INTRODUCTION
While Canada might appear to be fundamentally the same to the U.S., there are significant differences between the financial systems in the two nations. The U.S. framework is unique in the world, particularly regarding the sheer number of financial institutions and its high usage of checks, but Canada appears to take after the more general developed- nation model. Also, U.S. organizations have a tendency of having multiple bank connections for both credit and non-credit services, while Canadian organizations normally have only one, major commercial bank relationship. In the U.S. also, the Federal Reserve assumes a key role in operating and managing the key payment frameworks, but in Canada, this part is taken care of by an association of banks. The information in this paper gives business administrators the "guide" they have to comprehend key financial systems and treasury management practices in both the U.S., and Canadian financial systems.
DISCUSSION
US FINANCIAL SYSTEM
The U.S. financial framework is effectively the biggest on the planet, despite the fact that that position stands to be challenged by unified European financial markets and, in numerous regards, the most advanced. It likewise has the greatest diversity of organizations, the broadest variety of instruments, and the most exceptionally developed derivative markets. In numerous areas of finance, it leads in innovation (Mohamed, 2008). It is likewise a standout amongst the most idiosyncratic financial frameworks in the world, portrayed by an oddly parochial set of laws and regulations that both weaken competition and shield inefficiency. Because these anomalies, which are evident to even the most casual student of monetary frameworks, the U.S., the U.S. framework is not one that different nations with less completely developed economies and financial frameworks would be well encouraged to imitate, at least not in everything. However, much can be gained from a keen examination of both the strengths and shortcomings of the U.S. framework.
The United States financial framework is more grounded than it was five years prior. However, risks remain and regulators need to complete reforms while policymakers ought to oppose endeavors to move back a percentage of the changes. In its first significant major assessment since 2010, the IMF said the U.S. has gained ground in enhancing its oversight of financial firms (Caprio and Vittas 2008). A significant number of those actions were mandated by the Dodd-Frank financial reform law, which was enacted in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis.
The framework incorporates financial institutions, which includes banks and credit unions, the monetary markets, and clearing and settlement frameworks. It's through the financial framework that most commercial activities (borrowing, saving, buying and selling by methods of debit and Master cards, and e-money) are done. The Bank works with different agencies and market members to advance and maintain the safe and productive operation of the key components of the financial framework.
US FINANCIAL WEAKNESSES
Crucial flaws in the financial framework threaten the economic recuperation in the United States and other major nations, "There are empowering signs that the recent financial crisis has been captured, however not solidly reversed, in the U.S., and in many other industrialized countries. Almost six years after the apex of the financial crisis, the financial sector is still adapting to its result. This makes the financial firms to end up at an intersection. Moving attitudes towards risk in the choice of business plans of action will impact the sector's future profile. The pace of alteration is critical to the financial segment again turning into a facilitator of economic development. The banking segment has made progress in mending its injuries, but balance sheet repair is incomplete (Mohamed, 2008).