Refine
Document Type
- Working Paper (14)
- Part of Periodical (2)
Has Fulltext
- yes (16)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (16)
Keywords
- financial stability (5)
- Capital Markets Union (3)
- Coronavirus (3)
- coronavirus (3)
- systemic risk (3)
- Corporate Finance (2)
- financial regulation (2)
- non-bank financial intermediation (2)
- shadow banking (2)
- Asset Management Companies (1)
Eurobonds zur Bewältigung der europäischen Krise? : Wegweisung zu einer modernen Entwicklungsunion
(2011)
Die aktuelle Debatte um den Umgang mit der Verschuldung Griechenlands und anderer EWU Staaten berührt die Grundlagen europäischer Wirtschaftspolitik. Die nächsten Schritte sind wohl abzuwägen, um über eine unmittelbare Kriseneindämmung hinaus eine langfristige Stabilisierung der wirtschaftlichen und politischen Strukturen in der Eurozone zu erreichen.
Eine funktionsfähige Wirtschafts- und Währungsunion hat ihren Preis. Sie ist aber auch von großem Nutzen, gerade für Deutschland und die wettbewerbsstarken Regionen, die insbesondere vom einheitlichen Binnenmarkt und der monetären Stabilität profitieren. Das rechtfertigt zugleich
eine Unterstützung ökonomisch schwächerer Mitglieder der Union durch die stärkeren. Historisch waren Währungsunionen ohne einen derartigen minimalen fiskalischen Ausgleich nicht dauerhaft. Deshalb sind, wenn man die Währungsunion aufrechterhalten will, zwei Extrempositionen - keine Transfers, um keinen Preis ebenso wie deren Gegenteil: jedwedes Defizit wird bedingungslos finanziert - nicht zielführend. Ein kompletter Haftungsausschluss (no bail-out) ist nicht glaubwürdig, solange unabweisbare Schuldenschnitte von insolventen Staaten oder Regionen (wegen Überschuldung) nicht möglich sind, weil sie innerhalb eines stark integrierten Bankenmarktes potentiell unkontrollierbare Rückwirkungen auslösen. Andererseits liefe die unkonditionierte, dauerhafte Finanzierung regionaler Ungleichgewichte auf Transfervolumina hinaus, die eine Überforderung der Transfergeber darstellten. Sie führte vor allem zu einer Perpetuierung der Probleme, weil Anreize zur letztlich unabdingbaren Anpassung fehlten. Damit bleiben zur Schaffung der Voraussetzungen einer funktionsfähigen Währungsunion nur Optionen, die zwischen den Polen liegen.
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.
The paper provides an overview and an economic analysis of the development of the corporate governance of German banks since the 1950s, highlighting peculiarities – as seen from the meanwhile prevailing standard model perspective – of the German case. These peculiarities refer to the specific German notion and legal-institutional regime of corporate governance in general as well as to the specific three-pillar structure of the German banking system.
The most striking changes in the corporate governance of German banks during the past 50 years occurred in the case of the large shareholder-owned banks. For them, capital markets have become an important element of corporate governance, and their former orientation towards the interests of a broadly defined set of stakeholders has largely been replaced by a one-sided concentration on shareholders’ interests. In contrast, the corporate governance regimes of the smaller local public savings banks and the local cooperative banks have remained virtually unchanged. They acknowledge a broader horizon of stakeholder interests and put an emphasis on monitoring.
The Great Financial Crisis, beginning in 2007, has led to a considerable reassessment in the academic and political debate on bank governance. On an international level, it has revived the older notion that, in view of their high leverage and their innate complexity, banks are “special” and bank corporate governance also – and needs to be seen in this light, not least because research indicates that banks with a strong and one-sided shareholder orientation – and thus with what appears to be the best corporate governance according to the standard model – have suffered most in the crisis. In the German case, the crisis has shown that the smaller local banks have survived the crisis much better than large private and public banks, whose funding strongly depends on wholesale markets. This may point to certain advantages of their governance and ownership regimes. But the differences in the performance during the crisis years may also, or even more so, be a consequence of the business models of large vs small banks than of their different governance regimes.
Euro area shadow banking activities in a low-interest-rate environment: a flow-of-funds perspective
(2016)
Very low policy rates as well as the substantial redesign of rules and supervisory institutions have changed background conditions for the Euro Area’s financial intermediary sector substantially. Both policy initiatives have been targeted at improving societal welfare. And their potential side effects (or costs) have been discussed intensively, in academic as well as policy circles. Very low policy rates (and correspondingly low market rates) are likely to whet investors’ risk taking incentives. Concurrently, the tightened regulatory framework, in particular for banks, increases the comparative attractiveness of the less regulated, so-called shadow banking sector. Employing flow-of-funds data for the Euro Area’s non-bank banking sector we take stock of recent developments in this part of the financial sector. In addition, we examine to which extent low interest rates have had an impact on investment behavior. Our results reveal a declining role of banks (and, simultaneously, an increase in non-bank banking). Overall intermediation activity, hence, has remained roughly at the same level. Moreover, our findings also suggest that non-bank banks have tended to take positions in riskier assets (particularly in equities). In line with this observation, balance-sheet based risk measures indicate a rise in sector-specific risks in the non-bank banking sector (when narrowly defined).
The eurozone remains in a deep, largely macro-economic crisis. A robust global economy and falling oil prices have supported Europe’s economy for some time, but by now it is clear that the eurozone will only be able to pull itself out of this crisis by means of more decisive action. One response, the recent easing of monetary policy by the European Central Bank (ECB), has, for the most part, been sharply and one-sidedly criticised in Germany. Monetary policy inaction seems to be the preferred option of many in Germany.
The authors discuss the following question: What would happen if the ECB failed to respond to the excessively low inflation and the weak economy? And what economic policy would be suitable under the current circumstances, if not monetary policy?
This Policy Letter presents a proposal for designing a program of government assistance for firms hurt by the Coronavirus crisis in the European Union (EU). In our recent Policy Letter 81, we introduced a new, equity-type instrument, a cash-against-tax surcharge scheme, bundled across firms and countries in a European Pandemic Equity Fund (EPEF). The present Policy Letter 84 focuses on the principles and conditions relevant for the operationalization of a EPEF. Our proposal has several desirable features. It: a) offers better risk sharing opportunities, augmenting the resilience of businesses and EU economies; b) is need-based, thereby contributing to an effective use of resources; c) builds on conditions and credible controls, addressing adverse selection and moral hazard; d) is accessible to smaller and medium-sized firms, the backbone of Europe’s economy; e) applies Europe-wide uniform eligibility criteria, strengthening support among member states; f) is a scheme of limited duration, reducing (perceived) government interference in businesses; g) creates a template for a growth-oriented public policy, aligning public and private sector interests; and h) builds on the existing institutional infrastructure and requires minimal legislative adjustments.
This policy letter adds to the current discussion on how to design a program of government assistance for firms hurt by the Coronavirus crisis. While not pretending to provide a cure-all proposal, the advocated scheme could help to bring funding to firms, even small firms, quickly, without increasing their leverage and default risk. The plan combines outright cash transfers to firms with a temporary, elevated corporate profit tax at the firm level as a form of conditional payback. The implied equity-like payment structure has positive risk-sharing features for firms, without impinging on ownership structures. The proposal has to be implemented at the pan-European level to strengthen Euro area resilience.