Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Working Paper (74)
- Part of Periodical (40)
- Report (11)
- Contribution to a Periodical (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (126) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (126)
Keywords
- Financial Institutions (14)
- Banking Union (12)
- Banking Regulation (10)
- ECB (8)
- Macro Finance (8)
- Banking Supervision (7)
- BRRD (6)
- Bankenunion (6)
- Capital Markets Union (6)
- Euro (6)
Institute
- Wirtschaftswissenschaften (126) (remove)
Almost ten years after the European Commission action plan on building a capital markets union (CMU) and despite incremental progress, e.g. in the form of the EU Listing Act, the picture looks dire. Stock exchanges, securities markets, and supervisory authorities remain largely national, and, in many cases, European companies have decided to exclusively list overseas. Notwithstanding the economic and financial benefits of market integration, CMU has become a geopolitical necessity. A unified capital market can bolster resilience, strategic autonomy, and economic sovereignty, reduce dependence on external funding, and may foster economic cooperation between member states.
The reason for the persistent stand-still in Europe’s CMU development is not so much the conflict between market- and state-based integration, but rather the hesitancy of national regulatory and supervisory bodies to relinquish powers. If EU member states wanted to get real about CMU (as they say, and as they should), they need to openly accept the loss of sovereignty that follows from a true unified capital market. Building on economic as well as historical evidence, the paper offers viable proposals on how to design competent institutions within the current European framework.
This note outlines the case for speedy capital market integration and for the adoption of a common regulatory framework and single supervisory authority from a political economy perspective. We also show the alternative case for harmonization and centralization via regulatory competition, elaborating how competition between EU jurisdictions by way of full mutual recognition may lead to a (cost-)efficient and standardized legal framework for capital markets. Lastly, the note addresses the political economy conflict that underpins the implementation of both models for integrating capital markets. We point out that, in both cases, national authorities experience a loss of legislative and jurisdictional competence at the national level. We predict that any plan to foster a stronger capital market union, following an institution based or a market-based strategy, will face opposition from powerful national stakeholders.
The SVB case is a wake-up call for Europe’s regulators as it demonstrates the destructive power of a bank-run: it undermines the role of loss absorbing capital, elbowing governments to bailout affected banks. Many types of bank management weaknesses, like excessive duration risk, may raise concerns of bank losses – but to serve as a run-trigger, there needs to be a large enough group of bank depositors that fails to be fully covered by a deposit insurance scheme. Latent run-risk is the root cause of inefficient liquidations, and we argue that a run on SVB assets could have been avoided altogether by a more thoughtful deposit insurance scheme, sharply distinguishing between loss absorbing capital (equity plus bail-in debt) and other liabilities which are deemed not to be bail-inable, namely demand deposits. These evidence-based insights have direct implications for Europe’s banking regulation, suggesting a minimum and a maximum for a banks’ loss absorption capacity.
Um eine grüne Transformation der Volkswirtschaft zu erreichen, werden Finanzmärkte und die mit ihnen verbundenen Banken eine wichtige Rolle einnehmen müssen. Aber allein vermögen Banken und Kapitalmärkte wenig, wenn sie nicht im Kontext einer klugen, politischen Rahmensetzung und einer transparenten Erfassung der verursachten Schäden auf Unternehmensebene gesehen werden. Diese drei Pfeiler stellen bildlich den tragenden Unterbau für eine Brücke hin zu einer klimaneutralen Wirt-schaftsverfassung dar. Ihr Zusammenwirken ist eine Voraussetzung dafür, dass die Finanzwirtschaft die benötigten Finanzmittel für die grüne Transformation bereitstellen kann.
Climate risk has become a major concern for financial institutions and financial markets. Yet, climate policy is still in its infancy and contributes to increased uncertainty. For example, the lack of a sufficiently high carbon price and the variety of definitions for green activities lower the value of existing and new capital, and complicate risk management. This column argues that it would be welfare-enhancing if policy changes were to follow a predictable longer-term path. Accordingly, the authors suggest a role for financial regulation in the transition.