Sustainable Architecture for Finance in Europe (SAFE)
Refine
Year of publication
- 2021 (15) (remove)
Document Type
- Working Paper (9)
- Part of Periodical (4)
- Article (2)
Has Fulltext
- yes (15) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (15)
Keywords
- Covid-19 (3)
- Corporate Social Responsibility (2)
- ETFs (2)
- Non-performing Loans (2)
- Asset Management Companies (1)
- BRRD (1)
- Bailout (1)
- Bank Bailout (1)
- Bank Capitalization (1)
- Bank Recapitalization (1)
- Bank Resolution (1)
- Board Appointments (1)
- COVID-19 (1)
- Capital Purchase Program (1)
- Centrality (1)
- Credit Risk (1)
- Dictionary (1)
- Dividend Payments (1)
- ESG (1)
- ESG Rating Agencies (1)
- ESG rating agencies (1)
- Financial Crises (1)
- Financial Crisis (1)
- Fiscal Capacity (1)
- Flash crash (1)
- Forbearance (1)
- High Frequency Data (1)
- High-frequency event study (1)
- International Finance (1)
- Investor sentiment (1)
- LSTM neural networks (1)
- Liquidity provision (1)
- Machine learning (1)
- Market efficiency (1)
- Market fragility (1)
- NLP (1)
- Network theory (1)
- Portfolio choice (1)
- Public financial news (1)
- S&P 500 (1)
- Secondary Loan Markets (1)
- Slow-moving capital (1)
- Social media (1)
- Socially responsible investing (1)
- Sovereign Risk (1)
- Stock market (1)
- Sustainable Investments (1)
- TARP (1)
- Twitter (1)
- sustainable investments (1)
The centrality of the United States in the global financial system is taken for granted, but its response to recent political and epidemiological events has suggested that China now holds a comparable position. Using minute-by-minute data from 2012 to 2020 on the financial performance of twelve country-specific exchange-traded funds, we construct daily snapshots of the global financial network and analyze them for the centrality and connectedness of each country in our sample. We find evidence that the U.S. was central to the global financial system into 2018, but that the U.S.-China trade war of 2018–2019 diminished its centrality, and the Covid-19 outbreak of 2019–2020 increased the centrality of China. These indicators may be the first signals that the global financial system is moving from a unipolar to a bipolar world.
With the second wave of the Covid-19 pandemic in full swing, banks face a challenging environment. They will need to address disappointing results and adverse balance sheet restatements, the intensity of which depends on the evolution of the euro area economies. At the same time, vulnerable banks reinforce real economy deficiencies. The contribution of this paper is to provide a comparative assessment of the various policy responses to address a looming banking crisis. Such a crisis will fully materialize when non-performing assets drag down banks simultaneously, raising the specter of a full-blown systemic crisis. The policy responses available range from forbearance, recapitalization (with public or private resources), asset separation (bad banks, at national or EU level), to debt conversion schemes. We evaluate these responses according to a set of five criteria that define the efficacy of each. These responses are not mutually exclusive, in practice, as they have never been. They may also go hand in hand with other restructuring initiatives, including potential consolidation in the banking sector. Although we do not make a specific recommendation, we provide a framework for policymakers to guide them in their decision making.