Refine
Document Type
- Working Paper (14)
- Report (1)
Keywords
Institute
- Rechtswissenschaft (15) (remove)
- 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.
- Five years after the Liikanen report : what have we learned? (2017)
- 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.
- Bank capital and the European recovery from the COVID-19 crisis (2020)
- Do current levels of bank capital in Europe suffice to support a swift recovery from the COVID-19 crisis? Recent research shows that a well-capitalized banking sector is a major factor driving the speed and breadth of recoveries from economic downturns. In particular, loan supply is negatively affected by low levels of capital. We estimate a capital shortfall in European banks of up to 600 billion euro in a severe scenario, and around 143 billion euro in a moderate scenario. We propose a precautionary recapitalization on the European level that puts the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) center stage. This proposal would cut through the sovereign-bank nexus, safeguard financial stability, and position the Eurozone for a quick recovery from the pandemic.
- The case for a normatively charged approach to regulating shadow banking : multipolar regulatory dialogues as a means to detect tail risks and preclude regulatory arbitrage (2020)
- This paper contributes to the debate on the adequate regulatory treatment of non-bank financial intermediation (NBFI). It proposes an avenue for regulators to keep regulatory arbitrage under control and preserve sufficient space for efficient financial innovation at the same time. We argue for a normative approach to supervision that can overcome the proverbial race between hare and hedgehog in financial regulation and demonstrate how such an approach can be implemented in practice. We first show that regulators should primarily analyse the allocation of tail risk inherent in NBFI. Our paper proposes to apply regulatory burdens equivalent to prudential banking regulation if the respective transactional structures become only viable through indirect or direct access to (ad hoc) public backstops. Second, we use insights from the scholarship on regulatory networks as communities of interpretation to demonstrate how regulators can retrieve the information on transactional innovations and their risk-allocating characteristics that they need to make the pivotal determination. We suggest in particular how supervisors should structure their relationships with semi-public gatekeepers such as lawyers, auditors and consultants to keep abreast of the risk-allocating features of evolving transactional structures. Finally, this paper uses the example of credit funds as non-bank entities economically engaged in credit intermediation to illustrate the merits of the proposed normative framework and to highlight that multipolar regulatory dialogues are needed to shed light on the specific risk-allocating characteristics of recent contractual innovations.
- The role of disclosure in green finance (2021)
- We study the design features of disclosure regulations that seek to trigger the green transition of the global economy and ask whether such regulatory interventions are likely to bring about sufficient market discipline to achieve socially optimal climate targets. We categorize the transparency obligations stipulated in green finance regulation as either compelling the standardized disclosure of raw data, or providing quality labels that signal desirable green characteristics of investment products based on a uniform methodology. Both categories of transparency requirements can be imposed at activity, issuer, and portfolio level. Finance theory and empirical evidence suggest that investors may prefer “green” over “dirty” assets for both financial and non-financial reasons and may thus demand higher returns from environmentally-harmful investment opportunities. However, the market discipline that this negative cost of capital effect exerts on “dirty” issuers is potentially attenuated by countervailing investor interests and does not automatically lead to socially optimal outcomes. Mandatory disclosure obligations and their (public) enforcement can play an important role in green finance strategies. They prevent an underproduction of the standardized high-quality information that investors need in order to allocate capital according to their preferences. However, the rationale behind regulatory intervention is not equally strong for all categories and all levels of “green” disclosure obligations. Corporate governance problems and other agency conflicts in intermediated investment chains do not represent a categorical impediment for green finance strategies. However, the many forces that may prevent markets from achieving socially optimal equilibria render disclosure-centered green finance legislation a second best to more direct forms of regulatory intervention like global carbon taxation and emissions trading schemes. Inherently transnational market-based green finance concepts can play a supporting role in sustainable transition, which is particularly important as long as first-best solutions remain politically unavailable.
