Universitätspublikationen
Refine
Year of publication
- 2016 (146) (remove)
Document Type
- Working Paper (115)
- Part of Periodical (8)
- Book (7)
- Contribution to a Periodical (7)
- Article (3)
- Part of a Book (2)
- Conference Proceeding (2)
- Doctoral Thesis (1)
- Report (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (146)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (146) (remove)
Keywords
- monetary policy (5)
- Banking Regulation (3)
- Financial Crisis (3)
- Financial literacy (3)
- Heranwachsender (3)
- Insurance (3)
- Interest Rate Risk (3)
- Internationaler Vergleich (3)
- Life Insurance (3)
- Systemic Risk (3)
Institute
- Wirtschaftswissenschaften (146) (remove)
From 1963 through 2015, idiosyncratic risk (IR) is high when market risk (MR) is high. We show that the positive relation between IR and MR is highly stable through time and is robust across exchanges, firm size, liquidity, and market-to-book groupings. Though stock liquidity affects the strength of the relation, the relation is strong for the most liquid stocks. The relation has roots in fundamentals as higher market risk predicts greater idiosyncratic earnings volatility and as firm characteristics related to the ability of firms to adjust to higher uncertainty help explain the strength of the relation. Consistent with the view that growth options provide a hedge against macroeconomic uncertainty, we find evidence that the relation is weaker for firms with more growth options.
This study looks at the interrelationship between fiscal policy and safe assets as there is surprisingly little analysis about this beyond fleeting references. The study argues that from a certain point more public debt will not “buy” more safety: countries face a kind of “safe-assets Laffer curve” with a maximum amount of safe assets at some level of indebtedness. The position and “stability” of this curve depend on a number of national and international factors, including the international risk appetite and, as a more recent factor, QE policies by central banks. The study also finds evidence of declining safe assets as reflected in government debt ratings.
Under ordinary circumstances, the fiscal implications of central bank policies tend to be seen as relatively minor and escape close scrutiny. The global financial crisis of 2008, however, demanded an extraordinary response by central banks which brought to light the immense power of central bank balance sheet policies as well as their major fiscal implications. Once the zero lower bound on interest rates is reached, expanding a central bank’s balance sheet becomes the central instrument for providing additional monetary policy accommodation. However, with interest rates near zero, the line separating fiscal and monetary policy is blurred. Furthermore, discretionary decisions associated with asset purchases and liquidity provision, as well as with lender-of-last-resort operations benefiting private entities, can have major distributional effects that are ordinarily associated with fiscal policy. In the euro area, discretionary central bank decisions can have immense distributional effects across member states. However, decisions of this nature are incompatible with the role of unelected officials in democratic societies. Drawing on the response to the crisis by the Federal Reserve and the ECB, this paper explores the tensions arising from central bank balance sheet policies and addresses pertinent questions about the governance and accountability of independent central banks in a democratic society.
We consider an infinitely repeated game in which a privately informed, long-lived manager raises funds from short-lived investors in order to finance a project. The manager can signal project quality to investors by making a (possibly costly) forward-looking disclosure about her project’s potential for success. We find that if the manager’s disclosures are costly, she will never release forward-looking statements that do not convey information to external investors. Furthermore, managers of firms that are transparent and face significant disclosure-related costs will refrain from forward-looking disclosures. In contrast, managers of opaque and profitable firms will follow a policy of accurate disclosures. To test our findings empirically, we devise an index that captures the quantity of forward-looking disclosures in public firms’ 10-K reports, and relate it to multiple firm characteristics. For opaque firms, our index is positively correlated with a firm’s profitability and financing needs. For transparent firms, there is only a weak relation between our index and firm fundamentals. Furthermore, the overall level of forward-looking disclosures declined significantly between 2001 and 2009, possibly as a result of the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley Act.
We show that the net corporate payout yield predicts both the stock market index and house prices and that the log home rent-price ratio predicts both house prices and labor income growth. We incorporate the predictability in a rich life-cycle model of household decisions involving consumption of both perishable goods and housing services, stochastic and unspanned labor income, stochastic house prices, home renting and owning, stock investments, and portfolio constraints. We find that households can significantly improve their welfare by optimally conditioning decisions on the predictors. For a modestly risk-averse agent with a 35-year working period and a 15-year retirement period, the present value of the higher average life-time consumption amounts to roughly $179,000 (assuming both an initial wealth and an initial annual income of $20,000), and the certainty equivalent gain is around 5.5% of total wealth (financial wealth plus human capital). Furthermore, every cohort of agents in our model would have benefited from applying predictor-conditional strategies along the realized time series over our 1960-2010 data period.
Since the outbreak of the financial crisis, the macro-prudential policy paradigm has gained increasing prominence (Bank of England, 2009; Bernanke, 2011). The dynamics of this shift in the economic discourse, and the reasons this shift has not taken place prior to the crisis have not been addressed systemically. This paper investigates the evolution of the economic discourse on systemic risk and banking regulation to better understand these changes and their timing. Further, we use our sample to inquire whether, and if so, why the economic regulatory studies failed to recommend a reliable banking regulation prior to the crisis. By following a discourse analysis, we establish that the economic discourse on banking regulation has not been suitable for providing the knowledge basis required for a dynamically reliable banking regulation, and we identify the underlying reasons for such failure. These reasons include the obsession of economic discourse with optimization and particular forms of formalism, particularly, partial equilibrium analysis. Further, the economic discourse on banking regulation excludes historical and practitioners’ discourses and ignores weak signals. We point out that post-crisis, these epistemological failures of the economic discourse on banking regulation were not sufficiently recognized and that recent attempts to conceptualize systemic risk as a negative externality and to thus price it point to the persistence of formalism, equilibrium thinking and optimization, with their attending dangers.
Im Nachgang der Finanz- und Wirtschaftskrise beobachten wir derzeit sehr niedrige Renditen im „sicheren“ Anlagebereich auf dem Geldmarkt und für Staatsanleihen. Gleichzeitig sind Aktienkurse massiv gestiegen und zeichnen sich seit Beginn 2015 durch eine Seitwärtsbewegung aus. Die Ursachen für diese Entwicklung sind teilweise bekannt: Niedrige Zinssätze aufgrund einer expansiven Geldpolitik gepaart mit hoher Unsicherheit an den Märkten reduzieren die Auswahl attraktiver Kapitalanlagemöglichkeiten erheblich. Doch wie wird sich die langfristige Entwicklung gestalten, wenn oder falls die Wirkungen der jüngsten Finanz- und Wirtschaftskrise nachlassen? Gibt es einen langfristigen Trend? Spiegelt sich dieser Trend etwa bereits heute in den niedrigen Renditen wider?
Vor mehr als einem Jahrzehnt, also bereits einige Jahre vor der jüngsten Finanz- und Wirtschaftskrise, wurde wiederholt die sogenannte „Asset Market Meltdown“-Hypothese postuliert. Nach dieser Hypothese würden in den dreißiger Jahren dieses Jahrhunderts die Kapitalrenditen stark sinken, wenn die „Babyboomer“-Generation in den Ruhestand gehe und infolgedessen Kapital aus dem Wertpapiermarkt abziehe. Heute wird eine ähnliche Debatte unter dem Stichwort „säkulare Stagnation“ geführt. Danach bestehe die Gefahr, dass die nächsten Jahrzehnte durch niedrige Wachstumsraten geprägt sein und negative Realzinsen gar zur Normalität werden könnten. Dieser Beitrag geht der Frage nach, inwiefern die demographische Entwicklung für eine solche Stagnation verantwortlich ist.
Steueroasen besitzen drei wichtige Merkmale, die aus der Sicht von Steuerhinterziehern und Steuervermeidern anderer Länder besondere Anziehungskraft haben. Sie bieten niedrige Steuersätze für alle oder für bestimmte Kapitaleinkommen. Sie weisen eine hohe politische Stabilität und funktionierende Institutionen auf. Schließlich verbinden sie dies mit einem hohen Maß an faktischer Intransparenz in den Besitzstrukturen von Briefkastenfirmen sowie einer ausgeprägten Vertraulichkeit von Bankdaten. Unter Führung der OECD hat sich in den letzten Jahren der politische Druck auf die internationalen Steueroasen erhöht und zu einer Reihe von bilateralen und multilateralen Abkommen zum Informationsaustausch geführt. Da diese Abkommen nicht alle Steueroasen umfassen, haben sie die Gesamtanlagen in den Steueroasen allerdings bisher nur in sehr geringem Umfang reduzieren können. In Deutschland werden die internationalen Abkommen der letzten Jahre von Seiten der Steuerpolitik aber bereits als Erfolg verbucht und eine stärker progressive Besteuerung von Kapitaleinkünften diskutiert. Falls weiterhin ein Teil der einschlägigen Steueroasen dem Informationsaustausch fernbleibt, bietet es sich an, auf bilateralem Wege Verhandlungen aufzunehmen oder den Druck über multilaterale Verfahren und Sanktionen zu erhöhen.