Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Working Paper (17) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (17)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (17)
Keywords
- Compensation (3)
- Funds (3)
- Limited Partnership (3)
- Principal Agent (3)
- Venture Capital (3)
- Bank Resolution (2)
- Bargaining Power (2)
- Covenants (2)
- Deutschland (2)
- Kreditwürdigkeit (2)
The paper explores factors that influence the design of financing contracts between venture capital investors and European venture capital funds. 122 Private Placement Memoranda and 46 Partnership Agreements are investigated in respect to the use of covenant restrictions and compensation schemes. The analysis focuses on the impact of two key factors: the reputation of VC-funds and changes in the overall demand for venture capital services. We find that established funds are more severely restricted by contractual covenants. This contradicts the conventional wisdom which assumes that established market participants care more about their reputation, have less incentive to behave opportunistically and therefore need less covenant restrictions. We also find that managers of established funds are more often obliged to invest own capital alongside with investors money. We interpret this as evidence that established funds have actually less reason to care about their reputation as compared to young funds. One reason for this surprising result could be that managers of established VC funds are older and closer to retirement and therefore put less weight on the effects of their actions on future business opportunities. We also explore the effects of venture capital supply on contract design. Gompers and Lerner (1996) show that VC-funds in the US are able to reduce the number of restrictive covenants in years with high supply of venture capital and interpret this as a result of increased bargaining power by VC-funds. We do not find similar evidence for Europe. Instead, we find that VC-funds receive less base compensation and higher performance related compensation in years with strong capital inflows into the VC industry. This may be interpreted as a signal of overconfidence: Strong investor demand seems to coincide with overoptimistic expectations by fund managers which make them willing to accept higher powered incentive schemes. JEL: G32 Keywords: Venture Capital, Contracting, Limited Partnership, Funds, Principal Agent, Compensation, Covenants, Reputation, Bargaining Power
In den letzten Jahren wurden verschiedene Modelle entwickelt, um das Ausfallrisiko von Banken unter Berücksichtigung von Portfolioeffekten zu quantifizieren. Bisher hat sich kein Ansatz als allgemein akzeptierter Standard durchsetzen können. Da die Modelle grundlegende konzeptionelle Unterschiede aufweisen und unterschiedliche empirische Inputdaten verwenden, hat die Auswahl eines Kreditrisikomodells unter Umständen einen erheblichen Einfluß auf die Kreditportfoliosteuerung der Bank. In diesem Beitrag soll deshalb geklärt werden, ob die Modelle systematisch abweichende Value-at-Risk-Werte berechnen und worin die Ursachen für auftretende Abweichungen liegen. Zunächst wird gezeigt, daß die bestehenden Kreditrisikomodelle in zwei grundlegende Klassen eingeteilt werden können: Assetwert-basierte Modelle und auf Ausfallraten basierende Modelle. Am Beispiel eines Musterportfolios von Krediten an deutsche Baufirmen werden zwei Vertreter der Modellklassen (CreditMetrics und CreditRisk+) verglichen und der Effekt der unterschiedlichen empirischen Inputparameter auf die Risikoergebnisse abgeschätzt. Die Analyse zeigt erhebliche Unterschiede zwischen den Modellen. Eine Analyse der Abweichungsursachen ergibt allerdings, daß der Grund für die großen Value-at-Risk-Unterschiede in erster Linie in den unterschiedlichen empirischen Inputdaten liegt, welche zu unterschiedlichen impliziten Korrelationsannahmen führen. Es wird gezeigt, wie die Modellparameter gewählt werden müssen, um identische Korrelationen zu erzeugen. Bei konsistenten Korrelationsannahmen stimmen die Ergebnisse beider Modelle weitgehend überein. Keywords: Credit Risk Models, credit risk correlation
Under a new Basel capital accord, bank regulators might use quantitative measures when evaluating the eligibility of internal credit rating systems for the internal ratings based approach. Based on data from Deutsche Bundesbank and using a simulation approach, we find that it is possible to identify strongly inferior rating systems out-of time based on statistics that measure either the quality of ranking borrowers from good to bad, or the quality of individual default probability forecasts. Banks do not significantly improve system quality if they use credit scores instead of ratings, or logistic regression default probability estimates instead of historical data. Banks that are not able to discriminate between high- and low-risk borrowers increase their average capital requirements due to the concavity of the capital requirements function.
The paper describes the legal and economic environment of mergers and acquisitions in Germany and explores barriers to obtaining and executing corporate control. Various cases are used to demonstrate that resistance by different stakeholders including minority shareholders, organized labour and the government may present powerful obstacles to takeovers in Germany. In spite of the overall convergence of European takeover and securities trading laws, Germany still shows many peculiarities that make its market for corporate control distinct from other countries. Concentrated share ownership, cross shareholdings and pyramidal ownership structures are frequent barriers to acquiring majority stakes. Codetermination laws, the supervisory board structure and supermajority requirements for important corporate decisions limit the execution of control by majority shareholders. Bidders that disregard the German preference for consensual solutions and the specific balance of powers will risk their takeover attempt be frustrated by opposing influence groups. Revised version forthcoming in "The German Financial System", edited by Jan P. Krahnen and Reinhard H. Schmidt, Oxford University Press.
The paper explores factors that influence the design of financing contracts between venture capital investors and European venture capital funds. 122 Private Placement Memoranda and 46 Partnership Agreements are investigated in respect to the use of covenant restrictions and compensation schemes. The analysis focuses on the impact of two key factors: the reputation of VC-funds and changes in the overall demand for venture capital services. We find that established funds are more severely restricted by contractual covenants. This contradicts the conventional wisdom which assumes that established market participants care more about their reputation, have less incentive to behave opportunistically and therefore need less covenant restrictions. We also find that managers of established funds are more often obliged to invest own capital alongside with investors money. We interpret this as evidence that established funds have actually less reason to care about their reputation as compared to young funds. One reason for this surprising result could be that managers of established VC funds are older and closer to retirement and therefore put less weight on the effects of their actions on future business opportunities. We also explore the effects of venture capital supply on contract design. Gompers and Lerner (1996) show that VC-funds in the US are able to reduce the number of restrictive covenants in years with high supply of venture capital and interpret this as a result of increased bargaining power by VC-funds. We do not find similar evidence for Europe. Instead, we find that VC-funds receive less base compensation and higher performance related compensation in years with strong capital inflows into the VC industry. This may be interpreted as a signal of overconfidence: Strong investor demand seems to coincide with overoptimistic expectations by fund managers which make them willing to accept higher powered incentive schemes.
We provide insights into determinants of the rating level of 371 issuers which defaulted in the years 1999 to 2003, and into the leader-follower relationship between Moody’s and S&P. The evidence for the rating level suggests that Moody’s assigns lower ratings than S&P for all observed periods before the default event. Furthermore, we observe two-way Granger causal-ity, which signifies information flow between the two rating agencies. Since lagged rating changes influence the magnitude of the agencies’ own rating changes it would appear that the two rating agencies apply a policy of taking a severe downgrade through several mild down-grades. Further, our analysis of rating changes shows that issuers with headquarters in the US are less sharply downgraded than non-US issuers. For rating changes by Moody’s we also find that larger issuers seem to be downgraded less severely than smaller issuers.
This briefing paper describes and evaluates the law and economics of institution(al) protection schemes. Throughout our analysis, we use Europe’s largest such scheme, that of German savings banks, as paradigm. We find strengths and weaknesses: Strong network-internal monitoring and early warning seems to be an important contributor to IPS network success. Similarly, the geographical quasi-cartel encourages banks to build a strong client base, including SME, in all regions. Third, the growth of the IPS member institutions may have benefitted from the strictly unlimited protection offered, in terms of euro amounts per account holder. The counterweighing weaknesses encompass the conditionality of the protection pledge and the underinvestment risk it entails, sometimes referred to as blackmailing the government, as well as the limited diversification potential of the deposit insurance within the network, and the near-incompatibility of the IPS model with the provisions of the BRRD, particularly relating to bail-in and resolution. Consequently, we suggest, as policy guidance, to treat large IPS networks similar to large banking groups, and put them as such under the direct supervision of the ECB within the SSM. Moreover, we suggest strengthening the seriousness of a deposit insurance that offers unlimited protection. Finally, to improve financial stability, we suggest embedding the IPS model into a multi-tier deposit re-insurance scheme, with a national and a European layer. This document was provided by the Economic Governance Support Unit at the request of the ECON Committee.
Nach der 2008 startenden Finanzmarktkrise sind Maßnahmen zur Regulierung und Stabilisierung der Finanzmärkte in das Zentrum der politischen und der gesellschaftlichen Aufmerksamkeit gerückt. Insbesondere die hohen fiskalischen Kosten der Staaten zur Stützung ihrer Bankensysteme sowie die volkswirtschaftlichen Kosten infolge des Einbruchs des Wirtschaftswachstums in den Jahren nach der Insolvenz der US Investmentbank Lehman Brothers hatten einen globalen Konsens über die Notwendigkeit neuer Regulierungsmaßnahmen zur Folge. Im Ergebnis wurden das internationale Regulierungswerk Basel III sowie weitere nationale Maßnahmen zur Stabilisierung des Finanzsektors neu konzipiert und in Europa im Wege einer in nationales Recht umzusetzenden Richtlinie (die Capital Require-ments Directive IV - CRD IV) sowie einer Verordnung (die Capital Requirements Regulation CRR, welche unmittelbar geltendes Recht darstellt) eingeführt.
Vor diesem Hintergrund analysiert das vorliegende interdisziplinäre Gutachten die Auswirkungen der Regulierungsmaßnahmen, die zwischen 2008 bis zu Beginn des Jahres 2018 umgesetzt wurden auf dem deutschen Finanzsektor.
In this paper we argue that the own findings of the SSM THEMATIC REVIEW ON PROFITABILITY AND BUSINESS MODEL and the academic literature on bank profitability do not provide support for the business model approach of supervisory guidance. We discuss in the paper several reasons why the regulator should stay away from intervening in management practices. We conclude that by taking the role of a coach instead of a referee, the supervisor generates a hazard for financial stability.
European households face tremendous obstacles when intending to open a savings account outside their home country. The shortage of deposits has become a major reason for banks’ declining loan supply and ultimately is responsible for a substantial part of the investment weakness and GDP decline in affected European countries.
Policy makers have made important efforts to promote European deposit market integration and to stimulate cross border flows of savings within the European Union. But these efforts will only yield the intended benefits if a number of additional non-tariff trade barriers are removed. Currently, these barriers prevent households in surplus countries to transfer their savings to banks in deficit countries where their deposits are most urgently needed.