Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Working Paper (805) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (805)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (805) (remove)
Keywords
- monetary policy (18)
- Banking Union (16)
- Covid-19 (12)
- financial stability (12)
- COVID-19 (10)
- ESG (10)
- Solvency II (10)
- regulation (10)
- systemic risk (10)
- Financial Stability (9)
Institute
- Sustainable Architecture for Finance in Europe (SAFE) (805) (remove)
This paper describes cash equity markets in Germany and their evolution against the background of technological and regulatory transformation. The development of these secondary markets in the largest economy in Europe is first briefly outlined from a historical perspective. This serves as the basis for the description of the most important trading system for German equities, the Xetra trading system of Deutsche Börse AG. Then, the most important regulatory change for European and German equity markets in the last ten years is illustrated: the introduction of the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID) in 2007. Its implications on equity trading in Germany are analyzed against the background of the current status of competition in Europe. Recent developments in European equity markets like the emergence of dark pools and algorithmic / high frequency trading are portrayed, before an outlook on new regulations (MiFID II, MiFIR) that will likely come into force in early 2018 will close the paper.
In the wake of the recent financial crisis, significant regulatory actions have been taken aimed at limiting risks emanating from trading in bank business models. Prominent reform proposals are the Volcker Rule in the U.S., the Vickers Report in the UK, and, based on the Liikanen proposal, the Barnier proposal in the EU. A major element of these reforms is to separate “classical” commercial banking activities from securities trading activities, notably from proprietary trading. While the reforms are at different stages of implementation, there is a strong ongoing discussion on what possible economic consequences are to be expected. The goal of this paper is to look at the alternative approaches of these reform proposals and to assess their likely consequences for bank business models, risk-taking and financial stability. Our conclusions can be summarized as follows: First, the focus on a prohibition of only proprietary trading, as envisaged in the current EU proposal, is inadequate. It does not necessarily reduce risk-taking and it likely crowds out desired trading activities, thereby negatively affecting financial stability. Second, there is potentially a better solution to limit excessive trading risk at banks in terms of potential welfare consequences: Trading separation into legally distinct or ring-fenced entities within the existing banking organizations. This kind of separation limits cross-subsidies between banking and proprietary trading and diminishes contagion risk, while still allowing for synergies across banking, non-proprietary trading and proprietary trading.
An important prerequisite for the efficiency of bail-in as a regulatory tool is that debt holders are able to bear the cost of a bail-in. Examining European banks’ subordinated debt we caution that households may be investors in bail-in able bonds. Since households do not fulfil the aforementioned prerequisite, we argue that European bank supervisors need to ensure that banks’ bail-in bonds are held by sophisticated investors. Existing EU market regulation insufficiently addresses mis-selling of bail-in instruments.
A number of contributions to research on monetary policy have suggested that policy should be asymmetric near the lower bound on nominal interest rates. As inflation and economic activity decline, policy should ease more aggressively than it would in the absence of the lower bound. As activity recovers and inflation picks up, the central bank should act to keep interest rates lower for longer than without the bound. In this note, we investigate to what extent the policy easing implemented by the ECB since summer 2013 mirrors the rate recommendations of a simple policy rule or deviates from it in a way that indicates a “lower for longer” approach to policy near zero interest rates.
Schätzwerte mittelfristiger Gleichgewichtszinsen mit der Methode nach Laubach und Williams (2003) werden inzwischen vielfach in der Diskussion um die Geld- und Fiskalpolitik zitiert. Unter anderem wurden sie von Summers (2014a) als Evidenz für eine säkulare Stagnation angeführt und von Yellen (2015) zur Rechtfertigung der Nullzinspolitik verwendet. In diesem Papier nehmen wir eine umfangreiche Untersuchung und Sensitivitätsanalyse dieser Schätzwerte für die Vereinigten Staaten, Deutschland und den Euro-Raum vor. Aufgrund der hohen Unsicherheit und Sensitivität, die mit den Schätzwerten mittelfristiger Gleichgewichtszinsen mit der Laubach-Williams-Methode und ähnlichen Ansätzen verbunden ist, sollten diese Schätzungen nicht den Ausschlag für entscheidende Weichenstellungen in der Geld- und Fiskalpolitik geben.
This paper studies the life cycle consumption-investment-insurance problem of a family. The wage earner faces the risk of a health shock that significantly increases his probability of dying. The family can buy long-term life insurance that can only be revised at significant costs, which makes insurance decisions sticky. Furthermore, a revision is only possible as long as the insured person is healthy. A second important feature of our model is that the labor income of the wage earner is unspanned. We document that the combination of unspanned labor income and the stickiness of insurance decisions reduces the long-term insurance demand significantly. This is because an income shock induces the need to reduce the insurance coverage, since premia become less affordable. Since such a reduction is costly and families anticipate these potential costs, they buy less protection at all ages. In particular, young families stay away from long-term life insurance markets altogether. Our results are robust to adding short-term life insurance, annuities and health insurance.
We consider the continuous-time portfolio optimization problem of an investor with constant relative risk aversion who maximizes expected utility of terminal wealth. The risky asset follows a jump-diffusion model with a diffusion state variable. We propose an approximation method that replaces the jumps by a diffusion and solve the resulting problem analytically. Furthermore, we provide explicit bounds on the true optimal strategy and the relative wealth equivalent loss that do not rely on quantities known only in the true model. We apply our method to a calibrated affine model. Our findings are threefold: Jumps matter more, i.e. our approximation is less accurate, if (i) the expected jump size or (ii) the jump intensity is large. Fixing the average impact of jumps, we find that (iii) rare, but severe jumps matter more than frequent, but small jumps.