It gives us great pleasure to inform you that Admissions to B.Com (General) and B.Com (Computers) are now open.
Please contact our office at 0866-2476082
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
Sunday, July 26, 2009
BEMUS 09 THE COMMERCE FEST
Andhra Loyola College Commerce Department will be organising a National Level Inter Collegiate Commerce Festival from Auguest 31 to september 1,2009. All the under graduate commerce students are invited to patrticpate in this event. The inagural function starts on 31st Auguest at 9.00 am. All the participents are expected to regiester before 9.am on that day.
Events:
1. Commerce Quiz (Max. 3 Participants)
2. Group Discussion (Max. 2 Participants)
3. Product Launching (Max. 5 participants)
4. Caes Study (Max. 2 from each team)
5. Personality contest (Max. 2 from each team)
For forther details contact:
1. Mr.N.A.FRANCIS XAVIER, Head Department of Commerce, Andhra Loyola College,Vijayawada-520008.Andhra Pradesh. Cell:09440524321
2.Mr.D.N.M.RAJU, Staff Co-ordinator Commerce Association, Andhra Loyola College, vijayawada-520008, Andhra Pradesh
Events:
1. Commerce Quiz (Max. 3 Participants)
2. Group Discussion (Max. 2 Participants)
3. Product Launching (Max. 5 participants)
4. Caes Study (Max. 2 from each team)
5. Personality contest (Max. 2 from each team)
For forther details contact:
1. Mr.N.A.FRANCIS XAVIER, Head Department of Commerce, Andhra Loyola College,Vijayawada-520008.Andhra Pradesh. Cell:09440524321
2.Mr.D.N.M.RAJU, Staff Co-ordinator Commerce Association, Andhra Loyola College, vijayawada-520008, Andhra Pradesh
Sunday, August 24, 2008
BEMUS 08 THE NATIONAL LEVEL COMMERCE FEST
Andhra Loyola College Commerce Department will be organising a National Level Inter Collegiate Commerce Festival from 1st to 2nd september,2008. All the under graduate commerce students are invited to patrticpate in this event. The inagural function starts on 1st september at 9.00 am. All the participants are expected to register before 9.am on that day.Events:1. Commerce Quiz (Max. 3 Participants)2. Group Discussion (Max. 2 Participants)3. Product Launching (Max. 5 participants) 4. Caes Study (Max. 2 from each team)5. Personality contest (Max. 2 from each team)For forther details contact:1. Mr.N.A.FRANCIS XAVIER, Head Department of Commerce, Andhra Loyola College,Vijayawada-520008.Andhra Pradesh. Cell:094405243212.Mr.B.SYAMSUNDAR, Event Co-ordinator, Andhra Loyola College, vijayawada-520008, Andhra Pradesh. Cell:09849313887.
PROFILE OF THE DEPARTMENT
Faculty:-
1. Dr. N.A.Francis Xavier, M.Com, M.Phil (Head of the Department)
2. Mr.Ch.Veeraiah Chowdary, M.Com.( Staff Co-ordinator )
3. Dr. D.N.M.Raju, M.Com, B.L., M.Phil., Ph.D.
4. Mr. B.Syam Sundar, M.Com.
5.Mrs.K.Kiranmayee, M.Com
6. Mr. T.Srinivas Rao, M.Com
7. Mr. B.Prabhakar, M.Com, M.Phil.
Commerce Department Association Office Bearers (2008 - 09):
Staff Coordinator: Mr.Ch.Veeraiah Chowdary, M.Com
Chairman: A.Sundar Chaitanya
Secretary: Y.Amitesh
Joint Secretary: G.Ashok Kumar
1. Dr. N.A.Francis Xavier, M.Com, M.Phil (Head of the Department)
2. Mr.Ch.Veeraiah Chowdary, M.Com.( Staff Co-ordinator )
3. Dr. D.N.M.Raju, M.Com, B.L., M.Phil., Ph.D.
4. Mr. B.Syam Sundar, M.Com.
5.Mrs.K.Kiranmayee, M.Com
6. Mr. T.Srinivas Rao, M.Com
7. Mr. B.Prabhakar, M.Com, M.Phil.
Commerce Department Association Office Bearers (2008 - 09):
Staff Coordinator: Mr.Ch.Veeraiah Chowdary, M.Com
Chairman: A.Sundar Chaitanya
Secretary: Y.Amitesh
Joint Secretary: G.Ashok Kumar
Freshers Welcome Party
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
India's Finance Roadmap Must Battle Pessimism
Andy Mukherjee
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=aMGWLnjAl3zU&refer=home
April 8 (Bloomberg) -- Raghuram Rajan couldn't have found a more inopportune moment to present his blueprint for financial- sector development in India.
It was in August last year that the Indian government had asked Rajan, formerly chief economist at the International Monetary Fund and now a finance professor at the University of Chicago, to come up with a roadmap for change.
Back then, the subprime-mortgage crisis was just beginning to surface; the collapse of Bear Stearns Cos. was not in sight; there wasn't a whiff of a run on Britain's Northern Rock Plc.
At the time, it seemed that Public Enemy No. 1 for India, as it rapidly integrated with the world, was financial weakness of the kind that had made the 1997 Asian currency crisis so painful for the Tiger economies.
That was then.
Now, at least in some Indian intellectual circles, the face of the villain has changed. It is a more developed financial system -- one that has a full range of markets for hedging of risks along with free mobility of capital across national borders and regulatory forbearance for financial innovation -- that has to be resisted.
It's now fashionable to be pessimistic and to argue that the Indian central bank's ``let's-ban-whatever-we-can't-manage'' approach is the right one, and that market participants and the Finance Ministry are wrong to push for change. That's the new dogma.
Inherent Weaknesses
Those who hold such a view don't see any need for rocking the boat. The Indian economy is growing strongly; and although inflation at a three-year high of 7 percent is uncomfortably above the central bank's tolerance limit, it's still more under control than in other places in Asia where there's no monetary policy either by design (such as Hong Kong) or by default (such as China or Vietnam).
But there are inherent weaknesses in the Indian system.
The state-dominated banking industry is tiny and seems to exist only to help the government finance its budget deficit; the usurious moneylender remains the mainstay of farm credit; corporate bond markets are moribund; some of the controls on capital flow, such as the restrictions imposed last year on companies borrowing overseas, are draconian.
The Rajan committee, which released a draft of its report yesterday, has delivered the goods.
The panel's advice on collateral registration, creditor protection and a new bankruptcy code are top-notch; its proposal on small, local banks is worth a try if India has to bring under the umbrella of formal finance the millions of people who don't even have a savings account.
Bold and Cautious
The panel's proposal on creating a market where banks can buy rights to undershoot the priority lending targets imposed on them by the government (such as unprofitable working capital loans to farmers) is innovative. It's a much superior alternative to banks meeting their priority-lending targets by buying, say, securitized tractor loans in which they end up assuming credit risk they don't really want.
Rajan's suggestions on unifying regulatory control of all financial trading -- irrespective of who's trading or what is being traded -- will lead to healthier markets with fewer distortions.
At the same time, the committee has also offered thoughtful advice against separating banking supervision from monetary management and against selling state-owned banks to business houses.
This is by no means an agenda for recklessness.
Inflation Targeting
The draft report also makes a case for the central bank to stop managing the exchange rate and formally adopt inflation control as its sole objective.
The panel is right in saying that India can't resist real appreciation in the currency; if the country holds down the exchange rate, inflation will accelerate.
But is India really ready for inflation targeting? I'm no longer as sure as I was three years ago.
It requires an extremely nimble economy to weather the kind of sharp exchange-rate adjustments that may occur when the world is awash with liquidity and the central bank's inflation target gives traders near-perfect predictive power over the future interest-rate path.
Thailand paid a price for such predictability when it had to impose capital controls.
There's no denying that monetary management in India needs an overhaul, but a move to inflation targeting should perhaps come after there has been more financial development so that the central bank's short-term policy rate has greater power to affect domestic prices.
Political Acceptance
Finally, political acceptance of change is more important than how the intelligentsia may view the choices between a developed and an underdeveloped financial system.
It ought to be clear to anyone who takes the trouble of reading the 260-page report that the Rajan committee's agenda is not driven by the self-interest of an Indian elite that's trying to sneak in undesirable changes.
The reform the panel is suggesting is aimed at the middle class, the distressed farmer and the urban poor.
Will politicians be able to translate that message into words their voters will understand? Should they even bother?
With elections due next year and perhaps even sooner, the present government has made known its preference for populist farm-debt waivers and large pay increases to civil servants.
Meaningful improvements in the structure of the economy, such as those suggested by the Rajan panel, may have to wait for a more-opportune time.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=aMGWLnjAl3zU&refer=home
April 8 (Bloomberg) -- Raghuram Rajan couldn't have found a more inopportune moment to present his blueprint for financial- sector development in India.
It was in August last year that the Indian government had asked Rajan, formerly chief economist at the International Monetary Fund and now a finance professor at the University of Chicago, to come up with a roadmap for change.
Back then, the subprime-mortgage crisis was just beginning to surface; the collapse of Bear Stearns Cos. was not in sight; there wasn't a whiff of a run on Britain's Northern Rock Plc.
At the time, it seemed that Public Enemy No. 1 for India, as it rapidly integrated with the world, was financial weakness of the kind that had made the 1997 Asian currency crisis so painful for the Tiger economies.
That was then.
Now, at least in some Indian intellectual circles, the face of the villain has changed. It is a more developed financial system -- one that has a full range of markets for hedging of risks along with free mobility of capital across national borders and regulatory forbearance for financial innovation -- that has to be resisted.
It's now fashionable to be pessimistic and to argue that the Indian central bank's ``let's-ban-whatever-we-can't-manage'' approach is the right one, and that market participants and the Finance Ministry are wrong to push for change. That's the new dogma.
Inherent Weaknesses
Those who hold such a view don't see any need for rocking the boat. The Indian economy is growing strongly; and although inflation at a three-year high of 7 percent is uncomfortably above the central bank's tolerance limit, it's still more under control than in other places in Asia where there's no monetary policy either by design (such as Hong Kong) or by default (such as China or Vietnam).
But there are inherent weaknesses in the Indian system.
The state-dominated banking industry is tiny and seems to exist only to help the government finance its budget deficit; the usurious moneylender remains the mainstay of farm credit; corporate bond markets are moribund; some of the controls on capital flow, such as the restrictions imposed last year on companies borrowing overseas, are draconian.
The Rajan committee, which released a draft of its report yesterday, has delivered the goods.
The panel's advice on collateral registration, creditor protection and a new bankruptcy code are top-notch; its proposal on small, local banks is worth a try if India has to bring under the umbrella of formal finance the millions of people who don't even have a savings account.
Bold and Cautious
The panel's proposal on creating a market where banks can buy rights to undershoot the priority lending targets imposed on them by the government (such as unprofitable working capital loans to farmers) is innovative. It's a much superior alternative to banks meeting their priority-lending targets by buying, say, securitized tractor loans in which they end up assuming credit risk they don't really want.
Rajan's suggestions on unifying regulatory control of all financial trading -- irrespective of who's trading or what is being traded -- will lead to healthier markets with fewer distortions.
At the same time, the committee has also offered thoughtful advice against separating banking supervision from monetary management and against selling state-owned banks to business houses.
This is by no means an agenda for recklessness.
Inflation Targeting
The draft report also makes a case for the central bank to stop managing the exchange rate and formally adopt inflation control as its sole objective.
The panel is right in saying that India can't resist real appreciation in the currency; if the country holds down the exchange rate, inflation will accelerate.
But is India really ready for inflation targeting? I'm no longer as sure as I was three years ago.
It requires an extremely nimble economy to weather the kind of sharp exchange-rate adjustments that may occur when the world is awash with liquidity and the central bank's inflation target gives traders near-perfect predictive power over the future interest-rate path.
Thailand paid a price for such predictability when it had to impose capital controls.
There's no denying that monetary management in India needs an overhaul, but a move to inflation targeting should perhaps come after there has been more financial development so that the central bank's short-term policy rate has greater power to affect domestic prices.
Political Acceptance
Finally, political acceptance of change is more important than how the intelligentsia may view the choices between a developed and an underdeveloped financial system.
It ought to be clear to anyone who takes the trouble of reading the 260-page report that the Rajan committee's agenda is not driven by the self-interest of an Indian elite that's trying to sneak in undesirable changes.
The reform the panel is suggesting is aimed at the middle class, the distressed farmer and the urban poor.
Will politicians be able to translate that message into words their voters will understand? Should they even bother?
With elections due next year and perhaps even sooner, the present government has made known its preference for populist farm-debt waivers and large pay increases to civil servants.
Meaningful improvements in the structure of the economy, such as those suggested by the Rajan panel, may have to wait for a more-opportune time.
The political threats to globalisation
By Gideon Rachman
Published: April 7 2008
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e6d8281c-04af-11dd-a2f0-000077b07658.html
If you had to define “globalisation” with an image, what would it be? A container ship from China stuffed with toys and T-shirts? A programmer tapping at a keyboard in Bangalore? A plane circling gloomily over Heathrow airport?
Most people’s pictures of globalisation are to do with economics, technology and business. But before markets, modems and manufacturers could do their work, political changes had to take place. The foundations of the globalised business world are political – and so are the biggest threats to the system.
The challenge to the globalisation consensus comes from below. Political elites in the US, Asia and Europe are struggling to convince citizens that globalisation is not just a game that benefits the rich. If the argument is lost in any of the major world economies, the political consensus that underpins globalisation could unravel.
That consensus is a recent creation. The political changes that made globalisation possible took place in a remarkably short period of time – from 1978 to 1991 to be precise. The first and most important development was China’s decision to turn from Maoism to the market, with the reforms initiated by Deng Xiaoping in 1978. A year later, Margaret Thatcher came to power in Britain. One of her first acts was the abolition of foreign exchange controls, easing London’s rise as a global financial centre and setting an example that was emulated internationally. Then, in 1980, Ronald Reagan took power in the US on a platform of deregulation and tax cuts – giving a huge boost to market ideology around the world. In the mid-1980s, the European Union committed itself to creating a single market.
In 1989, the collapse of the Berlin wall allowed eastern Europe – and Russia itself – to join the globalisation game. The 1980s also saw the discrediting of protectionist populists in the largest countries of Latin America. Finally, in 1991, came another huge change: the decision by Indian leaders to move away from the regulation and protectionism that had hobbled the Indian economy since independence.
So, in less than 15 years, the political elites in the power centres of the world had come to broadly similar conclusions. They embraced global business and market economics.
The result is a world in which it now feels as natural to do business in Beijing, Moscow and Delhi as in London and New York. But this world has been with us for less than 20 years. Previous eras of globalisation were ended by political upheaval – the outbreak of war in 1914 and the rise of fascism in the 1930s. So could the same thing happen again?
The most obvious threat is a crisis in the most important political and economic relationship in the world – that between the US and China. The Bush administration, despite its bellicose reputation, has been assiduous in avoiding confrontation with China; and the Chinese similarly have no desire for a clash with America – at least, not now. Globalisation has created a web of mutual interests. The real risk in Chinese-American relations is of miscalculation: a clash – whether over trade or Tibet or Taiwan – that escalates into something that does real damage. Combine a looming recession in America, a presidential election and the Beijing Olympics and you have a formula for potential trouble.
Over the longer-term, terrorism and climate change also pose risks to the system. Globalisation depends on ease of travel. But, in different ways, both global warming and global terrorism threaten the ability to hop on a plane at a moment’s notice.
But the biggest risk is that politicians simply begin to lose the argument for globalisation. A recent opinion poll showed that 58 per cent of Americans think globalisation is bad for the US and just 28 per cent think it has helped America. Ten years ago there was a narrow majority in favour of globalisation. Politicians are reacting to this shift. Democratic presidential candidates are taking an increasingly sceptical line on free trade. Republicans rail against illegal immigration.
In Europe, Nicolas Sarkozy, French president, has been arguing for protectionism on a European level. He wants to re-establish “community preference” – essentially higher tariffs against goods from outside the European Union. Mr Sarkozy does not have many EU allies yet. But the re-election of Silvio Berlusconi in Italy could change that.
Outsiders see the Indians and the Chinese as the greatest beneficiaries of globalisation. But the last Indian government lost a general election, largely because poor, rural voters felt left out by the boom. With another election in the offing, India’s politicians are not rushing to sign a new world trade deal. The political climate in a one-party state such as China is harder to gauge. But the authorities’ evident anxiety about rural unemployment, environmental protests and the wealth gap between the rich coasts and the poorer inland regions suggests that global capitalism can be a tough sell – even in China.
The sense that the poor have lost out as a result of globalisation has grown with the rise in world food prices. Hunger – that most traditional threat to ruling elites – is returning to many countries that have embraced globalisation.
Political leaders around the world are struggling to contain all these pressures and maintain the consensus that has made globalisation possible. But their task is getting harder. Globalisation was made possible by political change. But what politics made, politics can take away.
Published: April 7 2008
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e6d8281c-04af-11dd-a2f0-000077b07658.html
If you had to define “globalisation” with an image, what would it be? A container ship from China stuffed with toys and T-shirts? A programmer tapping at a keyboard in Bangalore? A plane circling gloomily over Heathrow airport?
Most people’s pictures of globalisation are to do with economics, technology and business. But before markets, modems and manufacturers could do their work, political changes had to take place. The foundations of the globalised business world are political – and so are the biggest threats to the system.
The challenge to the globalisation consensus comes from below. Political elites in the US, Asia and Europe are struggling to convince citizens that globalisation is not just a game that benefits the rich. If the argument is lost in any of the major world economies, the political consensus that underpins globalisation could unravel.
That consensus is a recent creation. The political changes that made globalisation possible took place in a remarkably short period of time – from 1978 to 1991 to be precise. The first and most important development was China’s decision to turn from Maoism to the market, with the reforms initiated by Deng Xiaoping in 1978. A year later, Margaret Thatcher came to power in Britain. One of her first acts was the abolition of foreign exchange controls, easing London’s rise as a global financial centre and setting an example that was emulated internationally. Then, in 1980, Ronald Reagan took power in the US on a platform of deregulation and tax cuts – giving a huge boost to market ideology around the world. In the mid-1980s, the European Union committed itself to creating a single market.
In 1989, the collapse of the Berlin wall allowed eastern Europe – and Russia itself – to join the globalisation game. The 1980s also saw the discrediting of protectionist populists in the largest countries of Latin America. Finally, in 1991, came another huge change: the decision by Indian leaders to move away from the regulation and protectionism that had hobbled the Indian economy since independence.
So, in less than 15 years, the political elites in the power centres of the world had come to broadly similar conclusions. They embraced global business and market economics.
The result is a world in which it now feels as natural to do business in Beijing, Moscow and Delhi as in London and New York. But this world has been with us for less than 20 years. Previous eras of globalisation were ended by political upheaval – the outbreak of war in 1914 and the rise of fascism in the 1930s. So could the same thing happen again?
The most obvious threat is a crisis in the most important political and economic relationship in the world – that between the US and China. The Bush administration, despite its bellicose reputation, has been assiduous in avoiding confrontation with China; and the Chinese similarly have no desire for a clash with America – at least, not now. Globalisation has created a web of mutual interests. The real risk in Chinese-American relations is of miscalculation: a clash – whether over trade or Tibet or Taiwan – that escalates into something that does real damage. Combine a looming recession in America, a presidential election and the Beijing Olympics and you have a formula for potential trouble.
Over the longer-term, terrorism and climate change also pose risks to the system. Globalisation depends on ease of travel. But, in different ways, both global warming and global terrorism threaten the ability to hop on a plane at a moment’s notice.
But the biggest risk is that politicians simply begin to lose the argument for globalisation. A recent opinion poll showed that 58 per cent of Americans think globalisation is bad for the US and just 28 per cent think it has helped America. Ten years ago there was a narrow majority in favour of globalisation. Politicians are reacting to this shift. Democratic presidential candidates are taking an increasingly sceptical line on free trade. Republicans rail against illegal immigration.
In Europe, Nicolas Sarkozy, French president, has been arguing for protectionism on a European level. He wants to re-establish “community preference” – essentially higher tariffs against goods from outside the European Union. Mr Sarkozy does not have many EU allies yet. But the re-election of Silvio Berlusconi in Italy could change that.
Outsiders see the Indians and the Chinese as the greatest beneficiaries of globalisation. But the last Indian government lost a general election, largely because poor, rural voters felt left out by the boom. With another election in the offing, India’s politicians are not rushing to sign a new world trade deal. The political climate in a one-party state such as China is harder to gauge. But the authorities’ evident anxiety about rural unemployment, environmental protests and the wealth gap between the rich coasts and the poorer inland regions suggests that global capitalism can be a tough sell – even in China.
The sense that the poor have lost out as a result of globalisation has grown with the rise in world food prices. Hunger – that most traditional threat to ruling elites – is returning to many countries that have embraced globalisation.
Political leaders around the world are struggling to contain all these pressures and maintain the consensus that has made globalisation possible. But their task is getting harder. Globalisation was made possible by political change. But what politics made, politics can take away.
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
Sunday, August 19, 2007
National Level Inter-Collegiate Commerce Festival
Andhra Loyola College Commerce Department will be organising a National Level Inter Collegiate Commerce Festival from 3rd to 4th september,2007. All the under graduate commerce students are invited to patrticpate in this event. The inagural function starts on 3rd september at 9.00 am. All the participents are expected to regiester before 9.am on that day.
Events:
1. Commerce Quiz (Max. 3 Participants)
2. Group Discussion (Max. 2 Participants)
3. Product Launching (Max. 5 participants)
4. Caes Study (Max. 2 from each team)
5. Personality contest (Max. 2 from each team)
For forther details contact:
1. Mr.N.A.FRANCIS XAVIER, Head Department of Commerce, Andhra Loyola College,Vijayawada-520008.Andhra Pradesh. Cell:09440524321
2.Mr.B.SYAMSUNDAR, Staff Co-ordinator Commerce Association, Andhra Loyola College, vijayawada-520008, Andhra Pradesh. Cell:09849313887.
Saturday, August 4, 2007
Commerce Association WINS inter association quiz
Congratulations to Deepak and other members of the commerce quiz team for winning the FIRST prize in the inter association competition conducted by the chemistry association on 3rd august, 2007.
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Seminar on Career Opportunities for Commerce Students
Our Department organised a seminar on "Career Opportunities for Commerce Students" on 21 July 2007. Dr. Sesha Mohan elaborated on the opportunities opening up for a commerce graduate.
Friday, July 13, 2007
US Lending Problems: Do they Pose a Systemic Risk
By Scott Lanman
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601068&sid=ac9RIF2WhmMo&refer=economy
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601068&sid=ac9RIF2WhmMo&refer=economy
July 11 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Treasury Department's top domestic-finance official and a Federal Reserve governor said investor losses from subprime-mortgage delinquencies aren't posing broader risks to the financial system.
Robert Steel, a Treasury undersecretary, said at a House Financial Services Committee hearing today that the sell-off in subprime securities ``does not seem to be a systemic issue.'' The Fed's Kevin Warsh told the same panel that the losses ``don't appear to be raising, to this point, systemic risk issues.''
The officials spoke amid concern that losses on bonds backed by subprime mortgages, made to the riskiest borrowers, will ripple through Wall Street. Bear Stearns Cos., the fifth-biggest U.S. securities firm, last month was forced to lend $1.6 billion to one of its hedge funds to rescue it from immediate collapse following bad bets on subprime mortgages.
The market ``is going through an adjustment process,'' Steel, a former executive at Goldman Sachs Group Inc., told the hearing in Washington. ``It seems to be happening in an orderly way.''
Warsh, a former Morgan Stanley investment banker, said that ``our overall view is that there are certainly losses, that we might not be at the bottom of this tumult.'' At the same time, ``we don't see any immediate systemic risk issues that are brought to bear,'' added Warsh, a White House aide on financial- markets policy before joining the Fed.
`Very Real Losses'
Subprime mortgages are ``generating very real losses'' for investors, Warsh said without specifically mentioning New York- based Bear Stearns.
At the hearing, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's top market-regulation official, Erik Sirri, said Bear Stearns will likely resolve problems with its funds in an ``orderly fashion.''
Credit Suisse Group analysts this week estimated investors have lost as much as $52 billion amid the sell-off in the $800 billion market for mortgage securities backed by subprime loans. Moody's Investors Service yesterday lowered the credit ratings on $5.2 billion of bonds backed by subprime mortgages.
``The losses that have been felt by hedge funds and other financial intermediaries are certainly forcing them to go back to first principles, revisit their exposures,'' Warsh said. ``What we're trying to do in our supervisory capacity is ensure that they still have adequate cushions, that they still have sufficient capital, so that they can operate robustly.''
Banking Picture
In addition to setting interest rates, the Fed is one of several U.S. bank regulators and was established in 1913 with the goal of mitigating or preventing financial panics.
Philadelphia Fed President Charles Plosser said in London today that most banks remain in ``good shape'' as subprime losses mount. Referring to the ratings cut by Moody's, he said in answering questions after a speech today ``I don't think that was entirely unanticipated. Sometimes I buy a stock thinking it will go up and it doesn't.''
Asked about the possibility of a credit crunch, Plosser said he's a ``little less concerned'' about that happening compared with previous similar incidents.
The House hearing's principal topic was financial-system risks from hedge funds. The private pools of capital that allow managers to share in gains have avoided strict U.S. regulation because they cater to wealthy individuals and pension funds rather than less-affluent investors.
Frank's View
Barney Frank, the Massachusetts Democrat who chairs the Financial Services Committee, said hedge funds pose potential risks to the financial system and that the existing federal regulatory structure may not be adequate to handle them.
``We have a kind of an easy consensus that there is a potential problem here that we wish we were more sure about how to approach,'' he said.
Frank told reporters after the hearing that he planned to hold hearings later this year on rating agencies and the way they graded subprime mortgage bonds. ``Some of them appear to have been overvalued,'' he said.
U.S. financial regulators in February concluded after a review of hedge funds that market discipline, rather than regulation, is the best way of policing risks. Steel reiterated that view today, while noting that the guidelines set by the President's Working Group on Financial Markets were no ``endorsement of the status quo.''
Warsh said in his prepared testimony that said global banks need to make ``further progress'' in managing risks from hedge funds and that the Fed's hands-off regulatory stance doesn't mean the government will be ``passive.''
Under questioning, Warsh said that ``we're not in the business of trying to ensure that there aren't losses but only to ensure there are capital cushions, risk management processes and proper oversight to ensure that those losses don't become systemic.''
Saturday, July 7, 2007
ON GOING PROJECT WORK BY FINAL B.COM
DEEPAK JOSE (DO-40), 2.DOMINIC JOSEPH(DO-74) AND 3.ROSHAN RENJITH (DO-56) of final BCom have undertook a project work under the guidence of Mr.N.A.Francis Xavier( Head, Department of Commerce) and G. Sahaya Baskaran ( Lecturer in Physics) on “Different schemes available in the consumer market and Economical plans for various income groups of mobile phones"the service providers so far taken into consideration for analysis of the plans provided by them for the project are: Hutch, Airtel, Idea,Reliance, BSNL and Tata Indicom
Thursday, July 5, 2007
Freshers Welcome & Blog Inauguration
We cheerfully welcomed our freshers into our fold by organising a Freshers Welcome today (05.07.07) at 3.30 p.m. in the college Seminar Hall. We also used this occasion to formally inaugurate our department blog. Rev. Fr. Principal graced the occasion as the Chief Guest and inaugurated out blog.The senior students organised a cultural programme on the occasion. We are posting the pictures.
Welcome To ALC Commerce Department Blog
Inauguration of Department Blog
By
Rev Fr. (Dr) S. Emmanuel,
Principal,
Andhra Loyola College
at 4.00 P.M, 5 July 2007
Monday, July 2, 2007
Welcome to the World of Blogging
The Department of Commerce, Andhra Loyola College (Autonomous), Vijayawada takes this opportunity to welcome our students to the world of blogging. As many of us may be aware, technological change has changed the way we live and work. As students of commerce, we have to understand that technology is frequently deployed by the business world. The adoption of technology by the business world has transformed abstract academic ideas into mass, consumer oriented products. It is in this context that blogging has become one of the fasted growing technological tools in the conduct of business. We hope to provide a forum where our students will be exposed to various technological tools. We would like to encourage our students to use blogging as an additional discussion tool in the pursuit of knowledge. The Department would like the students to actively participate in posting and give us their feedback. We hope this process of interactive interaction would be a small step in the long journey in pursuit of excellence.
Faculty
1. Mr. N.A.Francis Xavier, M.Com, M.Phil (Head of the Department)
2. Mr.Ch.Veeriah Choudary, M.Com.
3. Dr. D.N.M.Raju, M.Com, Ph.D.
4. Mr. B.Syam Sundar, M.Com.
5. Mr. T.Srinivas Rao, M.Com
6. Mr. B.Prabhakar, M.Com, M.Phil.
Commerce Department Association Office Bearers (2007 - 08)
Staff Coordinator: Mr. B.Syam Sundar
Chairman: K. Gangadhar Reddy (DO: 17)
Secretary: K. Rohit Harish Kumar (NO:2)
Joint Secretary: A. Kaspar (AO:76)
Faculty
1. Mr. N.A.Francis Xavier, M.Com, M.Phil (Head of the Department)
2. Mr.Ch.Veeriah Choudary, M.Com.
3. Dr. D.N.M.Raju, M.Com, Ph.D.
4. Mr. B.Syam Sundar, M.Com.
5. Mr. T.Srinivas Rao, M.Com
6. Mr. B.Prabhakar, M.Com, M.Phil.
Commerce Department Association Office Bearers (2007 - 08)
Staff Coordinator: Mr. B.Syam Sundar
Chairman: K. Gangadhar Reddy (DO: 17)
Secretary: K. Rohit Harish Kumar (NO:2)
Joint Secretary: A. Kaspar (AO:76)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)