Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Working Paper (39)
- Periodical Parts (10)
- Report (1)
Keywords
- banking union (8)
- MREL (7)
- TLAC (7)
- bail-in (7)
- prudential supervision (7)
- BRRD (6)
- Bail-in (6)
- Financial Institutions (6)
- Banking Supervision (4)
- SRM (4)
Institute
- Wirtschaftswissenschaften (44)
- Sustainable Architecture for Finance in Europe (SAFE) (42)
- Center for Financial Studies (CFS) (31)
- House of Finance (HoF) (27)
- Rechtswissenschaft (15)
- Institute for Monetary and Financial Stability (IMFS) (9)
- Foundation of Law and Finance (3)
- Institut für sozial-ökologische Forschung (ISOE) (1)
- How special are they? - Targeting systemic risk by regulating shadow banking : (October 5, 2014) (2014)
- This essay argues that at least some of the financial stability concerns associated with shadow banking can be addressed by an approach to financial regulation that imports its functional foundations more vigorously into the interpretation and implementation of existing rules. It shows that the general policy goals of prudential banking regulation remain constant over time despite dramatic transformations in the financial and technological landscape. Moreover, these overarching policy goals also legitimize intervention in the shadow banking sector. On these grounds, this essay encourages a more normative construction of available rules that potentially limits both the scope for regulatory arbitrage and the need for ever more rapid updates and a constant increase in the complexity of the regulatory framework. By tying the regulatory treatment of financial innovation closely to existing prudential rules and their underlying policy rationales, the proposed approach potentially ends the socially wasteful race between hare and tortoise that signifies the relation between regulators and a highly dynamic industry. In doing so it does not generally hamper market participants’ efficient discoveries where disintermediation proves socially beneficial. Instead, it only weeds-out rent-seeking circumventions of existing rules and standards.
- Comments on the EU Commission's Capital Markets Union Project (2015)
- The European Commission has published a Green Paper outlining possible measures to create a single market for capital in Europe. Our comments on the Commission’s capital markets union project use the functional finance approach as a starting point. Policy decisions, according to the functional finance perspective, should be essentially neutral (agnostic) in terms of institutions (level playing field). Our main angle, from which we assess proposals for the capital markets union agenda, are information asymmetries and the agency problems (screening, monitoring) which arise as a result. Within this perspective, we make a number of more specific proposals.
- Negative Zinsen auf Einlagen – juristische Hindernisse und ihre wettbewerbspolitischen Auswirkungen (2015)
- Im anhaltenden Niedrigzinsumfeld tun Banken sich schwer damit, die ihnen zur Verfügung gestellte Liquidität einer renditeträchtigen Nachfrage zuzuführen. Darüberhinaus müssen sie auf Liquiditätsüberschüsse, die im Rahmen der Einlagenfazilität des Eurosystems über Nacht bei den nationalen Zentralbanken der Eurozone deponiert werden, Strafzinsen entrichtet. Vor diesem Hintergrund könnten Banken durch negative Einlagenzinsen das Anliegen verfolgen, die Nachfrage nach Aufbewahrung von (Sicht)Einlagen zu verringern. Einer solchen Strategie stehen aber aus juristischer Sicht Hindernisse entgegen, soweit der beschriebene Paradigmenwechsel auch im Rahmen existierender Kundenbeziehungen einseitig vorgenommen werden soll. Die rechtlichen Hürden sind weder Ausdruck einer realitätsfernen Haarspalterei, noch eines verbraucherschützenden Furors. Vielmehr ermöglichen sie privaten und gewerblichen Bankkunden, im Zeitpunkt der angestrebten Zinsanpassung bewusst über die Verwendung ihrer liquiden Mittel zu entscheiden.
- Regulatory influence on market conditions in the banking union : the cases of macro-prudential instruments and the bail-in tool (2015)
- This paper looks into the specific influence that the European banking union will have on (future) bank client relationships. It shows that the intended regulatory influence on market conditions in principle serves as a powerful governance tool to achieve financial stability objectives. From this vantage, it analyzes macro-prudential instruments with a particular view to mortgage lending markets – the latter have been critical in the emergence of many modern financial crises. In gauging the impact of the new European supervisory framework, it finds that the ECB will lack influence on key macro-prudential tools to push through more rigid supervisory policies vis-à-vis forbearing national authorities. Furthermore, this paper points out that the current design of the European bail-in tool supplies resolution authorities with undue discretion. This feature which also afflicts the SRM imperils the key policy objective to re-instill market discipline on banks’ debt financing operations. The latter is also called into question because the nested regulatory technique that aims at preventing bail-outs unintendedly opens additional maneuvering space for political decision makers.
- Regulatory influence on market conditions in the banking union : the cases of macro-prudential instruments and the bail-in tool (2015)
- This paper looks into the specific influence that the European banking union will have on (future) bank client relationships. It shows that the intended regulatory influence on market conditions in principle serves as a powerful governance tool to achieve financial stability objectives. From this vantage, it analyzes macro-prudential instruments with a particular view to mortgage lending markets – the latter have been critical in the emergence of many modern financial crises. In gauging the impact of the new European supervisory framework, it finds that the ECB will lack influence on key macro-prudential tools to push through more rigid supervisory policies vis-à-vis forbearing national authorities. Furthermore, this paper points out that the current design of the European bail-in tool supplies resolution authorities with undue discretion. This feature which also afflicts the SRM imperils the key policy objective to re-instill market discipline on banks’ debt financing operations. The latter is also called into question because the nested regulatory technique that aims at preventing bail-outs unintendedly opens additional maneuvering space for political decision makers.
- Should the marketing of subordinated debt be restricted/different in one way or the other? What to do in the case of mis-selling? (2016)
- 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.
- Does say on pay matter? Evidence from the German natural experiment (2016)
- This paper investigates the potential implications of say on pay on management remuneration in Germany. We try to shed light on some key aspects by presenting quantitative data that allows us to gauge the pertinent effects of the German natural experiment that originates with the 2009 amendments to the Stock Corporation Act of 1965. In order to do this, we deploy a hand-collected data set for Germany's major firms (i.e. DAX 30), for the years 2006-2012. Rather than focusing exclusively on CEO remuneration we collected data for all members of the management board for the whole period under investigation. We observe that the compensation packages of management board members of Germany's DAX30-firms are quite closely linked to key performance measures. In addition, we find that salaries increase with the size of the company and that ownership concentration has no significant effect on compensation. Also, our findings suggest that the two-tier system seems to matter a lot when it comes to compensation. However, it would be misleading to state that we see no significant impact of the introduction of the German say on pay-regime. Our findings suggest that supervisory boards anticipate shareholder-behavior.
- Vom Rheinischen Kapitalismus zum Kapitalmarktrecht (und wieder zurück?) (2016)
- Das Kapitalmarktrecht entwickelt sich in der Berliner Republik zu einem voll integrierten Kernbestandteil des unternehmensrechtlichen Diskurses in der Rechtswissenschaft, während es in den vorausgehenden Dekaden primär eine in den normativen Grundlagen wenig durchdrungene Praktikermaterie darstellte. Das vorliegende Essay versucht eine Erklärung für diese Beobachtung zu skizzieren, die auf einem breiten Jurisdiktionen und Nationalökonomien übergreifenden Kontext beruht, der mit den Schlagworten Europäisierung und Globalisierung nur platt und unscharf umschrieben ist. Dabei geht es einerseits um eine Ausweichbewegung deutscher Unternehmen, die mit einer verstärkten Kapitalmarktorientierung eine Klemme in der Unternehmensfinanzierung zu lösen, die durch den Rückzug der vom globalen Wettbewerb erfassten Finanzindustrie aus derselben ausgelöst wurde. Auf der anderen Seite findet in der Altersvorsoge eine Abkehr von Umverteilungssystemen und eine Hinwendung zur kapitalbasierten Vorsorge statt, durch die nicht nur mehr Kapital für Investitionen statt für Konsum zur Verfügung steht, sondern auch die Interessen der Mittelschicht in vielerlei Hinsicht stärker von einer anlegerorientierten Regelung im Gesellschafts- und Kapitalmarktrecht abhängen, als von einer Arbeitnehmerorientierung im Unternehmensrecht.
- Too complex to work : a critical assessment of the bail-in tool under the European Recovery and Resolution Regime (2017)
- This paper analyzes the bail-in tool under the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (BRRD) and predicts that it will not reach its policy objective. To make this argument, this paper first describes the policy rationale that calls for mandatory private sector involvement (PSI). From this analysis, the key features for an effective bail-in tool can be derived. These insights serve as the background to make the case that the European resolution framework is likely ineffective in establishing adequate market discipline through risk-reflecting prices for bank capital. The main reason for this lies in the avoidable embeddedness of the BRRD’s bail-in tool in the much broader resolution process, which entails ample discretion of the authorities also in forcing private sector involvement. Moreover, the idea that nearly all positions on the liability side of a bank’s balance sheet should be subjected to bail-in is misguided. Instead, a concentration of PSI in instruments that fall under the minimum requirements for own funds and eligible liabilities (MREL) is preferable. Finally, this paper synthesized the prior analysis by putting forward an alternative regulatory approach that seeks to disentangle private sector involvement as a precondition for effective bank-resolution as much as possible form the resolution process as such.
- Why MREL won't help much : minimum requirements for bail -in capital as insufficient remedy for defunct private sector involvement under the European bank resolution framework (2017)
- The bail-in tool as implemented in the European bank resolution framework suffers from severe shortcomings. To some extent, the regulatory framework can remedy the impediments to the desirable incentive effect of private sector involvement (PSI) that emanate from a lack of predictability of outcomes, if it compels banks to issue a sufficiently sized minimum of high-quality, easy to bail-in (subordinated) liabilities. Yet, even the limited improvements any prescription of bail-in capital can offer for PSI’s operational effectiveness seem compromised in important respects. The main problem, echoing the general concerns voiced against the European bail-in regime, is that the specifications for minimum requirements for own funds and eligible liabilities (MREL) are also highly detailed and discretionary and thus alleviate the predicament of investors in bail-in debt, at best, only insufficiently. Quite importantly, given the character of typical MREL instruments as non-runnable long-term debt, even if investors are able to gauge the relevant risk of PSI in a bank’s failure correctly at the time of purchase, subsequent adjustment of MREL-prescriptions by competent or resolution authorities potentially change the risk profile of the pertinent instruments. Therefore, original pricing decisions may prove inadequate and so may market discipline that follows from them. The pending European legislation aims at an implementation of the already complex specifications of the Financial Stability Board (FSB) for Total Loss Absorbing Capacity (TLAC) by very detailed and case specific amendments to both the regulatory capital and the resolution regime with an exorbitant emphasis on proportionality and technical fine-tuning. What gets lost in this approach, however, is the key policy objective of enhanced market discipline through predictable PSI: it is hardly conceivable that the pricing of MREL-instruments reflects an accurate risk-assessment of investors because of the many discretionary choices a multitude of agencies are supposed to make and revisit in the administration of the new regime. To prove this conclusion, this chapter looks in more detail at the regulatory objectives of the BRRD’s prescriptions for MREL and their implementation in the prospectively amended European supervisory and resolution framework.
