assets represented loans to the private sector in 1969, and the proportion had climbed to 25 per cent in both 1971 and 1973. The U.S. branches in continental Europe were employing about one-quarter of their resources in the external market in all three years. Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis - 17 - The pattern of activities at U.S. branches in the rest of the world has diverged somewhat from the European experience. Branches in Hong Kong and Singapore have raised a slightly higher percentage of their funds from the private market than branches in the United Kingdom have raised. These sources have accounted for between one-fifth and one-quarter of their total resources. These Asian branches have lent a much higher proportion of their funds to private borrowers than have their London counterparts. In each of the three years, loans outstanding to the private sectors represented roughly two-fifths of their total assets. The branches in the rest of Asia have gone further in developing private sector lending opportunities than they have in generating private deposits. Thus, the private market supplied between one-fifth and one- quarter of their total funds in each of the three years, but the fraction of their assets reported as loans to the private sector rose from about two-fifths in 1969 to almost three-fifths in 1973. Branches in Nassau and the Cayman Islands—along with those in London--depend relatively little on attracting private deposits outside of the inter-bank market. In fact, this source of funds eased off slightly between 1971 and 1973. On the other hand, loans to private borrowers rose appreciably between 1969 and 1971 (21 per cent to 34 per cent)^ and a further slight gain had been recorded by 1973—to 36 per cent. For reporting branches in the rest of Latin America, deposits from the external market have been of little importance. Nonreporting branches in Latin America depend highly on local currency funds and primarily conduct a local lending business. Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis - 18 - This differential pattern of business activity at foreign branches of U.S. banks should be kept in mind. As explained more fully below, it has a direct and significant bearing on the prospects for—and future expansion of—branches of American banks in the years ahead. Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis - 19 - V. Profitability of Foreign Branches As mentioned above, the increasingly competitive environment prevailing in the international money and capital markets has led to an appreciable narrowing of the spreads between lending and borrowing rates• For example,in early January of this year, it was reported that prime borrowers in the Euro-dollar market could obtain loans at a cost of only 3/8 of 1 per cent over the six-month interbank offering rate for deposits (LIBO). A year ago, it was reported that many prime borrowers could obtain loans at rates in the neighborhood of 5/8 to 2/4 of 1 per cent above the basic cost of money to the lenders. Moreover, it is quite evident that borrowers of less-than-prime standing have also achieved accommodations at interest rates involving margins much more narrow than what could be gotten in late 1959 and early 1970--when non-pri'Jie borrowers were typically quoted rates ranging to 2-1/2 per cent and more above the six-month Eurc-doll^r rate. This situation has changed radically over the last year. Toward the close of 1973, numerous borrowers—many of them from less developed countries previously not accorded a prime rating—were able to obtain funds on which the rate spread was set as low as 5/8 of 1 per cent. In addition, maturities of the loans have lengthened considerably--from a range of 5-8 years as recently as 1970 to as long as 15 years being offered in late 1973. Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis - 20 - The broad contours of these developments are widely appreciated. However, it is very difficult to assess with any precision the way in which these trends have actually affected the profitability of U.S. foreign branches. Nevertheless, just less than a year ago, I did make very rough calculations showing in broad magnitude the rates 4/ of return on the assets held by branches of U.S. banks in London."" At that time,I relied on a combination of bank examination reports and statistical data reported to Federal bank supervisory agencies by 15 U.S. commercial banks with branches in London. Three separate rates of return were estimated: (1) the rate of return on the banks' total assets, (2) the rate of return on their London business, and (3) the rate of return on their business apart from their London activity. An effort was also made to estimate separately the profitability of London branches established before the end of 1964 and those opened in subsequent years. In addition, three banks combined information for all of their foreign branches. Rough calculations of rates of return were made for these banks as well. The results of these early calculations can be summarized as follows: 11 4/ See "American International Banking: Trends and Prospects, presented at the 51st Annual Meeting of the Bankers Association for Foreign Trade, Boca Raton, Florida, April 2, 1973, pp. 34-37. Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis - 21 - Class of Bank Rate of Return: 1972 Total Total London less Assets Assets London 15 London Branches .54 .12 .61 3 branches established before December 31, 1964 .53 .10 .61 12 branches established before December 31, 1964 .55 .14 .61 Total Assets of Total less Assets All Foreign Brs. Foreign Brs. 3 Banks (all foreign branches combined) .44 .40 .45 Memorandum: Total Earning Assets Assets Earnings of Federal Reserve Member Banks: 1968 .77 .97 1969 .78 1.08 1970 .79 1,08 1971 .79 .98 It will be noted that the profitability of London branches of American 1 banks appears to be well below that prevailing in the banks total business. For banks which reported the income on all of their foreign branches confined,the rate of return on the foreign portion was not essentially different from that on their total business. Finally, the banks that engaged in international finance on a large scale reported rates of return well below those for commercial banks in the U.S. taken as a whole. Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis - 22 - For the present paper, another--and much more comprehensive— effort has been made to estimate the profitability of the foreign branches of U.S. commercial banks. For this purpose, information submitted to Federal bank supervisory agencies on the Call Report and in the statement of income was employed. Again, rates of return were calculated for the banks' domestic and foreign activities separately."^ Complete reports were available for 64 banks covering the years 1969 and 1972. The banks were classified according to the following criteria: (1) Multi-country branches— that is, whether they had branches in two or more foreign countries; these were divided on the basis of their having achieved this status before or after 1969. There were 8 banks in each of these multi-country sub-groups. 6/ (2) Banks with London branches only. In this group, there were also 16 banks—with 8 each in the before and after 1969 categories. (3) Nassau branches only. There were 32 banks in this group—all of which opened branches since 1969. In addition, statistical information was obtained for 14 banks (included in categories 1 and 2 above) which show on a consolidated basis their foreign and domestic activities. These 1 data were also used to estimate rates of return for these banks total business. Finally, rates of return were calculated for all insured U.S. commercial banks; for all member banks of the Federal Reserve System and for member banks with total deposits of $100-$500 million and for those with deposits of $500 million and over. 5/ Some of the banks were operating abroad through wholly-owned subsidiaries, and many of them also received income on minority investments in foreign financial institutions. However, this information was much more frag- mentary, and it was not used in the calculations reported here. j3/ In this classification as well as in the multi-country category were a few banks which also had Nassau branches. These Nassau branches were disregarded in this part of the analysis. Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis - 23 - The results of these calculations are shown in Table 3. To facilitate the discussion, the highlights of the results can be sunmarized as follows: Class of Bank Rate of Return (Per Cent) Domestic Foreign 1969 1972 1969 1972 (1) Multi-country branches Established before 1969 0.69 0.57 0.37 0.63 Established after 1969 0.49 0.25 (2) London branch only Established before 1969 0.79 0.73 0.22 0.18 Established after 1969 0.63 0.22 (3) Nassau branch only 0.77 0.64 Memorandum: 1969 1972 All insured commercial banks 0.88 0.82 All Federal Reserve Member banks 0.85 0.80 with deposits of $100-500 million 0.92 0.77 with deposits of $500 million and over 0.80 0.71 Banks (14) reporting consolidated foreign and domestic activities 0.63 0.57 Several impressions stand out in these data. It is quite evident that, as a general rule, the profitability of U.S. banks' foreign branches is well below that experienced on their domestic business. The extremely thin rates of return achieved in the London market are even more striking. On the other hand, banks with multi-country branch networks have achieved a degree of profitability on their foreign business substantially above that achieved by banks that have restricted foreign activity to the London market. Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis - 24 - More specifically, it should be noted that in both 1969 and 1972, banks which had only London branches were earning on the total assets of those branches a rate of return that was only 1/4 to 1/3 as large as the rate of return, achieved in their domestic business. This pattern prevailed for those banks which established themselves in London before 1969 as well as for those that came in later years. In contrast, those banks with a much more broadly based foreign network had a rate of return on branch assets in 1969 equal to just over half that recorded on their domestic assets. By 1972, however, they had substantially improved the profitability of their foreign branches—on whose assets the rate of return exceeded that obtained in their home market. But, again, the adverse effect of the increasingly competitive inter- national market is evident in the profit experience of those banks which developed their multi-country networks after 1969. In this case, the rate of return at their foreign branches in 1972 was only half that registered in their domestic business. In the case of Nassau branches, the rate of return in 1972 was over four-fifths as high as that achieved 1 on the banks domestic business. Of course, this is not surprising— since the Nassau shell branches are little more than bookkeeping extensions of their head offices. 1 Finally, the profitability of the U.S. banks foreign activities can be compared with the profitability of U.S. banks as a whole. It will be noted that the yield on the assets of all insured commercial banks—as Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis - 25 - well as the yields on the assets of Federal Reserve member banks—were well above the rates of return estimated on the assets held by foreign branches of American banks. Moreover, the banks engaged in international activity generally reported rates of return below those for the American banking system as a whole. This was true even when the comparison was made with all large banks, represented hereby Federal Reserve member banks with total deposits of $500 million or over. An alternative way of showing the differential experience of banks with branches in several foreign countries compared to those with a London branch only is presented in Chart I. This chart compares rates 1 of return for 1972 on the banks domestic assets and on the assets at their foreign branches. The data presented in Panel A show the rates of return for the 8 multi-country banks that established networks before 1969 as well as for the 8 banks which started their networks since 1969. Panel B presents similar data for the batiks with London branches only—again classifying them according to whether they established their London branch before or after 1969. On the horizontal axis of the chart, the rate of return on domestic assets is shown; the rate of return on foreign branch assets is shown on the vertical axis. In both cases, the rates of return are shown in basis points— that is, hundreths of 1 per cent. Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis CHART 1 COMPARISON OF RATES OF RETURN, 1972 PANEL A: U.S. BANKS WITH MULTI-COUNTRY BRANCHES PANEL B: U.S. BANKS WITH LONDON BRANCH ONLY Domestic rate of return (Basis points) Domestic rate of reiturn (Basis points) • BEFORE 1969 * SINCE 1969 O AVERAGE FOR EACH CATEGORY Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis - 26 - The chart can be read as follows: in Panel A, it will be noted that one bank which established its network after 1969 had a domestic rate of return of .26 per cent and a foreign rate of return of .20 per cent in 1972. That bank is indicated in the chart at the point where those two rates of return intersect. Likewise another bank had a domestic rate of return of .89 per cent and a rate of return at foreign branches of .41 per cent. Again that bank is plotted at the point of intersection of those two indicated rates of return. In general, if a bank's domestic rate of return were equal to its foreign rate of return, that bank would lie on a diagonal line originating at the origin of the two scales and rising from the lower left to the upper right corner of the chart. With this introduction as to how to read the chart, a number of significant conclusions can be drawn from the data presented. First, in Panel A four of the banks which established their multi-country branch network before 1969 lie above and to the left of the diagonal. The average rate of return for all of the banks in this pre-1969 category also lie above the diagonal. This means that as a group they were earning more on their foreign assets in 1972 than they were on their domestic business. The opposite is true for those banks that \ chartered multi-country networks after 1969. Turning to Panel B, one can see that all except two of the banks with London branches only were earning substantially less on their foreign activity than they were on their domestic operations. This was true independently of when the London branch was started. Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis - 27 - From the foregoing review, it is quite evident that the increased competition in international money and capital markets has had a significantly adverse impact on the profit margins of American banks operating foreign branches. Nevertheless, as discussed more fully below, most American banks still find their overall experience in international financial operations sufficiently satisfactory as to justify remaining in the business—and in fact are looking for ways to expand their efforts. Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis - 28 - VI. Controls on Foreign Lending Before turning to the assessment of prospects for U.S. commercial banks abroad once Government-imposed restraints on foreign lending have been relaxed, it might be helpful to summarize briefly recent developments under the Voluntary Foreign Credit Restraint Program (VFCR). It will be recalled that this program applies to U.S. commercial banks, U.S. agencies and branches of foreign banks, and U.S. nonbank financial institutions. Commercial Bank Program As of November 30, 1973, commercial banks reporting to the Federal Reserve Board under the VFCR Guidelines had aggregate ceilings on foreign lending of $10.3 billion (Table 4). This level was about $60 million higher than that reported at the end of 1972; the rise is traceable mainly to the adoption of Guideline ceilings by banks launching foreign activities or expanding them beyond some minimum level exempted under the Guidelines. Assets held by the banks for their own account and subject to restraint totaled $9.2 billion at the end of last November. Thus, the banks had an aggregate net leeway to expand lending under the Guidelines of $1.1 billion--roughly the same as the leeway available at the end of 1972. It should be noted, however, that the banks held tot^l foreign assets on the books of their head offices equal to $16.2 billion on November 30, 1973. Over two-fifths of this amount (or $7.0 billion) were exempt from VFCR restrictions. These exempted assets consisted of $867 million of Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis - 29 - loans to Canadian borrowers, $5,860 million of export credits (other than to residents of Canada), and $261 million of other foreign assets. 1 Over the last two years, the exempted proportion of commercial banks foreign assets has risen appreciably. This was due primarily to the removal of VFCR ceilings on export credits in November, 1971, as mandated by the Congress. At that time, the banks were holding $2.8 billion of export credits. On the same date, they held for their own account $11.7 billion of total foreign assets, $8.6 billion of which were covered by the VFCR. They also held $218 million of Canadian assets and $104 million of other foreign assets. So, with the exemptions of export 1 credits, the banks foreign assets not covered by the VFCR amounted to $3.1 billion in November, 1971. Two years later, this figure had risen by $3.9 billion to $7.0. Four-fifths of this gain (or $3.1 billion) was accounted for by loans to exporters; one-sixth ($649 million) by Canadian assets, and the remainder ($157 million) by other foreign assets. Over the years, commercial banks subject to the foreign lending restraints have generally operated within the ceilings established under the VFCR Guidelines. However, during the first half of 1973, when inter- national money markets were subjected to extreme pressures, many banks temporarily exceeded their foreign loan ceilings as they responded to unanticipated credit demands by their foreign customers. This was especially true during February and May. But in most cases, the banks were able to correct the ceiling averages quite rapidly--in some cases at considerable costs, including liquidating assets at a loss or shifting assets to foreign branches to be financed by high-cost Euro-dollars. Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis - 30 - U.S. Agencies and Branches of Foreign Banks Foreign-owned commercial banks have been playing an expanding 1 role in the United States money and capital markets in recent years. For a number of reasons (including State regulations as well as private operating advantages) these institutions have generally been organized as agencies and branches under State laws (mainly in New York and California). Agencies cannot accept deposits (except those related to international transactions). They are free, however, to engage in a variety of domestic and foreign lending activities. Historically, most of the agencies were of Canadian origin, but in recent years banks in Japan, the United Kingdom, and a number of other countries have established agencies in the United States. The number of U.S. branches of foreign banks has also expanded,substantially. In November, 1971, 49 agencies and branches of foreign banks were reporting to the Federal Reserve Board under the VFCR program. By November, 1973, that number had risen to 71. Unlike U.S. banks, these foreign owned institutions can have offices in several States—so long as they do not have separately incorporated commercial banks located in more than one state and thus subject to the prohibitions of the U.S. Bank Holding Company Act. When the VFCR Guidelines were first issued in early 1965, agencies and branches of foreign banks were asked to observe the spirit of the restraints—but they were not subjected to fixed ceilings on foreign loans as were U.S. commercial banks. Over the next few years, 1 the agencies and branches foreign assets expanded significantly. This Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis - 31 - was especially true of their loans to Japanese borrowers. In response to these developments, in November, 1971 (when a major revision was made in the Guidelines), these institutions were requested informally to keep the expansion of their foreign assets roughly in line with the increase in the funds obtained from their own parent banks and from other non-U.S. sources. The response to this request was positive, but its intent apparently was not fully understood, and its interpretation varied somewhat among Federal Reserve Banks. Moreover, U.S. agencies and branches of foreign banks contributed substantially to the capital outflows which occurred during the early months of 1973. In the light of these developments, the VFCR Guidelines were amended in July last year and made to apply formally to them. The growth of the foreign assets of the U.S. agencies and branches of foreign hanks in the 1-1/2 years preceding their being subjected to the VFCR Guidelines is shown in Table 5, along with comparable data for U.S. commercial banks. Several points stand out in these figures. In November, 1971, the agencies and branches had about one-fifth of the total foreign assets held by the two groups combined. They held nearly the same proportion of assets of the type subject to the VFCR and of export credits. They held about one-quarter of the total assets exempt from the VFCR and over half of the Canadian assets. Between November, 1971, and June, 1973, however, the agencies and branches expanded their foreign assets much more rapidly than did U.S. commercial banks. Moreover, the growth was concentrated in assets of the types that were restricted by the VFCR Guidelines as far as U.S. commercial banks were concerned. Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis - 32 - For example, agencies and branches accounted for nearly half of the expansion in total foreign assets held by the two groups—but for almost three-quarters of the expansion in the assets subject to the VFCR. In contrast, they accounted for roughly one-third of the growth of the remaining categories of foreign assets. So, by the end of last June, they had about one-third of the total foreign assets and of VFCR-covered assets held by the two groups combined. They also held just over one- quarter of all exempt assets and of export credits. Against the background of these developments, the U.S. agencies and branches of foreign banks were asked formally on July 19, 1973, to observe quantitative limits in extending credit to foreign borrowers. Specifically, the Guidelines as amended permit these institutions to increase their claims on non-U.S. residents to the extent that they increase the amount of funds they borrow from their own parent banks and from non-U.S. sources. June 30, 1973, was set as the base date for calculating changes in foreign assets of the types subject to restraint and changes in offsetting foreign liabilities. At the time, however, the amendment did not--and was not intended to--change the degree of restraint affecting these institutions. U.S. agencies and branches began in July to report to the Federal Reserve Board under the amended Guidelines described above. These statistics are summarized in Table 6. As of November 3(J, they held for their own account foreign assets subject to fcestraint in the amount of $5.1 billion, and their foreign liabilities totaled $10.4 billion— leaving them with a net foreign position of minus (-) $5,280 million. Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis - 33 - This latter figure can be compared with the base net foreign position (as determined on June 30, 1973) which they required at the end of November to be in conformity with the VFCR Guidelines, That requirement was minus (-) $4,605 million. Thus, they had an aggregate leeway of $675 million. During the first 11 months of 1973, the agencies and branches increased their holdings of assets of the types subject to restraint by almost 80 per cent. However, the rise in their foreign liabilities was even more rapid: in the period July-November, the increase in liabilities outstripped the increase in assets subject to restraint by $675 million. This was the leeway mentioned above that was available to them at the end of November to expand loans to their foreign customers. These institutions—as was true of U.S. commercial banks— expanded substantially their financing of U.S. exports. In the year through November, their holdings of export credits increased by 62 per cent. Nonbank Financial Institutions As of September 30, 1973, U.S. nonbank financial institutions (including nonprofit organizations) held $17.4 billion of foreign assets for their own account (Table 7). Of this amount, $16.2 billion (or 93 per cent of the total) were exempt from the VFCR Guidelines. Three- quarters of the exempted assets (or roughly $12.2 billion) consisted of investments in Canada, other than export credits. Direct obligations of international institutions ($1.2 billion) and long-tern investments Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis - 34 - in developing countries ($1.4 billion) accounted for most of the remaining exempt assets. Export credits amounted to only $140 million. « These institutions had aggregate VFCR ceilings of 1,703 million at the end of last September. They had foreign assets subject to the ceiling of $1,150 million. However, they had outstanding foreign borrowing of $206 million which could be used to offset part of their foreign claims. Thus, they had an aggregate leeway of $759 million. During the course of 1973, their holdings af assets exempt from restraint were essentially unchanged. Receftt VFCR Program Changes On December 26, 1973, the Federal Reserve Board announced several amendments to the VFCR Guidelines. As indicated above, the amendments represented a relaxation in restraint effective January 1, 1974, The changes were announced simultaneously with the reduction in the rate of the Interest Equalization Tax and the relaxation of the Foreign Direct Investment Regulations—administered by the Treasury Department and the Department of Commerce, respectively. For the VFCR-participating financial institutions, one element of relaxation was an increase in the minimum ceiling applicable to foreign assets of the types subject to restraint. These minimums were raised from $500 thousand to $10 million for banks; from $1 million to $10 million for U.S. agencies and branches of foreign banks, and from $500 thousand to $2 million for nonbank financial institutions. For institutions with ceilings higher than the new minimum ceilings, the ceilings were raised by 4 per cent for banks and agencies and branches Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis - 35 - and by 5 per cent for nonbank financial institutions. For all VFCR- participating financial institutions, subsidiary restraints relating to loans to residents of developed countries of continental Western Europe were abolished. 1 At this point, we can turn to the discussion of banks expected response to the prospect that controls on foreign lending will be removed by the end of this year. 1 VII. Banks Reactions to Prospective Elimination of U.S. Capital Controls As mentioned above, late last year, I wrote to a number of banks reporting under the VFCR to ask them how the elimination of U.S. capital controls by the end of 1974 might affect their foreign business. The letter was addressed to 60 of the 226 banks reporting under the VFCR Guidelines last November. The banks receiving the inquiry were selected with the aim of obtaining reactions from a broad spectrum of institutions active in international finance to varying degrees. The scope of the coverage was as follows: Foreign Assets Held Number of Banks ($ mill., Nov. 30, 1973 Class of Bank Per Cent Contacted Response Amount of Total All VFCR Reporting Banks (226) (16 ,900) (100. 0) Banks in survey 60 50 13 ,604* 80. 5 Multi-country banks 20 19 12 ,370 73. 2 Major regional banks 20 18 1 ,007 6. 0 Other regional banks 20 13 227 1. 3 Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis - 36 - As one can see, the banks holding the great bulk of the foreign assets were included. The banks were classified according to the general character of their business. All of the multi-national banks were drawn from the 20 largest banks in the United States.—^ All of them play a substantial role in international finance. For instance, each of them had one or more foreign branches and many of them had extensive foreign branch networks. Deposits in these branches varied from 12 per cent to 47 per cent of the combined deposits of domestic and foreign offices as of June 30, 1972. Each bank had a relatively large volume of loans to foreign borrowers on the books of the head office. Also, when this classification was developed in early 1970, three-quarters of the banks were obtaining funds by borrowing in the Euro-dollar market for head office use. More than half of the multi-national banks had business loan holdings equal to 60 per cent or more of their total loans, and a large number of them were important in the correspondent banking field. Finally, a large segment of the multi-national banks are major borrowers in the Federal funds market. Using similar criteria—but stressing sizable domestic activities and the exercise of significant influence in a principal region of the country—the major regional banks were classified. Seven of these banks had branches in London as well as in Nassau or the Cayman Islands. The other regional banks play an important— but somewhat more limited—role in their respective regions in the United States. Each of them had only one shell foreign branch. Fourteen of them were located in Nassau and the rest in the Cayman Islands. I have employed this classification of banks on previous occasions. See, for example, "Multi-National Banks and the Management of Monetary Policy in the United States," The Journal of Finance, Vol. XXVIII, No. 2, May, 1973, pp. 439-454. Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis - 37 - The questions raised in my letter were based on the assumption that the U.S. controls limiting capital outflows will be terminated by the end of this year. Each bank was asked: —To what extent would the elimination of these controls result in a shift back to the United States of the foreign lending and deposit business now done in London and/or at other overseas branches of the institution? —To what extent would the bank's borrowing customers seek to refinance in the U.S. market the loans now outstanding in the Euro-currency markets? —What considerations would the bank take into account in any scaling down of operations at its foreign offices and in decisions to shift those operations to domestic offices? —Would such a shift in business justify the closing of any of the bank's foreign branches or make it more reticent about expanding its foreign branch operations? —In what way might it influence the bank's decisions about operating other facilities abroad, including participation in joint ventures? Banks with a branch.in Nassau or the Cayman Islands were askech to indicate what future they see for that facility once the controls limiting outflows of bank funds from the United States have been eliminated. Each bank was also asked to look beyond the impact of the elimination of capital controls and to indicate what it foresees with respect to the geographic focus of its overseas expansion during the next five years: (1) London; (2) Continental Europe; (3) Middle East; (4) Africa; (5) South America and the Caribbean; (6) East Asia (especially Japan, Hong Kong, and Singapore) and the Pacific; (7) South Asia; (8) China; (9) Soviet Union; (10) Eastern Europe; and (11) other geographic areas. Finally, the banks were asked to include in their reply any other comments they wanted to make on the general subject. Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis - 38 - As indicated above, 50 of the 60 banks contacted responded to the inquiry--including 19 of the multi-national, 18 of the major regional, and 13 of the other regional banks. However, eight of the responses were received too late to be included in the statistical tabulations. The information for the 42 banks which did respond in time to be included is summarized in Table 8. Shift of Business to the United States Most of the banks responding (30 out of 42) would expect the elimination of capital controls to result in a shift of some foreign branch business back to the United States. This view was held by a somewhat larger proportion of the multi-national banks than was true of the two groups of regional banks. The main reasons cited by banks expecting a shift—as well as by those which did not--are also summarized i in Table As one would expect, a great deal of variation is observable, but several impressions stand out above all others: the elimination of capital controls will induce a number of banks to shift some of their foreign operations hack to the United States. On the other hand, a substantial proportion of the banks (especially the largest ones) view themselves as truly international in scope and see their future as lying as much in that arena as in the U.S. domestic market. A large percentage of the banks (in each size group) report that Federal Reserve regulations relating to reserve requirements and setting ceilings on interest rates payable on deposits severely limit their ability to compete at home for foreign deposits. These several factors can be discussed briefly. Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis - 39 - Factors Influencing Decisions to Reduce or Maintain Foreign Operations Elimination of the 3/FCR ceiling is the primary factor leading some banks to conclude that their business at foreign branches will be reduced and transferred to U.S. head offices after all three types of U.S. capital controls are removed. Prospective elimination of restraints on foreign direct investment and the Interest Equalization Tax (IET) were less important factors for most respondent banks, because they believe effective interest-rate differentials will probably not favor New York and because a large amount of the lending they do is not subject to the IET. For example, one banker stated that removal of the controls should lead U.S. banks toward a more fully integrated credit and liability control system centralized in the United States. Decisions of the responding banks actually to close a foreign shell branch (none anticipated closing a full-service branch) would appear to be tempered by apprehension that U.S. capital controls might be reintroduced at some time in the future--as well as by the adverse competitive effects of reserve requirements and interest rate ceilings. In contrast, a significant number of banks stressed their efforts to build a broadly-based foreign network on the explicit assumption that their future performance would rest heavily on their ability to compete in world money and capital markets. This competitive necessity will mandate the retention of their foreign facilities. Several large banks emphasized the importance of maintaining "present overseas business relationships 11 through physical proximity. A common thread running through the responses Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis - 40 - (including those by some of the regional banks as well as by some of the multi-national institutions) was the need for proximity to attract local currency sources of funds. In fact, quite a few of the banks pointed to a growing necessity to establish retail banking offices (such as the "money shops" in the United Kingdom) as well as to tailor services to specific markets. One major New York bank heavily involved in the Euro-dollar market emphasized the need to maintain its "expertise and ability to marshall very large amounts of money for clients in a relatively short time," an ability it apparently shares with a number of other banks that responded. Relatively lower interest rates in the Euro-dollar market and— for some banks—the comparatively low cost of operating foreign branches (particularly outside London) were also explicitly mentioned by some of the banks. Several of the multi-national banks spoke of the value of experience and knowledge developed by personnel at their foreign branches (many of whom are foreign citizens as well as Americans) whom they want to keep. With respect to shell branches, a number of banks (including both large and smaller institutions) were apprehensive that U.S. capital controls might be reinstated. Consequently, they wished to avoid the expense and delay that would be involved in reopening a closed branch. Reserve Requirements, Interest Rate Ceilings, and the Differential Cost of Money As already mentioned, the regime of Federal Reserve regulations on reserve requirements and interest rates on deposits was identified by a number of commercial banks as strongly affecting their decisions with respect to the locations from which they seek to serve their foreign Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis - 41 - customers. Again this factor was cited more than any other as the reason not to reduce foreign operations. Regulations D and M call for reserves that increase the effective cost of funds to U.S. parent banks, and Regulation Q limits the interest those banks may pay depositors, in particular prohibiting the payment of interest on deposits of less than 30-day maturity, and thus making it difficult for U.S. parent banks to bid for very short-term funds. One smaller regional bank engaged in import and export financing went so far as to indicate that if the Federal Reserve allowed its foreign sourcing and lending to be done on a net basis at its head office (the Federal Reserve allowing it to borrow abroad free of reserves up to the amount of funds it lent abroad), it would handle all its foreign business at its head office and it "would not foresee the need for a foreign office for (its) operation for a long time to come." As it may be recalled, the foreign branches of U.S. banks operate free of these regulations, which impose reserve requirements on both domestic 8/ deposits and Euro-dollar borrowings by banks in the U.S. More specifically, these regulations necessitate that Federal Reserve member banks must meet marginal reserve requirements of 8 per cent on large-denomination time deposits ($100,000 and above) and related instruments, including Euro-dollars. (In passing, it should be recalled that a number of large nonmember banks 8/ It is worth noting that the survey reported on here occurred before the marginal reserve requirement on large denomination time deposits and related instruments was reduced from 11 to 8 per cent. As a result, the influence of Federal Reserve regulation in such decisions now may be somewhat less than it was when the survey was taken in late November and early December. One of the regulations applies incidentally to foreign branch loans to U.S. residents. Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis - 42 - as well as some agencies and branches of foreign banks are also doing so voluntarily at the request of the Federal Reserve Board). Formerly, U.S. banks faced interest rate ceilings on large-denomination time deposits, although they are now free to bid for such deposits without constraints with respect to rates of interest. (Ceilings on time deposits less than $100,000, however, still apply.) Not suprisingly, these regulations affect the cost of funds to U.S. banks in a significant fashion. As shown in Table 9, the 8 per cent marginal reserve requirement on large time deposits or Euro-dollar borrowings(both being major sources of funds to finance loan expansion) raises the effective cost of funds by an amount on the order of 80 basis points—given the rates prevailing around the beginning of January. Thus, banks raising money in domestic markets to lend internationally might find themselves at a cost disadvantage, induced by a reserve requirement which many of them describe as a "tax" on their major "raw material." Moreover, to compound the problem (and several bankers themselves cited this factor), borrowers in U.S. markets may be forced to pay a higher effective rate of interest because of U.S. banking practices requiring compensating balances. Thus, as indicated in Table 9, with a 9.75 per cent commercial bank prime rate in early January, a 20 per cent compensating balance might add over 240 basis points to the effective rate of interest, making U.S. loans too expensive for a borrower with opportunities to obtain credit in London. Of course, compensating balances may to some extent repre- sent a firm's normal working balances that would be held in any case, so that the Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis - 43 - balance requirements may appear much more formidable than they actually are. Nevertheless, such a practice cannot make the U.S. domestic banking business more competitive. Overall, we can see that the competitive edge of banking institutions doing business in the U.S. may be blunted sosDCwhct by both regulatory limits and industry practice. The customs of the banking industry are a problem that perhaps is best handled by bankers themselves. However, the regulatory limits on U.S. banks are a matter within the province of the Federal Reserve Board, and it might be well to review briefly the reaons why reserve requirements were imposed on some of the principal money market sources of funds. These controls were developed for the purpose of limiting the use of instruments such as large CD's or Euro-dollar borrowings as a means of evading the impact of domestic 11 monetary restraint—particularly, as a "loop-hole employed by the banks to meet the credit demands of their large business customers. For example, the 8 per cent marginal reserve requirements on time deposits and Euro-dollar borrowings announced on May 16, 1973, were "...designed to curb the rapid expansion in bank credit and help moderate inflationary pressures, and at the same time to assure the availability of credit on a reasonable scale." So, in the meantime, while I personally can appreciate the degree to which the regulations adversely affect the competitive position of U.S. banks when viewed in an international context, the question of their modification in the future (if that turns out to be the case) is one on which the Federal Reserve Board as a whole will have to act. Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis - 44 - VIII. Domestic Refinancing of Euro-dollar Borrowing by U.S. Bank Customers The capital controls on U.S. foreign direct investment have required U.S. corporations to finance much of their overseas investment by borrowing from foreigners. As these controls are removed, how much of the presently outstanding loans by non-Americans to U.S. corporations will be paid off and replaced by loans from U.S. banks and from other Americans? Also, to what extent will the absence of the capital controls cause future financing for new and ongoing U.S. foreign direct investment to be made from the domestic offices of U.S. banks rather than from their foreign branches? According to the banks that have responded, some outstanding loans--but by no means a major portion--will be refinanced from the United States, and an important amount of such new lending will continue to be handled by their foreign branches in the future. The amount of debt owed by U.S. direct investors to foreigners at the end of 1973--the so-called debt overhang under the Department of Commerce Foreign Direct Investment Program--was as large as or larger than the approximately $15 billion outstanding at the end of the previous year. There is also additional interest-bearing debt of U.S. foreign affiliates that is not covered by the Program and that is predominantly attributable to their ongoing commercial activities. At the end of 1972, it totaled about $20 billion. Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis - 45 - It is particularly important, in estimating possible capital outflows from the United States represented by refinancing of this $35 billion of combined debts, to have some idea of how much of this debt is volatile--that is, how much of these debts to foreigners could be paid off rather quickly and replaced by direct investor borrowings from U.S. lenders. This appraisal of volatility must take account of numerous and difficult-to-judge factors. The most important of these appear to be: present and anticipated interest rate differentials between foreign and U.S. markets; leeway available to U.S. banks and other U.S. financial institutions under current or future (if any) bank ceilings; the availability of current and future liquid balances available abroad to the direct investors; the preferences of direct investors to meet U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission requirements for public offerings in the United States over using the less formally controlled foreign financial markets; a schedule of maturities of outstanding debt; the amounts of medium- and long-term debt that can be refinanced without substantial penalties for pre-payment, and knowledge of the significance of conversion prices for convertible bonds. Many banks replied that their customers were interest rate sensitive and would refinance if U.S. rates proved relatively attractive. For example, one bank noted that some U.S. corporations that were already liquid and not in need of funds--nevertheless—were forced by the U.S. regulations to borrow from foreigners. Without those controls, they presumably would repay quickly. Most of these banks, however, do believe Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis - 46 - that interest-rate differentials will not favor U.S. sources and that other factors might provide additional incentives to continue financing in foreign markets. One large southwestern bank considered that Euro-dollar financing terms recently had tended to be more liberal with respect to maturities and amortization schedules. Another institution (a medium-sized Eastern bank heavily engaged in trade financing) believes some of its customers will be hesitant to abandon offshore financing facilities because of the fear that U.S. capital controls might be reimposed. A large New York bank pointed out that some outstanding loans made abroad to U.S. direct investors were "purchase and sale of money" transactions the bank regarded as typical of the Euro-dollar market and did not involve collateral banking relationships of any importance. Because of the borrower's inability to comply with the bank's normal requirements for commercial banking relationships in the United States, the banks doubted that the business could be transferred to its New York office. A sizable portion of the foreign debt of the customers of a large Mid-Western bank was denominated in foreign currencies or had been issued on a convertible basis. The bank believed the customers' interest in protecting themselves against cross currency risks (especially important under a system of floating currencies) and the prohibitive cost of refinancing outstanding convertibles with new convertibles (given present, unappealing U.S. stock market levels) would make it doubtful that these portions of outstanding debt Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis - 47 - would be refinanced. The head of a regional bank that is not a prominent lender to foreign-oriented corporations (but whose bank is heavily involved with foreign governments) gave a reply based on his reaction as the director of several well-known, U.S.-based, multinational corporations. He reported that he has urged those corporations, in their activities around the world, to develop local currency resources with local banks. These companies, with excellent credit ratings, have no difficulty in drawing on Euro-dollars. Yet, they have turned their attention to developing local currency sources. Frankly he said, it is "politically important to f 11 a multinational company to have relations with local banks —which of necessity must be in a position to deal with their governments. Some banks that are heavily engaged in foreign lending are located in areas of the United States where there are relatively few corporations that are foreign direct investors. These banks, of course, would not he much (if at all) affected by the removal of the Foreign Direct Investment Program. As I reflect on these responses by the banks surveyed, I conclude that some U.S. corporations may decide to refinance in the United States the loans they have outstanding in the Euro-currency markets. At the same time, however, I also get the distinct impression that the volume of such traffic back to the domestic market may be much lighter than some observers seem to anticipate. This conclusion suggests that a sizable part of both the medium-term and long-term markets in dollars will remain in London— Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis - 48 - not only for European borrowers and lenders but also for a number of American firms, which will continue to have large capital needs. Moreover, it also seems clear that both borrowers and depositors from the Middle East and other developing areas will continue to find the Euro-currency market an attractive place in which to do business. IX: Geographic Focus of Foreign Branch Expansion In the coming years, most U.S. banks intend to focus the expansion of their network of overseas offices in those geographical regions where they have traditionally operated. These would include London, Continental Europe, South America and the Caribbean. (See Table 10.) In the case of Continental Europe, however, there is some concern that the European Economic Community may eventually raise a number of barriers inhibiting foreign banking activities. In view of this possibility, many U.S. banks anticipate that—as far as Europe is concerned— they will put substantial emphasis on the expansion of their peripheral banking activities, such as leasing, underwriting and data processing. In Latin America and the Caribbean area, the prospects for expansion are also somewhat clouded. There is the possibility that the political environment and other factors will become progressively less hospitable for foreign banks. These factors include the risk of expropriation, restrictions against establishing branches or obtaining a meaningful participation in existing banks, and the relative unattractiveness of the area as regards the potential for economic growth. Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis - 49 - Many banks that are already established in Latin America will probably continue to expand their activities there. This is particularly the case with banks (such as several in the Southeastern United States) that view Latin America as their primary area of overseas activity. These banks also believe that the removal of capital controls will help their representative offices in Latin America to develop both new deposit business and loans. The most promising areas for further overseas expansion appear to be the Middle East, East Asia and the Pacific. As indicated in Table 10, 11 of the 42 banks tabulated anticipate that they will expand their activities in the Middle East and 27 in East Asia and the Pacific. One of the main focal points in the Middle East is expected to be Beirut, which is centrally located and has an active foreign exchange market. Several banks also specifically emphasized that the growing volume of oil revenues available for investment will make the Middle East an increasingly interesting place in which to do business. Many U.S. banks, in discussing areas for future expansion, mentioned their interest in East Asia and the Pacific, and some viewed this area as the most promising. At present, most of the East Asian countries are open to establishment of either new branch banks or minority joint venture operations by foreign banking interests. Virtually all of the countries are open in some way to investment in other types of financial or bank-related activities—such as merchant or investment banks, finance companies, money market intermediaries, or peripheral-type banking businesses, including leasing and management consulting. Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis - 50 - Some of the responses from the banks on East Asia and Pacific 11 cited this area as "... primary area of concentration, "...as the growth area of the 1970's," and "...as the growth area that they would rank first." As indicated in Table 10, only a moderate amount of expansion is anticipated by U.S. banks in China, the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. Although the American banks do not expect to establish very many branches in this region, they do expect to increase substantially their credits to these three areas. It is likely that, in all of these areas of possible future expansion, restraint on deposit-taking activities (or at least competition for household deposits) will lead the American banks into greater reliance on the use of joint ventures. In most areas where the banks are able to accept domestic deposits, they are likely to be forced to "domesticate" their activities, i.e., they will have to become much more of an integral part of the local financial scene—becoming partners with indigenous businessmen, hiring local employees, and in other ways demonstrating that they are prepared to make a genuine contribution to the economic development of the host countries. In the responses I received from U.S. commercial banks, it is clear that many of them are anxious to participate in this task. Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis - 51 - X. Concluding Observations The main conclusions reached in this paper were summarized at the outset. Before closing, however, several observations can be made. The results from this survey of prospects for banks in international money and capital markets point to a few consequences of considerable importance. In the first place, it seems clear that (once U.S. capital controls have been eliminated) the American market— and particularly New York—will regain some of its former position. This will certainly be the case as far as the sizable corporate clients of U.S. banks are concerned. But it also seems likely that both foreign purchasers of U.S. securities (as well as those offering equities in firms abroad) along with foreign borrowers seeking substantial long-term accommodation (including foreign governments) will turn again to New York. On the other hand, while some of the international financial business now conducted in London may migrate to New York, I would certainly not expect a general dismantling of the facilities built up over many years. In particular, there appears to be little prospect that the short-term Euro-dollar market centered in London will migrate to the west side of the Atlantic. London's natural time advantage, its enormous endowment of capital resources and technical competence—as well as its tradition of minimum regulation of financial transactions—will maintain London's role as one of the world's two leading financial markets. As far as other geographic areas are concerned, I would expect the financial markets in Continental Europe to register considerable growth in the years ahead—although the pace of expansion may slacken somewhat Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis - 52 - compared with that achieved in the recent past. In any case, the outcome will clearly depend significantly on policies adopted by the EEC. In the meantime, one can certainly hope that these evolving policies will emphasize openness and equality of treatment—rather than discrimination against banking institutions headquartered outside its boundaries. In other parts of the world, I would expect areas such as Nassau and the Cayman Islands (where so many U.S. banks have opened bookkeeping facilities mainly because of U.S. capital controls) to lose some of their existing banking business--and to gain less in coming years. The rest of South and Central America and the Caribbean will undoubtedly continue to attract foreign banks--not only those from the United States but from Europe and Japan as well. Yet, the overall environment prevailing in that part of the world may become progressively less hospitable. In sharp contrast, it appears that East Asia and the Pacific (particularly Hong Kong and Singapore) will become increasingly attractive areas in which to offer the kinds of financial services which the major banks active on the world scene can provide. The Middle East (and this appears to be especially true of Beirut) will also become increasingly attractive^ Finally, it seems evident that Africa, South Asia, and most other poor regions of the world will offer few opportunities for banks to offer services. This poses a classical dilemma: how can such areas enhance their prospects for economic development if they cannot induce the world*s leading private financial institutions to join in the task? Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis - 53 - Yet, how can the latter do so before a stage of development has been reached that justifies a major commitment? How American and other commercial banks respond under these circumstances will provide a real test of their ability to help those marginal areas where so many of the world's poor and left-out people are struggling to improve their lives. - 0 - Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Table 1 Claims On Foreigners Reported By Banks In The United States (In millions of dollars) p Sept. 30, 1969 Sept. 30, 1971 Sept. 30, 1973 Per cent Per cent Per cent Amount of total Amount of total Amount of total Short-term claims Developed countries 5,248 58.5 7,204 60.7 11,593 61.9 Wesrtern Europe 1,347 15.0 1,786 15.0 3,511 18.8 United Kingdom 383 4.3 457 3.9 1,304 7.0 Canada 634 7.1 1,092 9.2 1,907 10.2 Japan 3,164 35.3 4,047 34.1 5,801 31.0 Australia & So. Africa 103 1.1 279 2.4 374 2.0 Less developed countries 3,719 415 4,666 39.3 7,127 38.0 Latin America 2,716 300.3 3,347 28.2 5,176 27.6 Asia 871 9.7 1,108 9.3 1,525 8.1 Africa 86 1.0 143 1.2 246 1.3 All other 1/ 46 .5 68 .6 180 1.0 Total 8,967 100.0 11,870 100.0 18,720 100.0 Long-term claims Developed countries 1,188 36.2 1,386 40.3 1,770 32.8 Western Europe 469 14.3 676 19.7 860 15.9 United Kingdom 67 2.0 126 3.7 131 2.4 Canada 403 12.3 264 7.7 418 7.8 Japan 93 2.8 225 6.5 252 4.7 Australia & So. Africa 223 6.8 221 6.4 240 4.5 Less developed countries 2,096 63.8 2,054 59.8 3.622 67.2 Latin America 1,334 40.6 1,351 39.3 1,924 35.7 Asia 562 17.1 536 15.6 1,192 22.1 Africa 151 4.6 124 3.6 232 4.3 All other 1/ 49 1.5 43 1.3 274 5.1 Total 3,284 100.0 3,440 100.0 5,392 100.0 Total claims Developed countries 6,436 52.5 8,590 56.1 13.363 55.4 Western Europe 1,816 14.8 2,462 16.1 4,371 18.1 United Kingdom 450 3.7 583 3.8 1,722 7.1 Canada 1,037 8.5 1,356 8.9 2,325 9.6 Japan 3,257 26.6 4,272 27.9 6,053 25.1 Australia & So. Africa 326 2.7 500 3.3 614 2.5 Less developed countries 5,815 47.5 6,720 43.8 10,749 44.6 Latin America 4,050 33.1 4,698 30.7 7,100 29.4 Asia 1,433 11.7 1,644 10.7 2,717 11.3 Africa 237 1.9 267 1.7 478 2.0 All other 1/ 95 .8 111 .7 454 1.9 Total 12,251 100.0 15,310 100.0 24,112 100.0 1/ Includes U.SS.R. and other Eastern Europe, New Zealand and all other countries; also includes small amounts for 0international and regional organizations. Source: Treasury Foreign Exchange Reports. Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Table 2. Total Resources of Foreign Branches of U.S. Banks, by Major Geographic Area, 1969, 1971, 1973 (Amounts in millions of dollars) Geographic Area September 30, 1969 September 30, 1971 September 30, 1973 Percentage Change 1969-71 1971-73 1969-73 Amount Per cent Amount Per cent Amount Per cent of total of total of total Total: All Foreign Branches 29,923 100.0 55,541 100.0 109,330 100.0 85.6 96.8 265.4 Europe 25,556 85.4 44,500 80.2 77,313 " 70.7 74.1 73.7 202.5 United Kingdom 20,137 67.3 32,582 58.7 55,686 50.9 61.8 70.9 176.5 Rest of Europe 5,419 18.1 11,918 21.5 21,627 19.8 119.9 81.5 299.1 Asia and Pacific 2,242 7.5 4,276 7.6 9,670 8.8 90.7 126.1 331.3 Hong Kong and Singapore -- — 694 1.2 2,756 2.5 297.1 — Rest of Asia and Pacific 3,582 6.4 6,914 6.3 -- 93.0 Latin America and Caribbean 2,125 7.1 6,767 12.2 22,345 20.5 218.4 230.2 905.2 Nassau and Cayman Islands 6,193 11.2 21,059 19.3 :: 240.0 -- -- -- Rest of Latin America 574 1.0 1,286 1.2 124.0 Source: Appendix Tables I-III. Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Table 3. Rates of Return on Domestic and Foreign Activities of U.S. Commercial Banks, by Location of Foreign Branches, 1969 and 1972 (Amounts in millions of dollars) Location of Foreign Branch Average Assets 1/ Net Income 2/ Rates of Return (Per cent) ' Domestic Foreign Domestic Foreign Domestic Foreign 1969 1972 1969 1972 1969 1972 1969 1972 1969 1972 1969 1972 Multi-Country Branches 3/ Established before 1969 (8 hanks) 91,186 109,531 21,733 41,580 628 628 80 261 .69 .57 .37 .63 Established since 1969 (8 banks) 55,238 11,337 273 28 .49 .25 II. London Branches Only 4/ Established before 1969 (8 banks) 14,866 18,888 1,217 3,511 118 139 6 .79 .73 .22 .18 Established since 1969 (8 banks) 18,374 -- 2,906 116 6 .63 .22 III. Nassau Branches Only 5/ (32 banks) 49,309 2,497 -- 378 16 .77 .64 IV Memorandum A. All Insured Commercial Banks7/ 516,325 676,7.21 4,566 5,521 .88 .82 B. All Federal Reserve Member 7/ Banks 429,152 542,469 3,653 4,340 .85 .80 Banks with deposits of: $100-500 million 82,155 100,318 752 771 .92 .77 $500 million & over 250,023 362,829 2,009 2,590 .80 .71 C. Consolidated Foreign and Average Assets Net Income Rate of Return Domestic Activity 1969 1972 1969 1972 1969 1972" (14 banks) 6/ 145,617 220,606 923,772 1,256,448 .63 .57 U Average of total assets as reported in the Call Report for December of each year and of preceding year. 2/ Domes Lie net income is atter taxes but before securities gains and losses. Foreign income is after foreign (but before U.S.) taxes. 3/ Banks with 2 or more foreign branches (except shell branches). 4/ Banks with only a London branch (shell branches are excluded). 5/ Banks with only a Nassau branch (Banks with other branches are excluded.) 6/ Banks whose assets and income from all sources (domestic, foreign branches, and foreign subsidifciiietO are consolidated. 2/ Asset data aro for end of year only. Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Table 4. Foreign Assets of U.S. Commercial-Banks Reporting Under the VFCR Guidelines (millions of dollars; data as of end of each month) 1971 1972 1973 Category Nov. Dec. Nov. Dec. March June Sept. Nov. Number of reporting banks 184 194 214 222 224 223 229 226 Aggregate ceiling 9,876 10,032 10,208 10,276 10,307 10,295 10,351 10,338 Assets held for own account subject to restraint 8,587 8,955 8,890 9,189 9,537 9,371 9,186 9,214 Aggregate net leeway 1,289 1,078 1,318 1,087 771 924 1,164 1,124 Assets exempted from VFCR 3,111 3,947 4,898 5,339 5,910 6,962 6,559 6,988 Canadian assets 218 536 666 927 855 807 713 867 Export credits other than to residents of Canada 2,789 3,299 4,033 4,213 4,845 5,930 5,585 5,860 Other 104 112 199 199 210 225 261 261 TOTAL assets held for own account 11,698 12,902 13,788 14,529 15,447 16,332 15,745 16,201 Source: Federal Reserve Board. Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Table 5. Foreign Assets Held by U.S. Commercial Banks and U.S. Agencies and Branches of Foreign Banks, November 30, 1971 and June 30, 1973 (Millions of dollars) Total Held for Subject to Exempt from Canadian Export Category Own Account VFCR Ceilings VFCR Ceilings Assets Credits November, 1971 U.S. commercial banks 11,698 8,587 3,111 218 2,789 U.S. agencies and branches of foreign banks 2,838 1,875 964 250 714 TOTAL 14,536 10,462 4,075 468 3,503 i Agencies as per cent of total 19.5 17.9 23.7 53.4 20.X June, 1973 U.S. commercial banks 16,332 9,371 6,962 807 5,930 U.S. agencies and branches of foreign banks 7,097 4,071 2,699 548 2,151 TOTAL 23,429 13,442 9,661 1,355 8,081 Agencies as per cent of total 30.2 30.2 27.9 40.4 26.6 Change, Nov, 1971 - June, 1973 U.S. commercial banks 4,634 784 3,851 589 3,141 U.S. agencies and branches of foreign banks 4,259 2,196 1,735 298 1,437 TOTAL 8,893 2,980 5,586 887 4,5% # Agencies as per cent of total change 47.8 73.7 31.1 33.6 31.4 Source: Federal Reserve Board. Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Table 6. Foreign Assets of U.S. Agencies and Branches of Foreign Banks (Millions of dollars; data-as of end of each month) 1971 1972 1973 Category Nov. Dec. Nov. Dec. July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Number of reporting institutions 49 51 58 62 66 64 68 69 71 Assets held for own account subject to restraint 1,875 1,943 2,441 2,994 4,207 4,437 4,587 4,991 5,142 Foreign Liabilities n.a. n.a. n„a. n.a. 9,134 9,332 9,549 10,193 10,421 Net foreign position n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. -4,927 -4,895 -4,962 -5,202 -5,280 Base net foreign position: June 30, 1973 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. -4,708 -4,634 -4,551 -4,551 -4,605 Aggregate leeway n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 219 261 411 650 675 Assets exempt from VFCR 964 1,066 1,604 1,819 2,743 2,665 2,706 2,639 2,719 Canadian assets 250 273 344 409 543 473 440 464 436 Export credits other than to residents of Canada 714 793 1,260 1,410 2,200 2,192 2,266 2,175 2,283 TOTAL assets held for own account 2,838 3,009 4,041 4,812 6,951 7,103 7,292 7,630 cr n.a. - not available. Source: Federal Reserve Board. Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Table 7. Foreign Assets of U.S. Nonbank Financial Institutions and Nonprofit Organizations (millions of dollars: data as of end of each month) Category I9ZI 1972 1973 pec,,. Sept., March June Sejvt. Number of reporting institutions 324 311 320 321 322 317 Assets subject to restraint 1,299 1,197 1,171 1,145 1,16-4 Deposits and money market instruments 21 56 69 69 87 •as Short- and intermediate-term credits 150 148 141 141 142 145 Long-term investments 1,128 993 961 935 935 913 Ceiling 1,782 1,676 1,733 1,728 1,732 1,703 Foreign borrowing offset 77 126 159 187 200 206 Aggregate leeway 560 605 721 770 768 759 Assets exempted from VFCR 14,347 15,209 15,454 15,858 16,030 16,223 Export credits 80 86 96 131 139 140 Investments in Canada, other than export credits 11,237 11,661 11,805 12,017 12,115 12,177 Direct obligations of international institutions 1,040 1,233 1,228 1,219 1,218 1,193 Long-term investments in developing countries other than export credits 1,068 1,238 1,303 1,328 1,310 1,370 Other nonexport investments 920 990 1,022 1,164 1,248 1,344 TOTAL assets held for own account 15,647 16,^05 16,625 17,003 17,194 17,372 Source: Federal Reserve Board. Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Table 8. Banks Reactions to Prospective Elimination of U.S. Capital Controls: Expected Impact on Foreign Act^^ties (Note: Sub-categories may not add to total because some banks were recorded under two or more headings.) Multi- Major Other National Regional Regional Category Banks- Banks—' Banks- Total Number of banks tabulated 18 14 10 42 Number expecting some shift in business to U.S. 15 9 6 30 Number expecting no shift in business to U.S. 3 5 4 12 Will volume of branch business be reduced? Yes 5 7 5 17 In general 3 1 4 At London branch 3 3 6 At shell branch 1 7 5 13 No 8 5 1 14 Inconclusive 4 3 7 Will number of foreign offices be reduced? Yes, shell branch 3 2 4 9 No 12 11 5 28 Inconclusive 2 2 4 What considerations will influence decisions to reduce foreign operations? (Banks expecting shift in business to U.S.) Removal of U.S. capital controls 5 6 5 16 Regulations D, M, and Q (limit reduction in foreign operations) 2 2 4 Apprehension about reinstitution of U.S. capital controls 3 1 4 Profitability 4 Interest rate relationships 1 1 2 Advantages to book some transactions at branch 1 1 Foreign taxes 1 1 Relative cost of operating branch 1 1 Relative currency strength 1 1 Effect on U.S. B/P I 1 Physical presence 1 1 Ease in raising funds in Euro- dollar market Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis TABLE 8 (cont'd) Multi- Major Other National Regional Regional Banks Banks Banks Total What considerations will influence decisions not to reduce foreign operations? (Some banks* expecting shift in business; arid other banks not expecting shift) Regulations D, Q, and M 4 2 2 8 Interest Rate Relationships 4 12 7 Apprehension of reinstitution of U.S. capital controls 2 12 5 Profitability 2 1 3 Relative cost of foreign brancji 1 11 3 Physical proximity to customers 4 4 Foreign taxes 3 3 Foreign controls 1 1 Competition 1 1 Absorption capacity of U.S. market limited 1 1 Capital ratios lower abroad 1 1 No compensating balances abroad 1 1 Foreign exchange considerations 1 1 Need source for increased foreign currency funds 1 1 Will a foreign branch be closed? Yes - Shell (only branch) 1 1 Shell only (has other branches) 2 4 6 Maybe - Shell 3 1 4 No 9 5 2 16 Will shift of some business to U.S. Increase reluctance to expand volume of business in foreign offices? Yes 1 1 No 11 4 3 18 Inconclusive 1 12 Increase reluctance to expand number of foreign offices? 1 Yes 1 2 4 9 No 1 3 13 No, no plans 1 2 1 4 Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis TABLE 8 (cont'd) Multi- Major Other National Regional Regional Banks Banks Banks Total Influence decisions on joint ventures: Encourage 2 2 4 No influence 8 1 9 None planned 3 To what extent would borrowing customers seek to refinance Eurodollar borrowings in U.S.? A lot 1 1 Some 1 1 Not much 4 1 4 9 Unsure 3 4 18 None 1 1 Memo: Depends on relative interest costs 6 7 13 1/ Multinational banks are the largest commercial banks in the U.S. that have been long-established in international finance and typically have operated branches or subsidiaries abroad or have participated in joint ventures for a number of years. Their foreign branch networks are generally quite extensive, 2/ Major regional banks are large banks which play a dominant role in their respective regions. A few have also been engaged in foreign activity but not on a large scale. Most of them have only Nassau or Cayman Islands shell branches. Other regional banks are typically newcomers to foreign activities. They have only Nassau or Cayman Islands shell branches. Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Table 9. Interest Rates on Deposits and Loans in New York and London, January 9, 1974 (Per Cent) New York less Source or Use of Funds New York Market London Market London Rate on Added cost of Cost to Cost to Difference in Fund Reserve Bank Bank: Rate cost to bank Source Requirement on Fund Source (i) £2) (3W1VK2) (i) (5)=(4)-(3) f 60-89 day CDs (or equivalent) rate 9.25 .80 10.05 9.31 + .74 Euro-dollar deposit Rate (on U.S. banks borrowing from London branch) Over-night (London bid) 9.00 .78 9.78 9.00 + .78 1 - month 9.06 .79 9.85 9.06 + .79 3 - month 9.31 .81 10.12 9.31 + .81 6 - month 9.31 .81 10.12 9.31 + .81 Added cost of Difference in Loan Compensating Cost to Cost to cost to Rate Balance Borrower Borrower borrower Prime Loan Rate 15% compensating balance 9.75 1.72 11.47 +1.66 9-81t/ compensating balance 9.75 2.44 12.19 9.81- -1-2.38 207o 1/ The cost to the borrower of a short-term loan of given maturity ~ is equal to LIBO (London Interbank Offer Rate) for deposits of equivalent maturity, plus a spread that is now typically 3/8%. 1 LIBO is equal to the deposit rate plus a normal brokers spread of 1/8%. Source: Federal Reserve Board. Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Table 10. Geographic Focus of Overseas Expansion By U.S. Banks, 1974-1979 Multi- Major Other Total Geographic Area of Anticipated National Regional Regional Expansion: Banks Banks Banks London 12 4 2 18 Continental Europe 14 10 4 28 Middle East 7 2 2 11 Africa 2 1 3 South American and Caribbean 5 10 8 23 East Asia and Pacific 14 9 4 27 Japan 3 2 1 6 Hong Kong 4 1 5 Singapore 4 1 5 Indonesia 2 2 South Asia 3 3 China 3 2 5 Soviet Union 4 1 5 Eastern Europe 4 2 6 Canada 3 1 4 Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis AI II- 3 Appendix Table III Sources and Uses of Funds of Foreign Branches of U.S. Banks, September 30, 1973 (Millions of Dollars) Sources and Uses of Funds All Foreign Branches Branches in the United Kingdom Branches in the Rest of Europe Amount Percentage Distribution Amount Percentage Distribution Per Cent Amount Percentage Distribution Per Cent _____ Sources Uses Sources Uses of Total _______ Sources Uses of Total Internal System U.S. Parent Source: liabilities to U.S. Parent 704 2.4 80 0.4 11.4 122 2.3 17.3 Use: claims on U.S, parent 11,783 39.4 8,829 43.8 74.9 1,466 27.1 Net Position 11,079 8,749 79.0 1,344 r Branches in Other Countries Source: liabilities to branches 2,779 9.3 1,257 6.2 45.2 1,000 18.5 36.0 Use: claims on branches 2,847 9.5 1,448 7.2 50.9 18.5 35.2 Net Position 68 191 280.9 4.4 Inter-Bank Market Source: liabilities to foreign banks 16,894 56.5 12,454 61.8 73.7 2,946 54.4 17.4 Use: claims on foreign banks 6,839 22.9 5,048 25.1 73.8 989 18.3 14.5 Net Position -10,055 -7,406 73.7 -1,957 19.5 Foreign Official Institutions Source: liabilities to fgn. off. Inst. 1,781 6.0 1,149 5.7 64.5 153 2.8 8.6 Use: claims on fgn. off. Inst. 445 1.5 188 0.9 42.2 174 3.2 39.1 Net Position -1,336 -961 71.9 21 -1.6 External Market Source: liabilities to private foreign depositors 4,894 16.4 3,270 16.2 66.8 830 15.3 17.0 Use: claims on private fgn. borrowers 5,438 18.2 2,906 14.4 53.4 1,239 22.9 22.8 Net Position 544 -364 -66.9 409 75.2 Residual Market Source: All other liabilities 2,871 9.5 1,927 9.6 67.1 368 6.8 Use: All other claims 2,456 8.2 1,682 8.4 68.5 497 9.2 Net Position -393 -245 62.3 129 -32.8 Total Resources 29,922? 100.0 100.0 20,137 100.0 100.0 67.3 5,419 100.0 100.0 18.1 Source: Federal Reserve Board, Monthly Report (FR 502) on Foreign Branch Assets and Liabilities, a/ Includes the net source of funds in Panama derived from other foreign branches of U.S. parent banks. Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Appendix Table I . Sources and Uses of Funds of Foreign Branches of U.S. Banks, September 30, 1969 (Millions of Dollars) Sources and Uses of Funds Branches in Asia Branches in Latin America /^ount Percentage Distribution Per Cent Amount Percentage Distribution Per cent Sources Uses of Total Sources Uses of Tot Internal System U.S. Parent Bank Source: liabilities to U.S. Parent 404 18.0 97 4.6 13.8 Use: claims on U.S. parent 608 27.1 880 41.4 7.5 Net Position 204 783 7.1 Branches in Other Countries Source: liabilities to branches 442 19.7 15.9 80 3.8 2.9 Use: claims on branches 200 8.9 7.0 196 9.2 6.9 Net Position -242 -355.9 116 170.6 Inter-Bank Market Source: liabilities to foreign banks 136 6.1 0.8 1,359 64.0 8.0 Use: claims on foreign banks 398 17.8 5.8 404 19.0 5/9 Net Position 262 -2.6 -955 9.5 Foreign Official Instj.tutions Source: liabilities"to"fgn. off. Inst. 434 19.4 24.4 44 2.1 2.5 Use: claims on fgn. off. Irct. _54 2.4 12.1 29 1.4 6^5 Net Position -381 23.5 -15 1.1 External Market Source: liabilities to private foreign depositors 418 18.6 8.5 376 17.7 7.7 Use: claims on private fgn. borrowers 842 37.6 15.5 451 21.2 8.3 Net Position 424 77.9 75 13.8 Residual Market Source: Ail other liabilities 407 18.2 14.2 169 a 8.0 5.9 Use: All other claims _120 5.4 4.9 156 7.3 6A Net Position -<"7 73.0 -13 3.3 Total Resources 2,242 100.0 100.0 7.5 2,125 a 100.0 100.0 7.1 a/ Includes the net source of funds in Panama derived from other foreign branches of U.S. parent banks. Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis A III - 3 Appendix Table III Sources and Uses of Funds of Foreign Branches of U.S. Banks, September 30, 1973 (Millions of Dollars) Sources and Uses of Funds. All Foreign Branches Branches in the United Kingdom Branches in the Rest of Europe Amount Percentage Distribution Amount Percentage Distribution Per cent Amount Percentage Distribution Per cent Sources Uses Sources Uses of Total Sources Uses of Total Internal System U.S. Parent Source: liabilities to U.S. Parent 501 0.9 117 0.4 23.4 92 0.8 18.4 Use: claims on U.S. parent 2,969 5.4 2.143 6.6 72.2 103 0.9 3.5 Net Position 2,468 2,026 82.1 11 0.4 Branches in Other Countries Source: liabilities to branches 7,853 14.2 2,645 8.1 33.7 2,648 22.2 jd.7 Use: claims on branches 7,930 14.3 4,064 12.5 51.2 3.067 25.7 Net Position 77 1,419 1,842.9 419 544.2 Inter-Bank Market Source: liabilities to foreign banks 28,489 51.5 18,431 56.6 64.7 6,338 53.2 22.2 Use: claims on foreign banks 22.305 40.3 14.683 45.1 65.8 4,380 36.8 19.6 Net Position -6,184 -3,748 60.6 -1,958 31.7 Foreign Official Institutions Source: liabilities to fgn. off. Inst. 5,476 9.9 4,318 13.3 78.8 575 4.8 10.5 Use: claims on fgn. off. Inst. 1,164 2.1 512 1.6 44.0 193 1.6 16.6 Net Position -4,312 -3,806 88.3 -382 8.9 External Market Source: liabilities to private fgn. depositors 8,440 15.3 4,785 14.7 56.7 1,592 13.4 18.9 Use: claims on private fgn. borrowers 15,736 28.5 8,387 25.7 53.3 2,737 23.0 17.4 Net Position 7,296 3,602 49.4 1,145 15.7 Residual Market Source: All other liabilities 4,782® 8.2 2,286 7.0 47.8 673 5.6 14.1 Use: All other claims 5,030 9.1 2,673 8.2 53.1 1,203 10.1 23.9 Net Position 248 387 156.0 530 Total Resources 55,541 100.0 100.0 32,582 100.0 100.0 58.7 11,918 100.0 100.0 Source: Federal Reserve Board, Monthly Report (FR 502) on Foreign Branch Assets and Liabilities, a/ Includes the net source of funds in Panama derived from other foreign branches of U.S. parent banks. Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis A III - 1 Appendix Table III Sources and Uses of Funds of Foreign Branches of U.S. Banks, September 30, 1973 (Millions of Dollars) Sources and Uses of Funds Branches in Hong Kong & Singapore Branches in the Rest of Asia Amount Percentage Distribution Per Cent Amount Percentage Distribution Per Cent Sources Uses of Total Sources Uses of Total Internal System U.S. Parent Source: liabilities to U.S. Parent 12 1.7 2.4 243 6.8 4b. J Use: claims on U.S. parent U. 1.6 0.4 488 13.6 16.4 Net Position -1 * 245 9.9 Branches in Other Countries Source: liabilities to branches 279 40.2 3.6 33.2 15.2 Use: claims on foreign banks 262 37.8 3.3 3.5 1.6 Net Position -17 -22.1 -1,380.5 Inter-Bank Market Source: liabilities to foreign banks 172 24.8 0.6 287 8.0 1.0 Use: claims on foreign banks 45 6.5 2.0 978 27.3 4.4 Net Position -127 2.1 691 -11.2 Foreign Official Institutions Source: liabilities to fgn. off. Inst. 3 0.4 457 12.8 8.3 Use: claims on fgn. off. Inst. 12 1.7 1.0 120 3.4 10.3 Net Position 9 -0.2 -337 7.8 External Market Source: liabilities to private fgn. depositors 181 26.1 2.1 745 20.8 8.8 Use: claims on private fgn. borrowers 300 43.2 1.9 1.703 47.5 Net Position 119 1.6 958 r> Residual Market Source: All fcther liabilities 47 6.8 1.0 660 18.4 13.8 Use: All other claims 85 12.2 1.7 101 2.8 2.0 Net Position 38 15.3 -559 -225.4 Total Resources 694 100.0 100.0 1.2 3,582 100.0 100.0 6.4 */ Indicates amount less than 0.05 per cent. Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis A III - 1 Appendix Table III Sources and Uses of Funds of Foreign Branches of U.S. Banks, September 30, 1973 (Millions of Dollars) Sources and Uses of Funds Branches in Nassau and the Cayman Islands Branches in the Rest of Latin American Amount Percentage Distribution Per Cent Amount Percentage Distribution Per Cent Sources Uses of Total Sources Uses of Total Internal System U.S. Parent Source: liabilities to U.S. Parent 26 0.4 5.2 12 2.1 2.4 Use: claims on U.S. parent 219 3.5 7^4 Jt 0.7 OA Net Position 193 7.8 -8 -0.3 ( Branches in Other Countries Source: liabilities to branches 914 14.8 11.6 Use: claims on branches 388 6.3 4.9 177 30.8 2.b Net Position -526 -683.1 22 3.8 0.3 -155 -201.3 Inter-Bank Market Source: liabilities to foreign banks 3,257 52.6 11.4 4 0.7 * Use: claims on foreign banks 2,210 35.7 9.9 9 .1.6 * Net Position -1,047 16.9 5 * Foreign Official Institutions Source: liabilities to fgn. off. Inst. 123 2.0 2.2 0 0 0 Use: claims on fgn. off. Inst. 319 5.2 27.4 8 1,4 OjJP Net Position 196 -4.5 8 -0.2 External Market Source: liabilities to private fgn. depositors 1,048 16.9 12.4 90 15.7 1.1 Use: claims on private fgn. borrowers 2,105 34.0 13.4 503 87.6 3^2. Net Position 1,057 14.5 413 5.7 Residual Market Source: All other liabilities 825 13.3 17.3 291 50.7 6.1 Use: All other claims 950 15.3 18.9 18 3.1 Net Position 125 50.4 -273 Total Resources 6,193 100.0 100.0 11.2 574 100.0 100.0 1.0 a/ Includes the net source of funds in Panama derived from other foreign branches of U.S. parent banks. */ Indicates amount less than 0.05 per cent. Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis A III - 1 Appendix Table III Sources and Uses of Funds of Foreign Branches of U.S. Banks, September 30, 1973 (Millions of Dollars) Sources and Uses of Funds All Foreign Branches Branches in the United Kingdom Branches in the Rest of Europe Amount Percentage Distribution Amount Percentage Distribution Per cent Amount Percentage Distribution Per cent Sources Uses Sources Uses of Total Sources Uses of Total Internal System U.S. Parent Source: liabilities to U.S. Parent 1,178 1.1 161 0.3 13.7 146 0.7 12.4 Use: claims on U.S. parent 1,917 1.8 604 1.1 31.5 153 0.7 8.0 Net Position 739 443 59.9 7 0.9 Branches in Other Countries Source: liabilities to branches 15,150 13.9 3,678 6.6 24.3 4,190 19.6 27.7 Use: claims on branches 15,092 13.8 7.508 13.5 49.7 4,814 22.6 31.9 Net Position -58 3,830 -6,603.4 624 -1,075.9 Inter-Bank Market Source: liabilities to foreign banks 58,734 53.7 32,210 57.8 54.8 12,307 57.7 21.0 Use: claims on foreign banks 49,312 45.1 30,967 55.6 62.8 8,227 38.6 16.7 Net Position -9,422 -1,243 13.2 -4,080 43.3 Foreign Official Institutions Source: liabilities to foreign official institutions 8,769 8.0 6,952 12.5 79.3 989 4.6 o Use: claims on foreign official institutions 2,242 2.1 660 1.2 29.4 614 2.9 27.4 Net Position -6,527 -6,292 96.4 -375 5.7 External Market Source: liabilities to private foreign depositors 16,221 14.8 8,957 16.1 55.2 2,627 12.3 16.2 Use: claims on private foreign borrowers 32,274 29.5 13,123 23.6 40.7 5,559 26.1 17.2 Net Position 16,053 4,166 26.0 2,932 18.3 Residual Market Source: All other liabilities 9,278® 8.5 3,728 6.7 40.2 1,368 6.4 14.7 Use: All other claims 7,733 7.1 2,752 4.9 35.6 1*768 8.3 22.9 Net Position -1,545 -976 63.2 400 -25.9 Total Resources 109,330? 100.0 100.0 55,686 100.0 100.0 50.9 21,627 100.0 100.0 19.8 Source: Federal Reserve Board, Monthly Report (FR 502) on Foreign Branch Assets and Liabilities. v a/ Includes <-.i enet source of funds in Panama derived from other foreign branches of U.S. parent banks. Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis A III - 1 Appendix Table III AppendixT able III Sources and Uses of Funds of Foreign Branches of U.S. Banks, September 30, 1973 (Millions of Dollars) Sources and Uses of Funds Branches in Hong Kong & Singapore Branches in the Rest of Asia Amount Percentage Distribution Per Cent Amount Percentage Distribution Per Cent Sources Uses of Total Sources Uses of Total Internal System U.S. Parent Source: liabilities to U.S. Parent 45 1.6 3.8 461 6.7 39.1 Use: claims on U.S. parent 28 1.0 1.5 632 9.1 33.0 Net Position -17 -2.3 171 23.1 Branches in Other Countries Source: liabilities to branches 727 26.4 4.8 1,821 26.3 .0 Use: claims on foreign banks 721 26.2 4.8 238 3.4 1.6 Net Position -6 10.3 -1,583 2,729.3 Inter-Bank Market Source: liabilities to foreign banks 1,189 43.1 2.0 928 13.4 1.6 Use: claims on foreign banks 580 21.0 1.2 1,176 17.0 2.4 Net Position -609 6.5 248 -2.6 Foreign Official Institutions Source: liabilities to foreign official institutions 60 2.3 0.1 415 6.0 4.7 Use: claims on foreign official institutions 36 1.3 1.6 224 3.2 10.0 Net Position -24 0.4 -191 2.9 External Market Source: liabilities to private foreign depositors 532 19.3 3.3 1,758 25.4 10.8 Use: claims on private foreign borrowers 1,200 43.5 3.7 3,807 55.1 U.8 Net Position 668 4.2 2,049 2.8 Residual Market Source: All other liabilities 203 7.4 2.2 1,531 22.1 16.5 Use: All other claims 215 7.8 2.8 647 9.4 8.4 Net Position 12 -0.8 -884 57.2 Total Resources 2,756 100.0 100.0 2.5 6,914 100.0 100.0 6.3 Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis A III - 3 Appendix Table III Sources and Uses of Funds of Foreign Branches of U.S. Banks, September 30, 1973 (Millions of Dollars) sources and Uses of Funds Branches in Nassau and the Cayman Islands Branches in the Rest of Latin America Amount Percentage Distribution Per Cent Amount Percentage Distribution Per Cent Sources Uses of Total Sources Uses of Total Internal System U.S. Parent Source: liabilities to U.S. Parent 358 1.7 30.4 8 0.6 ^7 Use: claims on U.S. parent 490 2.3 25.6 10 0.8 £5 Net Position 132 17.9 2 0.3 Branches in Other Countries Source: liabilities to branches 4,627 22.0 30.5 107 8.3 0.7 Use: claims on branches 1,739 8.3 11.5 71 5.5 0.5 Net Position -2,888 4,979.3 -36 62.1 Inter-Bank Market Source: liabilities to foreign banks 11,682 55.5 19.9 418 32.5 0.7 Use: claims on foreign banks 8,313 39.5 16.9 49 3.8 0.1 Net Position -3,369 35.8 -369 379 Foreign Official Institutions Source: liabilities to foreign official institutions 353 1.7 4.0 * * * Use: claims on foreign official institutions 696 3.3 31.0 12 0.9 0.5 Net Position 343 -5.3 12 072 External Market Source: liabilities to private foreign depositors 2,181 10.4 13.4 165 12.8 l.o Use: claims on private foreign borrowers 7,509 35.7 23.3 1>076 83.7 3.3 Net Position 5,328 33.2 9ii J7i Residual Market a Source: All other liabilities 1,858 8.8 20.0 589 45.8 6.3 Use: All other claims 2,301 10.9 29.8 51 4.0 0.7 Net Position 443 -28.7 -538 3U 172865 looTo TooTo 172 Total Resources 21,059 100.0 100.0 19.3 a/ Includes the net source of funds in Panama derived from other foreign branches of U.S. parent banks. */ Indicates amount less than $50,000 or less than 0.05 per cent. Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Andrew F. Brimmer (1974, January 16). Speech. Speeches, Federal Reserve. https://whenthefedspeaks.com/doc/speech_19740117_brimmer

@misc{wtfs_speech_19740117_brimmer,
  author = {Andrew F. Brimmer},
  title = {Speech},
  year = {1974},
  month = {Jan},
  howpublished = {Speeches, Federal Reserve},
  url = {https://whenthefedspeaks.com/doc/speech_19740117_brimmer},
  note = {Retrieved via When the Fed Speaks corpus}
}