Refine
Document Type
- Working Paper (12)
- Part of Periodical (2)
Has Fulltext
- yes (14)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (14)
Keywords
- BRRD (4)
- Bail-in (4)
- MREL (3)
- TLAC (3)
- Banking Regulation (2)
- Banking Supervision (2)
- Bond Markets (2)
- Demographic Change (2)
- Financial Institutions (2)
- banking supervision (2)
Institute
- Wirtschaftswissenschaften (14) (remove)
Von Februar bis Juni 2015 hat die Europäische Zentralbank (EZB) die Notfall-Liquiditätshilfen (emergency liquidity assistance, ELA) für griechische Banken von 50 auf etwa 90 Milliarden Euro ausgeweitet. Dies hat zu einer Diskussion unter Wissenschaftlern, Politikern und Praktikern geführt, ob diese Liquiditätshilfen rechtmäßig sind. Es wurde der Vorwurf erhoben, die EZB trage bewusst zu einer Konkursverschleppung der bereits insolventen griechischen Banken bei.
Wir nehmen diesen Vorwurf zum Anlass, die Grundsätze des ELA-Programms genauer zu betrachten und die Frage zu diskutieren, ob das Programm in der aktuellen Situation rechtmäßig war. Zunächst beschreiben wir hierfür aus finanzwirtschaftlicher Perspektive die komplexe Beziehung zwischen der Europäischen Union, der EZB und den griechischen Banken. Dabei gehen wir insbesondere auf die wirtschaftspolitischen Grundsätze einer Währungsunion mit einer unvollständigen Fiskalunion (oder Haushaltskonsolidierung) ein. Vor diesem Hintergrund analysieren wir dann die Entscheidung der EZB, weiterhin Liquiditätshilfen an griechische Banken bereitzustellen. Wir kommen zu dem Ergebnis, dass das Vorgehen der EZB nicht als Konkursverschleppung zu bezeichnen ist.
In this note, we first highlight different developments for banks under direct ECB supervision within the SSM that may prompt further investigation by supervisors. We find that banks that were weakly capitalized at the start of direct ECB supervision (1) still face elevated levels of non-performing loans, (2) are less cost-efficient and (3) reduced their share of subordinated debt financing over the last years. We then stress the importance of continuous and ongoing cost-benefit analysis regarding banking supervision in Europe. We also encourage processes to question existing supervisory practices to ensure a lean and efficient banking supervision. Finally, we underline the need of continuous and intensified coordination among regulatory bodies in the Banking Union since the efficacy of European bank supervision rests on its interplay with many different institutions.
This document was requested by the European Parliament's Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. It was originally published on the European Parliament’s webpage.
According to the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (BRRD), introduced as a lesson from the recent financial crisis, the losses a failing bank incurred should generally be borne by its investors. Before a minimum bail-in has occurred, government money can only be injected in emergency cas-es to remedy a serious disturbance in the economy and to preserve financial stability. This policy letter argues that in case of the Italian Bank Monte dei Paschi di Siena (MPS), which the Italian gov-ernment currently plans to bail out, a resolution would most likely not cause such a systemic event. A bailout contrary to the existing rules will lead to a mispricing of bank capital and retard the re-structuring of the European banking sector, the authors write. They appeal to the European Central Bank, the Systemic Risk Board and the EU Commission to follow the rules as the test-case MPS will have a direct impact on the credibility of the new BRRD regime and the responsible institutions.
Als geladener Sachverständiger argumentierte Martin Götz bei der öffentlichen Anhörung des Finanzausschusses des Deutschen Bundestags und in seiner vorliegenden Stellungnahme, dass durch die zügige Umsetzung der Richtlinie 2014/59/EU die Selbstregulierung von Kreditinstituten und Wertpapierfirmen weiter gestärkt wird und das aufsichtsrechtliche Instrumentarium um marktorientierte Mechanismen ausgebaut wird. Er erwartet, dass das Umsetzungsgesetz die Finanzstabilität in Deutschland fördert. Positiv sei insbesondere die Ausgestaltung der Möglichkeit einer verpflichtenden Gläubigerbeteiligung („Bail-in“) im Rahmen der Abwicklung, da der Bail-in nicht nur Fragen der Privathaftung im Abwicklungsfall klärt, sondern auch gute Anreize zur Selbstregulierung von Kreditinstituten setzt. Den Verzicht auf die Umsetzung der in der Abwicklungsrichtlinie enthaltenen staatlichen Stabilisierungsmöglichkeiten bewertet er als positiv und sieht darin einen wichtigen Baustein zur Förderung der Selbstregulierung von Finanzinstituten. Die Verlängerung der Laufzeit des Finanzmarktstabilisierungsfonds sei problematisch, da die explizite Möglichkeit einer staatlichen Hilfe dem Anreiz zur Selbstregulierung von Finanzinstituten entgegensteht.
An important prerequisite for the efficiency of bail-in as a regulatory tool is that debt holders are able to bear the cost of a bail-in. Examining European banks’ subordinated debt we caution that households may be investors in bail-in able bonds. Since households do not fulfil the aforementioned prerequisite, we argue that European bank supervisors need to ensure that banks’ bail-in bonds are held by sophisticated investors. Existing EU market regulation insufficiently addresses mis-selling of bail-in instruments.
Households buy life insurance as part of their liquidity management. The option to surrender such a policy can serve as a buffer when a household faces a liquidity need. In this study, we investigate empirically which individual and household specific sociodemographic factors influence the surrender behavior of life insurance policyholders. Based on the Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP), an ongoing wide-ranging representative longitudinal study of around 11,000 private households in Germany, we construct a proxy to identify life insurance surrender in the data. We use this proxy to conduct fixed effect regressions and support the results with survival analyses. We find that life events that possibly impose a liquidity shock to the household, such as birth of a child and divorce increase the likelihood to surrender an existing life insurance policy for an average household in the panel. The acquisition of a dwelling and unemployment are further aspects that can foster life insurance surrender. Our results are robust with respect to different models and hold conditioning on region specific trends; they vary however for different age groups. Our analyses contribute to the existing literature supporting the emergency fund hypothesis. The findings obtained in this study can help life insurers and regulators to detect and understand industry specific challenges of the demographic change.
Households buy life insurance as part of their liquidity management. The option to surrender such a policy can serve as a buffer when a household faces a liquidity need. In this study, we investigate empirically which individual and household specific sociodemographic factors influence the surrender behavior of life insurance policyholders. Based on the Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP), an ongoing wide-ranging representative longitudinal study of around 11,000 private households in Germany, we construct a proxy to identify life insurance surrender in the data. We use this proxy to conduct fixed effect regressions and support the results with survival analyses. We find that life events that possibly impose a liquidity shock to the household, such as birth of a child and divorce increase the likelihood to surrender an existing life insurance policy for an average household in the panel. The acquisition of a dwelling and unemployment are further aspects that can foster life insurance surrender. Our results are robust with respect to different models and hold conditioning on region specific trends; they vary however for different age groups. Our analyses contribute to the existing literature supporting the emergency fund hypothesis. The findings obtained in this study can help life insurers and regulators to detect and understand industry specific challenges of the demographic change.
The publication of the Liikanen Group's final report in October 2012 was surrounded by high expectations regarding the implementation of the reform plans through the proposed measures that reacted to the financial and sovereign debt crises. The recommendations mainly focused on introducing a mild version of banking separation and the creation of the preconditions for bail-in measures. In this article, we present an overview of the regulatory reforms, to which the financial sector has been subject over the past years in accordance with the concepts laid out in the Liikanen Report. It becomes clear from our assessment that more specific steps have yet to be taken before the agenda is accomplished. In particular, bail-in rules must be implemented more consistently. Beyond the question of the required minimum, the authors develop the notion of a maximum amount of liabilities subject to bail-in. The combination of both components leads to a three-layer structure of bank capital: a bail-in tranche, a deposit-insured bailout tranche, and an intermediate run-endangered mezzanine tranche. The size and treatment of the latter must be put to a political debate that weighs the costs and benefits of a further increase in financial stability beyond that achieved through loss-bearing of the bail-in tranche.