A comparison of banking supervision between Malaysia and Australia

Rahman, Azizan Abd (1994) A comparison of banking supervision between Malaysia and Australia The University of Queensland:

Attached Files (Some files may be inaccessible until you login with your UQ eSpace credentials)
Name Description MIMEType Size Downloads
AZIZAN_ABD_RAHMAN.pdf Full text application/pdf 4.37MB 3
Author Rahman, Azizan Abd
Title of report A comparison of banking supervision between Malaysia and Australia
Formatted title

Publication date 1994
Place of publication The University of Queensland
Total pages 86
Subjects 1503 Business and Management
Formatted abstract
It is commonly agreed that the banking system is a uniquely important sector of the overall financial system. This is true since the banking institutions within the system are the creators of money, custodians of public funds and operators of the payment mechanism. For these reasons, the banking institutions have to be supervised in the public interest. The world over, central banks have evolved to supervise the banking system with three primary objectives namely, protection of depositors; maintenance of monetary stability and preservation of public confidence.

While the objectives have been generally accepted, however, vigorous debate often arises as how much supervision and what form or approach of supervision can best attain these objectives. In some countries the supervision is very rigid and comprehensive like Malaysia, involving both off-site and on-site examinations on the banking institutions by the Central Bank of Malaysia. In Australia, however, the supervision is less comprehensive, largely involving off-site examination. In other words, no examinations are conducted on the banks, rather the Reserve Bank of Australia conducts desk review of the periodical statistical returns submitted by the banks. Apart from this, the Reserve Bank of Australia relies on the banks' auditors to report matters as specified by them.

This paper does not attempt to conclude which is the better approach, but suggested that some form of supervision must exist in the banking system depending on the needs of the country. It should be noted that whatever level or approach of bank supervision, it alone cannot guarantee bank soundness. Further, there is always a cost to bank supervision and hence there should be a limit to supervision. On one hand, we need a prudent, low-risk banking system, while at the same time the banking system must be competitive, innovative, and supportive of its customers. Bank supervision should not overdo the one which seriously effect the other.

Document type: Research Report
Collection: MBA reports
Citation counts: Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Created: Mon, 13 Dec 2010, 11:16:28 EST by Muhammad Noman Ali on behalf of The University of Queensland Library