Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Working Paper (3395) (remove)
Language
- English (2358)
- German (1017)
- Spanish (8)
- French (7)
- Multiple languages (2)
Keywords
- Deutschland (223)
- USA (64)
- Corporate Governance (53)
- Geldpolitik (53)
- Schätzung (52)
- Europäische Union (51)
- monetary policy (47)
- Bank (41)
- Sprachtypologie (34)
- Monetary Policy (31)
Institute
- Wirtschaftswissenschaften (1504)
- Center for Financial Studies (CFS) (1477)
- Sustainable Architecture for Finance in Europe (SAFE) (811)
- House of Finance (HoF) (669)
- Rechtswissenschaft (403)
- Institute for Monetary and Financial Stability (IMFS) (216)
- Informatik (119)
- Exzellenzcluster Die Herausbildung normativer Ordnungen (75)
- Gesellschaftswissenschaften (75)
- Geographie (64)
This paper extends the internal frank report 28 as follows: It is shown that for a call-by-need lambda calculus LRCCP-Lambda extending the calculus LRCC-Lambda by por, i.e in a lambda-calculus with letrec, case, constructors, seq and por, copying can be done without restrictions, and also that call-by-need and call-by-name strategies are equivalent w.r.t. contextual equivalence.
Call-by-need lambda calculi with letrec provide a rewritingbased operational semantics for (lazy) call-by-name functional languages. These calculi model the sharing behavior during evaluation more closely than let-based calculi that use a fixpoint combinator. In a previous paper we showed that the copy-transformation is correct for the small calculus LR-Lambda. In this paper we demonstrate that the proof method based on a calculus on infinite trees for showing correctness of instantiation operations can be extended to the calculus LRCC-Lambda with case and constructors, and show that copying at compile-time can be done without restrictions. We also show that the call-by-need and call-by-name strategies are equivalent w.r.t. contextual equivalence. A consequence is correctness of all the transformations like instantiation, inlining, specialization and common subexpression elimination in LRCC-Lambda. We are confident that the method scales up for proving correctness of copy-related transformations in non-deterministic lambda calculi if restricted to "deterministic" subterms.
A concurrent implementation of software transactional memory in Concurrent Haskell using a call-by-need functional language with processes and futures is given. The description of the small-step operational semantics is precise and explicit, and employs an early abort of conflicting transactions. A proof of correctness of the implementation is given for a contextual semantics with may- and should-convergence. This implies that our implementation is a correct evaluator for an abstract specification equipped with a big-step semantics.
A concurrent implementation of software transactional memory in Concurrent Haskell using a call-by-need functional language with processes and futures is given. The description of the small-step operational semantics is precise and explicit, and employs an early abort of conflicting transactions. A proof of correctness of the implementation is given for a contextual semantics with may- and should-convergence. This implies that our implementation is a correct evaluator for an abstract specification equipped with a big-step semantics.
Large companies are increasingly on trial. Over the last decade, many of the world’s biggest firms have been embroiled in legal disputes over corruption charges, financial fraud, environmental damage, taxation issues or sanction violations, ending in convictions or settlements of record-breaking fines, well above the billion-dollar mark. For critics of globalization, this turn towards corporate accountability is a welcome sea-change showing that multinational companies are no longer above the law. For legal experts, the trend is noteworthy because of the extraterritorial dimensions of law enforcement, as companies are increasingly held accountable for activities independent of their nationality or the place of the activities. Indeed, the global trend required understanding the evolution of corporate criminal law enforcement in the United States in particular, where authorities have skillfully expanded its effective jurisdiction beyond its territory. This paper traces the evolution of corporate prosecutions in the United States. Analyzing federal prosecution data, it then shows that foreign firms are more likely to pay a fine, which is on average 6,6 times larger.
We examine firms’ simultaneous choice of investment, debt financing and liquidity in a large sample of US corporates between 1980 and 2014. We partition the sample according to the firms’ financial constraints and their needs to hedge against future shortfalls in operating income. In contrast to earlier work, our joint estimation approach shows that cash flows affect the corporate decisions of unconstrained firms more strongly than those of constrained firms. Investment-cash flow sensitivities are particularly intense for unconstrained firms with high hedging needs. Investment opportunities (as proxied by Q), however, play a larger role for constrained firms with the effects being strongest in case of low hedging needs. Interestingly, constrained firms with low hedging needs are found to employ more debt to finance their investment opportunities and build up significant cash holdings at the same time. Our results hence indicate overinvestment behavior for unconstrained firms but no underinvestment for constrained firms if they have low hedging needs.
The paper provides novel insights on the effect of a firm’s risk management objective on the optimal design of risk transfer instruments. I analyze the interrelation between the structure of the optimal insurance contract and the firm’s objective to minimize the required equity it has to hold to accommodate losses in the presence of multiple risks and moral hazard. In contrast to the case of risk aversion and moral hazard, the optimal insurance contract involves a joint deductible on aggregate losses in the present setting.
This paper contrasts the recent European initiatives on regulating corporate groups with alternative approaches to the phenomenon. In doing so it pays particular regard to the German codified law on corporate groups as the polar opposite to the piecemeal approach favored by E.U. legislation.
It finds that the European Commission’s proposal to submit (significant) related party transactions to enhanced transparency, outside fairness review, and ex ante shareholder approval is both flawed in its design and based on contestable assumptions on informed voting of institutional investors. In particular, the contemplated exemption for transactions with wholly owned subsidiaries allows controlling shareholders to circumvent the rule extensively. Moreover, vesting voting rights with (institutional) investors will not lead to the informed assessment that is hoped for, because these investors will rationally abstain from active monitoring and rely on proxy advisory firms instead whose competency to analyze non-routine significant related party transactions is questionable.
The paper further delineates that the proposed recognition of an overriding interest of the group requires strong counterbalances to adequately protect minority shareholders and creditors. Hence, if the Commission choses to go down this route it might end up with a comprehensive regulation that is akin to the unpopular Ninth Company Law Directive in spirit, though not in content. The latter prediction is corroborated by the pertinent parts of the proposal for a European Model Company Act.
(1) Die öffentlich-rechtliche Organisationsform hat erhebliche Auswirkungen auf das “corporate governance” dieser Unternehmen. (2) Allerdings sind nur wenige allgemeine Aussagen möglich, da ein übergreifendes Rechtsregime wie das GmbHG oder das AG fehlt. (3) Wichtige Bestimmungsgrunde für die “Governance-Strukturen” öffentlichrechtlich organisierter Unternehmen ergeben sich erst aus der “Verfassung” des einzelnen Unternehmens oder einer Gruppe von Unternehmen (Beispiel: Sparkassen eines Landes) (4) Die Lehre - wichigsten Bestimmungsgrunde - auch im Hinblick auf die “property rights”- sind im einzelnen: Sicherung der Zahlungsfähigkeit Gewinnausschüttung Ubertragbarkeit von “Anteilen” Anspruch auf ein Auseinandersetzungsguthaben bei Ausscheiden eines Trägers Durchsetzbarkeit der Vorstellungen des Trägers gegenüber dem Management (6) Bei öffentlich-rechtlich organisierten Unternehmen entstehen leicht nur schwach kontrollierte Freiräume für ein selbständig agierendes Management. Das rechtliche Instrumentarium ist allerdings ausreichend, muß aber im einzelnen genauer analysiert werden (Beispiel: Rechnungshofskontrolle). Es müssen allerdings Anreizstrukturen geschaffen werden, es auch einzusetzen.
The corporate governance systems in Europe differ markedly. Economists tend to use stylized models and distinguish between the Anglo-American, the German and the Latinist model.1 In this view, for instance, the Austrian, Dutch, German, and Swiss systems are said to be variations of one model. For lawyers the picture is of course, much more detailed as particular rules may vary even where common principles prevail. Many comparative studies on these differences have been undertaken meanwhile.2 I do not want to add another study but to treat a different question. Are there as a consequence of growing internationalization, globalization of markets and technological change, also tendencies of convergence of our corporate governance systems? My answer will be in two parts. As corporate governance systems are traditionally mainly shaped by legislation, the first part will analyze the influence of the economic and technological change on the rule-setting process itself. How does this process react to the fundamental environmental change? That includes a short analysis of the solution of centralized harmonizing of company law within the EU as well as the question of whether EU-wide competition between national corporate law legislators can be observed or be expected in the future. The second part will then turn to the national level. It deals with actual tendencies of convergence or, more correctly, of approach by the German corporate governance system to the Anglo-American one.