Working Paper Series : Institute for Monetary and Financial Stability
"Irresponsible lending" with a better informed lender
- We present a simple model of personal finance in which an incumbent lender has an information advantage vis-a-vis both potential competitors and households. In order to extract more consumer surplus, a lender with sufficient market power may engage in "irresponsible"lending, approving credit even if this is knowingly against a household’s best interest. Unless rival lenders are equally well informed, competition may reduce welfare. This holds, in particular, if less informed rivals can free ride on the incumbent’s superior screening ability.
(Un)anticipated monetary policy in a DSGE model with a shadow banking system
Manuel M. F. Martins
- Motivated by the U.S. events of the 2000s, we address whether a too low for too long interest
rate policy may generate a boom-bust cycle. We simulate anticipated and unanticipated monetary
policies in state-of-the-art DSGE models and in a model with bond financing via a shadow banking
system, in which the bond spread is calibrated for normal and optimistic times. Our results suggest
that the U.S. boom-bust was caused by the combination of (i) too low for too long interest rates,
(ii) excessive optimism and (iii) a failure of agents to anticipate the extent of the abnormally
A lender-based theory of collateral
Holger M. Mueller
- We consider an imperfectly competitive loan market in which a local relationship lender has an information advantage vis-à-vis distant transaction lenders. Competitive pressure from the transaction lenders prevents the local lender from extracting the full surplus from projects, so that she inefficiently rejects marginally profitable projects. Collateral mitigates the inefficiency by increasing the local lender’s payoff from precisely those marginal projects that she inefficiently rejects. The model predicts that, controlling for observable borrower risk, collateralized loans are more likely to default ex post, which is consistent with the empirical evidence. The model also predicts that borrowers for whom local lenders have a relatively smaller information advantage face higher collateral requirements, and that technological innovations that narrow the information advantage of local lenders, such as small business credit scoring, lead to a greater use of collateral in lending relationships. JEL classification: D82; G21 Keywords: Collateral; Soft infomation; Loan market competition; Relationship lending
A new comparative approach to macroeconomic modeling and policy analysis
Gernot J. Müller
Maik Hendrik Wolters
- In the aftermath of the global financial crisis, the state of macroeconomicmodeling and the use
of macroeconomic models in policy analysis has come under heavy criticism. Macroeconomists
in academia and policy institutions have been blamed for relying too much on a particular class
of macroeconomic models. This paper proposes a comparative approach to macroeconomic policy
analysis that is open to competing modeling paradigms. Macroeconomic model comparison
projects have helped produce some very influential insights such as the Taylor rule. However,
they have been infrequent and costly, because they require the input of many teams of researchers
and multiple meetings to obtain a limited set of comparative findings. This paper provides a new
approach that enables individual researchers to conduct model comparisons easily, frequently, at
low cost and on a large scale. Using this approach a model archive is built that includes many
well-known empirically estimated models that may be used for quantitative analysis of monetary
and fiscal stabilization policies. A computational platform is created that allows straightforward
comparisons of models’ implications. Its application is illustrated by comparing different monetary
and fiscal policies across selected models. Researchers can easily include new models in the
data base and compare the effects of novel extensions to established benchmarks thereby fostering
a comparative instead of insular approach to model development.
Aktienrecht zwischen börsen- und kapitalmarktorientiertem Ansatz
- I. EINLEITUNG II. VORSCHLAG DER WIRTSCHAFTSRECHTLICHEN ABTEILUNG ZUM 67. DEUTSCHEN JURISTENTAG 1. Darstellung und Begriffsbestimmung 2. Begründung III. BEDEUTUNG DES AUßERBÖRSLICHEN HANDELS IN DEUTSCHLAND IV. RECHTSVERGLEICHENDE BETRACHTUNG VON AKTIEN- UND KAPITALMARKTRECHT 1. Deutschland a) Organisation des Kapitalmarktes b) Differenzierung im Rahmen des Aktienrechts 2. Großbritannien a) Organisation des Kapitalmarktes b) Differenzierungen im „Companies Act 2006“ 3. USA a) Rechtsquellen des Kapitalgesellschafts- und Kapitalmarktrechts b) Organisation des Kapitalmarktes c) Kapitalgesellschaftsrecht V. STELLUNGNAHME 1. Anknüpfung der vorhandenen Regelungen an die Kapitalmarktorientierung 2. Verwischung der Grenzen zwischen Aktien- und Kapitalmarktrecht 3. Missbrauchsgefahr durch selbstbestimmte Wahl der Satzungsstrenge 4. Bisherige Reformansätze im deutschen Schrifttum 5. Die Abkehr von einer Differenzierung im Aktienrecht in der aktuellen Reformdiskussion 6. Ökonomische Analyse des Aktienrechts („Opt-In-Modell“) VI. FAZIT: Der Deregulierungsansatz, der eine Differenzierung zwischen börsen- und nichtbörsennotierten Aktiengesellschaften vorsieht, ist nicht zu befürworten. Vor dem Hintergrund der rechtsvergleichenden Betrachtung der Beispiele Großbritannien und der USA stellt sich vielmehr eine kapitalmarktorientierte Differenzierung der Anlegerschutzbestimmungen des Aktienrechts als vorzugswürdig dar. Die Anknüpfung von Deregulierungsmaßnahmen an das Kriterium der Kapitalmarktorientierung findet sich im Ansatz auch im bereits geltenden deutschen Recht. So enthält sowohl das Aktienrecht als auch das Kapitalmarktrecht entsprechend differenzierende Regelungen. Zudem weisen auch aktuelle nationale Gesetzesvorhaben und die Entwicklungen im europäischen Gesellschaftsrecht Tendenzen zu einer Abgrenzung nach dem Kriterium der Kapitalmarktferne oder -offenheit auf. Auch birgt der enge Anwendungsbereich der zwingenden Anlegerschutznormen des Aktienrechts auf börsennotierte Aktiengesellschaften erhebliche Missbrauchsrisiken. Aktiengesellschaften könnten in den außerbörslichen Handel wechseln, um in den Genuss von Deregulierungen und geringeren Transparenz- und Anlegerschutzanforderungen zu kommen. Letztlich folgt der Vorzug einer kapitalmarktorientierten Differenzierung auch aus der aktuellen Diskussion um Reformansätze zur Steigerung der Wettbewerbsfähigkeit des deutschen Gesellschafts- und Kapitalmarktrechts. Die in diesem Zusammenhang geforderte Aufhebung der Satzungsstrenge bei gleichzeitiger Normierung entsprechender Informations- und Anlegerschutzpflichten im Kapitalmarktrecht würde dazu führen, dass an bestehende Differenzierungen des Kapitalmarktrechts angeknüpft werden könnte.
Asset pricing under rational learning about rare disasters
- This paper proposes a new approach for modeling investor fear after rare disasters. The key element is to take into account that investors’ information about fundamentals driving rare downward jumps in the dividend process is not perfect. Bayesian learning implies that beliefs about the likelihood of rare disasters drop to a much more pessimistic level once a disaster has occurred. Such a shift in beliefs can trigger massive declines in price-dividend ratios. Pessimistic beliefs persist for some time. Thus, belief dynamics are a source of apparent excess volatility relative to a rational expectations benchmark. Due to the low frequency of disasters, even an infinitely-lived investor will remain uncertain about the exact probability. Our analysis is conducted in continuous time and offers closed-form solutions for asset prices. We distinguish between rational and adaptive Bayesian learning. Rational learners account for the possibility of future changes in beliefs in determining their demand for risky assets, while adaptive learners take beliefs as given. Thus, risky assets tend to be lower-valued and price-dividend ratios vary less under adaptive versus rational learning for identical priors. Keywords: beliefs, Bayesian learning, controlled diffusions and jump processes, learning about jumps, adaptive learning, rational learning. JEL classification: D83, G11, C11, D91, E21, D81, C61
Atypical behavior of credit: evidence from a monetary VAR
- Credit boom detection methodologies (such as threshold method) lack robustness as they are based on univariate detrending analysis and resort to ratios of credit to real activity. I propose a quantitative indicator to detect atypical behavior of credit from a multivariate system - a monetary VAR. This methodology explicitly accounts for endogenous interactions between credit, asset prices and real activity and detects atypical credit expansions and contractions in the Euro Area, Japan and the U.S. robustly and timely. The analysis also proves useful in real time.
Bank capital structure and credit decisions
- This paper argues that banks must be sufficiently levered to have first-best incentives to make new risky loans. This result, which is at odds with the notion that leverage invariably leads to excessive risk taking, derives from two key premises that focus squarely on the role of banks as informed lenders. First, banks finance projects that they do not own, which implies that they cannot extract all the profits. Second, banks conduct a credit risk analysis before making new loans. Our model may help understand why banks take on additional unsecured debt, such as unsecured deposits and subordinated loans, over and above their existing deposit base. It may also help understand why banks and finance companies have similar leverage ratios, even though the latter are not deposit takers and hence not subject to the same regulatory capital requirements as banks. JEL classification: G21; G32
Banking competition and risk-taking when borrowers care about financial prudence
- Corporate borrowers care about the overall riskiness of a bank’s operations as their continued access to credit may rely on the bank’s ability to roll over loans or to expand existing credit facilities. As we show, a key implication of this observation is that increasing competition among banks should have an asymmetric impact on banks’ incentives to take on risk: Banks that are already riskier will take on yet more risk, while their safer rivals will become even more prudent. Our results offer new guidance for bank supervision in an increasingly competitive environment and may help to explain existing, ambiguous findings on the relationship between competition and risk-taking in banking. Furthermore, our results stress the beneficial role that competition can have for financial stability as it turns a bank’s "prudence" into an important competitive advantage.
Capital adequacy regulation of financial conglomerates in the European Union
Y. Emilie Yoo
- Over the past few decades, changes in market conditions such as globalisation and deregulation of financial markets as well as product innovation and technical advancements have induced financial institutions to expand their business activities beyond their traditional boundaries and to engage in cross-sectoral operations. As combining different sectoral businesses offers opportunities for operational synergies and diversification benefits, financial groups comprising banks, insurance undertakings and/or investment firms, usually referred to as financial conglomerates, have rapidly emerged, providing a wide range of services and products in distinct financial sectors and oftentimes in different geographic locations. In the European Union (EU), financial conglomerates have become part of the biggest and most active financial market participants in recent years. Financial conglomerates generally pose new problems for financial authorities as they can raise new risks and exacerbate existing ones. In particular, their cross-sectoral business activities can involve prudentially substantial risks such as the risk of regulatory arbitrage and contagion risk arising from intra-group transactions. Moreover, the generally large size of financial conglomerates as well as the high complexity and interconnectedness of their corporate structures and risk exposures can entail substantial systemic risk and can therefore threaten the stability of the financial system as a whole. Until a few years ago, there was no supervisory framework in place which addressed a financial conglomerate in its entirety as a group. Instead, each group entity within a financial conglomerate was subject to the supervisory rules of its pertinent sector only. Such silo supervisory approach had the drawback of not taking account of risks which arise or aggravate at the group level. It also failed to consider how the risks from different business lines within the group interrelate with each other and affect the group as a whole. In order to address this lack of group-wide prudential supervision of financial conglomerates, the European legislator adopted the Financial Conglomerates Directive 2002/87/EC8 (‘FCD’) on 16 December 2002. The FCD was transposed into national law in the member states of the EU (‘Member States’) by 11 August 2004 for application to financial years beginning on 1 January 2005 and after. The FCD primarily aims at supplementing the existing sectoral directives to address the additional risks of concentration, contagion and complexity presented by financial conglomerates. It therefore provides for a supervisory framework which is applicable in addition to the sectoral supervision. Most importantly, the FCD has introduced additional capital requirements at the conglomerate level so as to prevent the multiple use of the same capital by different group entities. This paper seeks to examine to what extent the FCD provides for an adequate capital regulation of financial conglomerates in the EU while taking into account the underlying sectoral capital requirements and the inherent risks associated with financial conglomerates. In Part 1, the definition and the basic corporate models of financial conglomerates will be presented (I), followed by an illustration of the core motives behind the phenomenon of financial conglomeration (II) and an overview of the development of the supervision over financial conglomerates in the EU (III). Part 2 begins with a brief elaboration on the role of regulatory capital (I) and gives a general overview of the EU capital requirements applicable to banks and insurance undertakings respectively. A delineation of the commonalities and differences of the banking and the insurance capital requirements will be provided (II). It continues to further examine the need for a group-wide capital regulation of financial conglomerates and analyses the adequacy of the FCD capital requirements. In this context, the technical advice rendered by the Joint Committee on Financial Conglomerates (JCFC) as well as the currently ongoing legislative reforms at the EU level will be discussed (III). The paper finally closes with a conclusion and an outlook on remaining open issues (IV).