Refine
Document Type
- Working Paper (6)
Has Fulltext
- yes (6)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (6)
Keywords
- Universalbank (6) (remove)
Institute
Universal banking means that banks are permitted to offer all of the various kinds of financial services. This includes classical banking activities like the credit and deposit business, as well as investment services, placement and brokerage of securities, and even insurance activities, trading in real estate and others. German universal banks also hold stock in nonfinancial firms and offer to vote their clients' shares in other firms. This paper deals with universal banks and their role in the investment business, more specifically, their links with investment companies and their various roles as shareholders and providers of financial services to such companies. Banks and investment companies have, as financial intermediaries, one trait in common: they both transform capital of investors (depositors and shareholders of investment funds, respectively) into funds (loans and equity or debt securities, respectively) that are channeled to other firms. So why should a regulation forbid to combine these transformation tasks in one institution or group, and why should the law not allow banks to establish investment companies and provide all kinds of financial services to them in addition to their banking services? German banking and investment company law have answered these questions in the affirmative. This paper argues that the existing regulation is not a sound and recommendable one. The paper is organized as follows: Sections II - V identify four areas where the combination of banking and investment might either harm the shareholders of the investment funds and/or negatively affect other constituencies such as the shareholders of the banking institution. These sections will at the same time explore whether there are institutional or regulatory provisions in place or market forces at work that adequately protect investors and the other constituencies in question. Concluding remarks follow (VI.).
Die SPD-Bundestagsfraktion hat im Januar 1995 den Entwurf eines "Transparenz- und Wettbewerbsgesetzes" vorgelegt1. In ihm wird vorgeschlagen, Kreditinstituten und Versicherungen die Beteiligung an Kapitalanlagegesellschaften zu untersagen2. Ein entsprechender Vorschlag ist auf dem 61. Deutschen Juristentag in Karlsruhe gestellt, dort aber mit großer Mehrheit abgelehnt worden3. Im folgenden sollen die Argumente für und wider eine solche Regulierung auf der Grundlage empirischer Daten erörtert werden.
Professionelle Stimmrechtsvertreter bieten durch ihre Spezialisierungs- und Größenvorteile Aktionären, die als je einzelne Kosten und Mühen wohlinformierter Stimmabgabe scheuen würden, eine kostengünstige Möglichkeit zur Wahrnehmung ihrer Rechte in der Hauptversammlung. Trittbrettfahrereffekte und Informationsasymmetrien hindern jedoch das Entstehen eines qualitätsfordernden Wettbewerbs zwischen Anbietern professioneller Stimmrechtsvertretung: Im Ergebnis vermögen deshalb nur solche Anbieter auf dem Markt zu bestehen, die anstelle einer expliziten eine implizite, durch Einfluß auf die Geschäftsbeziehungen des kontrollierten Unternehmen vermittelte Vergütung durch das Einwerben und Ausüben von Stimmrechten Dritter erwarten dürfen. Diese implizite Vergütung aber wird durch eine Ausübung der Vollmachtstimmrechte erwirtschaftet, die sich nicht notwendig auf die Maximierung des Unternehmenswertes der kontrollierten Gesellschaft richtet und daher in Konflikt mit den Interessen ihrer Aktionäre geraten kann. Diesem Marktversagen ist durch eine Regulierung zu begegnen, welche Bedingungen der Möglichkeit eines qualitätsfördernden Wettbewerbs von Stimmrechtsvertretern schafft:: Die Mindestvoraussetzungen eines solchen Marktes sind die Zulassung nur professioneller Anbieter, eine Vergütung der Stimmrechtsvertreter durch die betroffenen Gesellschaften selbst, die Auswahl der Stimmrechtsvertreter durch die Hauptversammlung und endlich die Beschränkung weisungsfreier Stimmrechtsvertretung auf solche Vertreter, die keinerlei weitere Geschäftsbeziehungen mit dem kontrollierten Unternehmen unterhalten.
This paper discusses the role of internal corporate ratings as a means by which commercial banks condense their informational advantage and preserve it vis-à-vis a competitive lending market. In drawing on a unique data set collected from leading universal banks in Germany, we are able to evaluate the extent to which non-public information determines corporate ratings. As a point of departure, the paper describes a sample of rating systems currently in use, and points at methodological differences between them. Relying on a probit analysis, we are able to show that the set of qualitative, or soft, factors is not simply redundant with respect to publicly available accounting data. Rather, qualitative information tends to be decisive in at least one third of cases. It tends to improve the firms' overall corporate rating. In the case of conflicting rating changes, i.e. when qualitative and quantitative rating changes have opposing signs, quantitative criteria dominate the overall rating change. Furthermore, the more restrictive the weighting scheme as part of the rating methodology is, the stronger is the impact of qualitative information on the firms' overall rating. The implications of our results underline the need to define stringent rating standards, from both a risk management and a regulatory point of view. Revised edition published in: ZEW Wirtschaftsanalysen 2001, Bd 54, Baden-Baden, Nomos
We studied information and interaction processes in six lending relationships between a universal bank and medium sized firms. The study is based on the credit files of the respective firms. If no problems occur in these lending relationships, bank monitoring is based mainly on cheap, retrospective and internal data. In case of distress, more expensive, prospective and external information is used. The level of monitoring and the willingness to renegotiate the lending relationship depends on what the lending officers can learn about the future prospects of the firm from the behaviour of the debtors. We identify both signalling and bonding activities. Such learning from past behaviour seems to allow monitoring at low cost, whereas the direct observation of the firm's investment outlook seems to be very costly. Also, too much knowledge about the firm's investments might leave the bank in a very strong bargaining position and distort investment incentives. Therefore, the traditional view of credit assessment as observation of the quality of a borrower's investment programme needs to be reconsidered.
Some of the most widely expressed myths about the German financial system are concerned with the close ties and intensive interaction between banks and firms, often described as Hausbank relationships. Links between banks and firms include direct shareholdings, board representation, and proxy voting and are particularly significant for corporate governance. Allegedly, these relationships promote investment and improve the performance of firms. Furthermore, German universal banks are believed to play a special role as large and informed monitoring investors (shareholders). However, for the very same reasons, German universal banks are frequently accused of abusing their influence on firms by exploiting rents and sustaining the entrenchment of firms against efficient transfers of firm control. In this paper, we review recent empirical evidence regarding the special role of banks for the corporate governance of German firms. We differentiate between large exchangelisted firms and small and medium sized companies throughout. With respect to the role of banks as monitoring investors, the evidence does not unanimously support a special role of banks for large firms. Only one study finds that banks´ control of management goes beyond what nonbank shareholders achieve. Proxyvoting rights apparently do not provide a significant means for banks to exert management control. Most of the recent evidence regarding small firms suggests that a Hausbank relationship can indeed be beneficial. Hausbanks are more willing to sustain financing when borrower quality deteriorates, and they invest more often than arm´s length banks in workouts if borrowers face financial distress.