Stock market study : regulation of unlisted securities : hearings before a subcommittee of the Committee on Banking and Currency, United States Senate, Eighty-fourth Congress first session, on S. 2054, a bill to amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

Hearings held June 27, 1955-July 6, 1956.

Reorganization plan no. 1 of 1961 (SEC) : Hearing before a subcommittee of the Committee on Banking and Currency, United States Senate, Eighty-seventh Congress, first session, on Reorganization plan no. 1 of 1961, prepared in accordance with the Reorganization act of 1949, as amended, and providing for reorganization in the Securities and Exchange Commission. June 2, 1961.

Mode of access: Internet.

Nominations of Mary Schapiro, Christina D. Romer, Austan D. Goolsbee, Cecilia E. Rouse, and Daniel K. Tarullo : hearing before the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, United States Senate, One Hundred Eleventh Congress, first session, on nominations of Mary Schapiro, of New York, chairman-designate, Securities and Exchange Commission; Christina D. Romer, of California, chairman-designate, Council of Economic Advisors; Austan D. Goolsbee, of Illinois, member-designate, Council of Economic Advisors; Cecilia E. Rouse, of New Jersey, member-designate, Council of Economic Advisors; Daniel K. Tarullo, of Maryland, member-designate, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, January 15, 2009.

Shipping list no.: 2009-0407-P.

Securities investor protection act amendments : hearing before the Subcommittee on Securities of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, United States Senate, Ninety-fifth Congress, second session, on H.R. 8331 ... April 25, 1978.

Mode of access: Internet.

Gold-clause securities of the United states.

Mode of access: Internet.

The United States dominates global investment banking: does it matter for Europe? Bruegel Policy Contribution 2016/06, March 2016

In the aftermath of the global financial crisis, the market share of US investment banks is increasing, while that of their European counterparts is declining. We present evidence that US investment banks are on the verge of taking over pole position in European investment banking. Meanwhile, since 2015, Chinese investment banks have overtaken American and European investment banks in the Asia-Pacific market. Credit rating agencies and investment banks are the gatekeepers of the capital markets. The European supervisory institutions can effectively supervise the European operations of these US-managed players. On the political side, we suggest that the European Commission should continue to view its, albeit declining, banking industry as a strategic sector. The Commission, the European Central Bank and the Bank of England should jointly develop a strategic agenda for the EU-US Regulatory Dialogue. Finally, corporates rely on investment banks to issue new securities. We recommend that the big European corporates should cherish the (few) remaining European investment banks, by giving them at least one place in otherwise US- dominated banking syndicates. That could help to avoid complete dependence on US investment banks.

The Commercial & financial chronicle ... : a weekly newspaper representing the industrial interests of the United States.

Microform.

Monthly statement of the public debt of the United States.

Description based on: Aug. 31, 1974; title from caption.

Fortune's epitome of the stock and public funds : with a full account of the bank stock and funds of United States of America, and also of all the other foreign funds.

Mode of access: Internet.

United States investor.

Mode of access: Internet.

Transcript of record. Supreme court of the United States, October term, 1903.

Mode of access: Internet.

Accounting reform and investor protection : hearings before the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, United States Senate, One Hundred Seventh Congress, second session, on the legislative history of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, accounting reform and investor protection issues raised by Enron and other public companies.

Shipping list number: 2003-0249-P (volumes 1-2, 4), 2003-0247-P (volume 3).

Corrected opinion of Harold R. Medina, United States circuit judge in United States of America, plaintiff v. Henry S. Morgan, Harold Stanley, et al., doing business as Morgan Stanley & Co., et al., defendants. Filed, February 4, 1954. [Civil action no. 43.-757.]

Mode of access: Internet.

A comparative analysis of corporate finance in the United States and Japan from 1880 to 1930

This study explained the diversity of corporate financial practices in two nations. Existing studies have emphasized the reliance on equity finance in U.S. firms and bank loans in Japanese firms. In fact, patterns of corporate finance were much more complex. Financial institutions, which were created by national economic policy and regulation, affected corporate financial practices, but corporate financial practices often differed from what policymakers expected. Differences in corporate financial practices between nations also reflected differences in the mixture of industries in each nation. Many factors such as the amount of fixed capital, the process of production, the level of risk, the degree of innovation, and the importance of the industry in the national economy affected corporate financial practices. In addition, corporate financial practices within each nation differed from firm to firm due to managers’ considerations about stock ownership, which would affect their control power; corporate finance was closely related to control over management through ownership. To explain these complexities of corporate financial practices, the study linked corporate finance with the development of financial institutions in the United States and in Japan. While financial institutions affected corporate financial practices, the response of the firms to financial institutions and opportunities were diverse. The study also attempted to grasp variations in corporate financial practices by dealing with companies in three sectors: railroads, public utilities, and manufacturing. Finally, the study examined the structure of firm ownership. Contradictory to the widely held belief that U.S. firms distributed securities more widely to the public than did Japanese firms, many large American firms remained closely held, while some Japanese counterparts built publicly-held corporations.

A Comparative Analysis of Corporate Finance in the United States and Japan From 1880 to 1930

This study explained the diversity of corporate financial practices in two nations. Existing studies have emphasized the reliance on equity finance in U.S. firms and bank loans in Japanese firms. In fact, patterns of corporate finance were much more complex. Financial institutions, which were created by national economic policy and regulation, affected corporate financial practices, but corporate financial practices often differed from what policymakers expected. Differences in corporate financial practices between nations also reflected differences in the mixture of industries in each nation. Many factors such as the amount of fixed capital, the process of production, the level of risk, the degree of innovation, and the importance of the industry in the national economy affected corporate financial practices. In addition, corporate financial practices within each nation differed from firm to firm due to managers’ considerations about stock ownership, which would affect their control power; corporate finance was closely related to control over management through ownership. To explain these complexities of corporate financial practices, the study linked corporate finance with the development of financial institutions in the United States and in Japan. While financial institutions affected corporate financial practices, the response of the firms to financial institutions and opportunities were diverse. The study also attempted to grasp variations in corporate financial practices by dealing with companies in three sectors: railroads, public utilities, and manufacturing. Finally, the study examined the structure of firm ownership. Contradictory to the widely held belief that U.S. firms distributed securities more widely to the public than did Japanese firms, many large American firms remained closely held, while some Japanese counterparts built publicly-held corporations.