Filtern
Erscheinungsjahr
Dokumenttyp
- Arbeitspapier (87)
- Bericht (11)
Volltext vorhanden
- ja (98)
Gehört zur Bibliographie
- nein (98)
Schlagworte
- Deutschland (12)
- Bank (8)
- Bankenunion (4)
- Banking Union (4)
- Kreditrisiko (4)
- Regulierung (4)
- Unternehmenssanierung (4)
- relationship lending (4)
- Bankenaufsicht (3)
- Bankkredit (3)
Institut
- Center for Financial Studies (CFS) (98) (entfernen)
Non-standard errors
(2021)
In statistics, samples are drawn from a population in a data-generating process (DGP). Standard errors measure the uncertainty in sample estimates of population parameters. In science, evidence is generated to test hypotheses in an evidence-generating process (EGP). We claim that EGP variation across researchers adds uncertainty: non-standard errors. To study them, we let 164 teams test six hypotheses on the same sample. We find that non-standard errors are sizeable, on par with standard errors. Their size (i) co-varies only weakly with team merits, reproducibility, or peer rating, (ii) declines significantly after peer-feedback, and (iii) is underestimated by participants.
The paper discusses the policy implications of the Wirecard scandal. The study finds that all lines of defense against corporate fraud, including internal control systems, external audits, the oversight bodies for financial reporting and auditing and the market supervisor, contributed to the scandal and are in need of reform. To ensure market integrity and investor protection in the future, the authors make eight suggestions for the market and institutional oversight architecture in Germany and in Europe.
This paper analyzes the risk properties of typical asset-backed securities (ABS), like CDOs or MBS, relying on a model with both macroeconomic and idiosyncratic components. The examined properties include expected loss, loss given default, and macro factor dependencies. Using a two-dimensional loss decomposition as a new metric, the risk properties of individual ABS tranches can directly be compared to those of corporate bonds, within and across rating classes. By applying Monte Carlo Simulation, we find that the risk properties of ABS differ significantly and systematically from those of straight bonds with the same rating. In particular, loss given default, the sensitivities to macroeconomic risk, and model risk differ greatly between instruments. Our findings have implications for understanding the credit crisis and for policy making. On an economic level, our analysis suggests a new explanation for the observed rating inflation in structured finance markets during the pre-crisis period 2004-2007. On a policy level, our findings call for a termination of the 'one-size-fits-all' approach to the rating methodology for fixed income instruments, requiring an own rating methodology for structured finance instruments. JEL Classification: G21, G28
Risk transfer with CDOs
(2008)
Modern bank management comprises both classical lending business and transfer of asset risk to capital markets through securitization. Sound knowledge of the risks involved in securitization transactions is a prerequisite for solid risk management. This paper aims to resolve a part of the opaqueness surrounding credit-risk allocation to tranches that represent claims of different seniority on a reference portfolio. In particular, this paper analyzes the allocation of credit risk to different tranches of a CDO transaction when the underlying asset returns are driven by a common macro factor and an idiosyncratic component. Junior and senior tranches are found to be nearly orthogonal, motivating a search for the whereabout of systematic risk in CDO transactions. We propose a metric for capturing the allocation of systematic risk to tranches. First, in contrast to a widely-held claim, we show that (extreme) tail risk in standard CDO transactions is held by all tranches. While junior tranches take on all types of systematic risk, senior tranches take on almost no non-tail risk. This is in stark contrast to an untranched bond portfolio of the same rating quality, which on average suffers substantial losses for all realizations of the macro factor. Second, given tranching, a shock to the risk of the underlying asset portfolio (e.g. a rise in asset correlation or in mean portfolio loss) has the strongest impact, in relative terms, on the exposure of senior tranche CDO-investors. Our findings can be used to explain major stylized facts observed in credit markets.
This paper applies the theory of structured finance to the regulation of asset backed securities. We find the current regulation in Europe (Article 405 of the CRR) and the US (Section D of Dodd-Frank Act) to be severely flawed with respect to its key intention: the imposition of a strict loss retention requirement. While nominal retention is always 5%, the true level of loss retention varies across available retention options between zero loss retention and full loss retention at the extreme ends. Based on a standard model of structured finance transactions, we propose a new risk retention metric RM measuring the level of an issuer’s skin-in-the-game. The new metric could help to achieve a better implementation of CRR/CRD-IV and DFA, by making disclosure of the RM-number compulsory for all ABS transactions. There are also implications for the operation of rating agencies. On a general level, the RM metric will be instrumental in achieving simplicity and transparency in securitizations (STS).
Large banks often sell part of their loan portfolio in the form of collateralized debt obligations (CDO) to investors. In this paper we raise the question whether credit asset securitization affects the cyclicality (or commonality) of bank equity values. The commonality of bank equity values reflects a major component of systemic risks in the banking market, caused by correlated defaults of loans in the banks' loan books. Our simulations take into account the major stylized fact of CDO transactions, the non-proportional nature of risk sharing that goes along with tranching. We provide a theoretical framework for the risk transfer through securitization that builds on a macro risk factor and an idiosyncratic risk factor, allowing an identification of the types of risk that the individual tranche holders bear. This allows conclusions about the risk positions of issuing banks after risk transfer. Building on the strict subordination of tranches, we first evaluate the correlation properties both within and across risk classes. We then determine the effect of securitization on the systematic risk of all tranches, and derive its effect on the issuing bank's equity beta. The simulation results show that under plausible assumptions concerning bank reinvestment behaviour and capital structure choice, the issuing intermediary's systematic risk tends to rise. We discuss the implications of our findings for financial stability supervision. Klassifikation: G28
In der dritten Veranstaltung der „Gesprächsreihe zu Strukturreformen im europäischen Bankensektor“ diskutierten Professor Dr. Jan Krahnen und Dr. Theodor Weimer die Auswirkungen von Regulierung auf Bankverhalten und Wettbewerb, insbesondere im Hinblick auf die Vorschläge der Liikanen-Kommission. Weimer verwies auf die volkswirtschaftlichen Kosten einer zu strengen Bankenregulierung, u.a. negative Auswirkungen auf die Kreditvergabe. Weimer warnte auch davor, dass man in Europa, und gerade in Deutschland, strenger reguliere als in anderen Ländern. Krahnen erklärte, man habe durch die Liikanen-Vorschläge vor allem das Problem des systemischen Risikos im Bankensektor adressieren wollen. Außerdem sei es ein Ziel der Kommission gewesen, Banken so zu regulieren, dass der Steuerzahler im Krisenfall nicht länger für die Risiken der Banken haften müsse. Es sei notwendig, den Bankensektor zu reformieren, damit Banken abgewickelt werden könnten, auch wenn diese untereinander vernetzt sind.
Bank internal ratings of corporate clients are intended to quantify the expected likelihood of future borrower defaults. This paper develops a comprehensive framework for evaluating the quality of standard rating systems. We suggest a number of principles that ought to be met by 'good rating practice'. These 'generally accepted rating principles' are potentially relevant for the improvement of existing rating systems. They are also relevant for the development of certification standards for internal rating systems, as currently discussed in a consultative paper issued by the Bank for International Settlement in Basle, entitled 'A new capital adequacy framework'. We would very much appreciate any comments by readers that help to develop these rating standards further. Simply send us an E-mail, or give us a call.
Zusammenfassung - Das Kernanliegen des KredReorgG –die Internalisierung des systemischen Risikos in den Entscheidungsprozess und die Verantwortlichkeit von Bankeignern und –gläubigern – wird im Wesentlichen erreicht. - Die Wirksamkeit des Gesetzes steht und fällt mit der Möglichkeit, jede Bank in systemisch relevante (zu rettende) und systemisch nicht-relevante (abzuwickelnde) Teile zu zerlegen. Dieser Ansatz ist Ziel führend und international „state of the art“ (Bsp. UK). - Unsere Hauptkritik: Um die o.g. Wirksamkeit des Gesetzes überhaupt zu ermöglichen (und eine Unterlaufung der Gesetzesintention zu verhindern), bedarf es einer zusätzlichen und zwingenden Vorgabe, dass jede Bank eine Mindestmenge an Anleihen außerhalb des Kern-Finanzsektors dauerhaft platzieren muss, und dass diese Anleihen zu keinem Zeitpunkt von Banken erworben werden dürfen. - Um dies zu erreichen sind die Anlagevorschriften für Kapitalsammelstellen (Lebensversicherer, Pensionsfonds) und für Banken entsprechend zu ändern bzw. zu verschärfen. - Weitere Kritikpunkte betreffen die vermutete geringe Bedeutung der freiwilligen Verfahren (Sanierung und Reorganisation) und die Gestaltung der Sonderabgabe und der Restrukturierungsfonds.
In this paper we analyze the relation between fund performance and market share. Using three performance measures we first establish that significant differences in the risk-adjusted returns of the funds in the sample exist. Thus, investors may react to past fund performance when making their investment decisions. We estimated a model relating past performance to changes in market share and found that past performance has a significant positive effect on market share. The results of a specification test indicate that investors react to risk-adjusted returns rather than to raw returns. This suggests that investors may be more sophisticated than is often assumed.
We study a set of German open-end mutual funds for a time period during which this industry emerged from its infancy. In those years, the distribution channel for mutual funds was dominated by the brick-and-mortar retail networks of the large universal banks. Using monthly observations from 12/1986 through 12/1998, we investigate if cross-sectional return differences across mutual funds affect their market shares. Although such a causal relation has been established in highly competitive markets, such as the United States, the rigid distribution system in place in Germany at the time may have caused retail performance and investment performance to uncouple. In fact, although we observe stark differences in investment performance across mutual funds (and over time), we find no evidence that cross-sectional performance differences affect the market shares of these funds. Klassifikation: G 23
We raise some critical points against a naïve interpretation of “green finance” products and strategies. These critical insights are the background against which we take a closer look at instruments and policies that might allow green finance to become more impactful. In particular, we focus on the role of a taxonomy and investor activism. We also describe the interaction of government policies with green finance practice – an aspect, which has been mostly neglected in policy debates but needs to be taken into account. Finally, the special case of green government bonds is discussed.
We raise some critical points against a naïve interpretation of “green finance” products and strategies. These critical insights are the background against which we take a closer look at instruments and policies that might allow green finance to become more impactful. In particular, we focus on the role of a taxonomy and investor activism. We also describe the interaction of government policies with green finance practice – an aspect, which has been mostly neglected in policy debates but needs to be taken into account. Finally, the special case of green government bonds is discussed.
This note proposes a new set-up for the fund backing the Single Resolution Mechanism (SRM). The proposed fund is a Multi-Tier Resolution Fund (MTRF), restricting the joint and several supranational liability to a limited range of losses, bounded by national liability at the upper and the lower end. The layers are, in ascending order: a national fund (first losses), a European fund (second losses), the national budget (third losses), the ESM (fourth losses, as a backup for sovereigns). The system works like a reinsurance scheme, providing clear limits to European-level joint liability, and therefore confining moral hazard. At the same time, it allows for some degree of risk sharing, which is important for financial stability if shocks to the financial system are exogenous (e.g., of a supranational macroeconomic nature). The text has four parts. Section A describes the operation of the Multi-Tier Resolution Fund, assuming the fund capital to be fully paid-in (“Steady State“). Section B deals with the build-up phase of the fund capital (“Build up“). Section C discusses how the proposal deals with the apparent incentive conflicts. The final Section D summarizes open questions which need further thought (“Open Questions“).
Es werden verschiedene Methoden zur Messung der Risikoeinstellung einzelner Individuen vorgestellt und kritisch diskutiert. Berücksichtigt werden unter anderem Selbsteinschätzungen und experimentell orientierte Verfahren. Die Zusammenstellung wendet sich insbesondere an Wissenschaftler und Praktiker, die nach anwendbaren Verfahren zur Risikoeinstellungsmessung suchen.
This note discusses the basic economics of central clearing for derivatives and the need for a proper regulation, supervision and resolution of central counterparty clearing houses (CCPs). New regulation in the U.S. and in Europe renders the involvement of a central counterparty mandatory for standardized OTC derivatives’ trading and sets higher capital and collateral requirements for non-centrally cleared derivatives.
From a macrofinance perspective, CCPs provide a trade-off between reduced contagion risk in the financial industry and the creation of a significant systemic risk. However, so far, regulation and supervision of CCPs is very fragmented, limited and ignores two important aspects: the risk of consolidation of CCPs on the one side and the competition among CCPs on the other side. i) As the economies of scale of CCP operations in risk and cost reduction can be large, they provide an argument in favor of consolidation, leading at the extreme to a monopoly CCP that poses the ultimate default risk – a systemic risk for the entire financial sector. As a systemic risk event requires a government bailout, there is a public policy issue here. ii) As long as no monopoly CCP exists, there is competition for market share among existing CCPs. Such competition may undermine the stability of the entire financial system because it induces “predatory margining”: a reduction of margin requirements to increase market share.
The policy lesson from our consideration emphasizes the importance of a single authority supervising all competing CCPs as well as of a specific regulation and resolution framework for CCPs. Our general recommendations can be applied to the current situation in Europe, and the proposed merger between Deutsche Börse and London Stock Exchange.
The European Commission is trying to reboot the CMU project: The High-Level Forum on Capital Markets Union – a group of 28 selected experts from industry, academia and civil society – is expected to submit policy recommendations by the end of May 2020 which will feed into the Commission’s new CMU agenda. This contribution is largely based on a letter to the High-Level Forum that gives feedback on the Interim Report published in February. There, we introduce a comprehensive approach to distinguish, from a functional finance perspective, between the ‘game changers’ and what is nice to have. We highlight the importance of common and consistent supervisory practices across Member States and recommend building up a European Securities and Exchange Commission (E-SEC) according to the American model.
This paper provides a systematic analysis of individual attitudes towards ambiguity, based on laboratory experiments. The design of the analysis allows to capture individual behavior across various levels of ambiguity, ranging from low to high. Attitudes towards risk and attitudes towards ambiguity are disentangled, providing pure measures of ambiguity aversion. Ambiguity aversion is captured in several ways, i.e. as a discount factor net of a risk premium, and as an estimated parameter in a generalized utility function. We find that ambiguity aversion varies across individuals, and with the level of ambiguity, being most prominent for intermediate levels. Around one third of subjects show no aversion, one third show maximum aversion, and one third show intermediate levels of ambiguity aversion, while there is almost no ambiguity seeking. While most theoretical work on ambiguity builds on maxmin expected utility, our results provide evidence that MEU does not adequately capture individual attitudes towards ambiguity for the majority of individuals. Instead, our results support models that allow for intermediate levels of ambiguity aversion. Moreover, we find risk aversion to be statistically unrelated to ambiguity aversion on average. Taken together, the results support the view that ambiguity is an important and distinct argument in decision making under uncertainty.
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.
In the wake of the recent financial crisis, significant regulatory actions have been taken aimed at limiting risks emanating from banks’ trading activities. The goal of this paper is to look at the alternative reforms in the US, the UK and the EU, specifically with respect to the role of proprietary trading. Our conclusions can be summarized as follows: First, the focus on a prohibition of proprietary trading, as reflected in the Volcker Rule in the US and in the current proposal of the European Commission (Barnier proposal), is inadequate. It does not necessarily reduce risk-taking and it is likely to crowd out desired trading activities, thereby possibly affecting financial stability negatively. Second, trading separation into legally distinct or ring-fenced entities within the existing banking organizations, as suggested under the Vickers Report for the UK and the Liikanen proposal for the EU, is a more effective solution. Separation limits cross-subsidies between banking and proprietary trading and diminishes contagion risk, while still allowing for synergies and risk management across banking, non-proprietary trading and proprietary trading.
Gesprächsreihe zu Strukturreformen im Europäischen Bankensektor: Managementvergütung im Bankensektor
(2013)
In der ersten Veranstaltung der „Gesprächsreihe zu Strukturreformen im europäischen Bankensektor“ diskutierten Professor Dr. Jan Krahnen und Dr. Thomas Mayer den im Liikanen-Bericht enthaltenen Vorschlag zur Managervergütung im Bankensektor. Der Vorschlag baut auf einem der Kernvorschläge der Liikanen-Kommission auf, nach dem Finanzinstitute gehalten sein sollen, einen Teil ihres Fremdkapitals so zu strukturieren, dass, bei Schieflage des Finanzinstituts, eine Inhaftungnahme der Gläubiger dieses Fremdkapitals möglich wird. Um dies zu erreichen, empfiehlt die Liikanen-Kommission für alle Banken, dass diese einen festgelegten Prozentsatz ihres Kapitals als „Bail-in Anleihen“ begeben müssen. Der Vorschlag zur Managervergütung sieht vor Bail-in Anleihen für die leistungsorientierte und anreizorientierte Entlohnung von Managern einzusetzen, um Anreize zu geben, die Risikopolitik des Unternehmens so zu verankern, dass auch längerfristig keine exorbitanten Risiken auftreten.
The Wirecard scandal is a wake-up call alerting German politics to the importance of securities market integrity. The role of market supervision is to ensure the smooth functioning of capital markets and their integrity, creating trust among and acceptance by investors locally and globally. The existing patchwork of national supervisory practice in Europe is under discussion today, in the wake of Brexit that will end the role of London as a de-facto lead supervisor in stock and bond markets. A fundamental overhaul of a fragmented securities markets supervisory regime in Europe would offer the potential to lead to the establishment of an independent European Single Market Supervisor (ESMS). Endowed with strong enforcement powers, and supported by the existing national agencies, the ESMS would be entrusted with ensuring a uniform market standard as to transparency and other issues of market integrity across Europe. This would not rule out maintaining a variety of market organization structures at the national level. The ESMS would need executive powers in the world of markets (i.e. securities and trading), much like the SSM in the world of banking. To fill this new role, ESMS would have to be established as a new, independent institution, including an enormously scaled up staff if compared, e.g., to ESMA.
Gesprächsreihe zu Strukturreformen im europäischen
Bankensektor : Zukunft der Universalbanken
(2013)
In der zweiten Veranstaltung der „Gesprächsreihe zu Strukturreformen im europäischen Bankensektor“ diskutierten Professor Dr. Jan Pieter Krahnen und Dr. Michael Kemmer die Zukunft der Universalbanken. Anlass war der Vorschlag der Liikanen-Kommission, dass Finanzinstitute einen Teil ihres Investmentbankings, den Eigenhandel und das Market-Making, ab einer bestimmten Größenordnung ausgliedern sollen.
Instabile Finanzmärkte
(2009)
Die Vorstellung selbst-stabilisierender, zum Gleichgewicht tendierender Finanzmärkte, lange Zeit als Selbstverständlichkeit angesehen, ist durch die aktuelle Banken- und Kreditkrise in Frage gestellt. Trotz ausgefeilten Risikomanagements der Banken und einer an Basel II orientierten Aufsicht ist es in den Jahren 2007-2009 zu einem Zusammenbruch des Interbankenmarktes und weiter Teile der Anleihemärkte gekommen. Die hierdurch erzwungenen massiven Staatsinterventionen zur Bankenrettung sind ohne Beispiel in der modernen Wirtschaftsgeschichte. In diesem Essay suchen wir nach Ansatzpunkten einer Erklärung für die Instabilität der Finanzmärkte. Als zentrale Krisenursache sehen wir Schwächen der Informationsarchitektur, deren Aufgabe darin besteht, glaubwürdige Information für Investoren bereitzustellen. Drei Determinanten der Instabilität werden herausgestellt, erstens die Nutzung von Schuldtiteln verbunden mit hohen Verschuldungsgraden, zweitens die Handelbarkeit von Titeln verbunden mit erhöhter Risikoübernahme, sowie drittens die zunehmende Komplexität von Finanzprodukten und Finanznetzwerken verbunden mit einer Homogenisierung der Aktiva- und Risikostrukturen von Finanzinstituten. Alle drei Faktoren verstärken die Anfälligkeit des Finanzsystems und zugleich die Bedeutung der Informationsarchitektur. Hieraus lassen sich Anforderungen an eine sinnvolle Reform der Regulierung ableiten. Neben den Anreizproblemen, die Gegenstand einer weiteren Arbeit sind (Franke/Krahnen 2009), diskutieren wir hier vier Kernthemen: glaubwürdige Informationen, makroprudentielle Aufsicht, robuste Eigenkapitalstandards und eine notwendige Risikobegrenzung auf Derivatemärkten
Where do we stand in the theory of finance? : a selective overview with reference to Erich Gutenberg
(1998)
For the past 20 years, financial markets research has concerned itself with issues related to the evaluation and management of financial securities in efficient capital markets and with issues of management control in incomplete markets. The following selective overview focuses on key aspects of the theory and empirical experience of management control under conditions of asymmetric information. The objective is examine the validity of the recently advanced hypothesis on the myths of corporate control. The present overview is based on Gutenberg's position that there exists a discrete corporate interest, as distinct from and separate from the interests of the shareholders or other stakeholders. In the third volume of Grundlagen der BWL: Die Finanzen, published in 1969, this position of Gutenberg's is coupled with an appeal for a so-called financial equilibrium to be maintained. Not until recently have models grounded in capital market theory been developed which also allow for a firm's management to exercise autonomy vis-à-vis its stakeholder. This paper was prepared for the Erich Gutenberg centenary conference on December 12 and 13, 1997 in Cologne.
This paper makes an attempt to present the economics of credit securitization in a non-technical way, starting from the description and the analysis of a typical securitization transaction. The paper sketches a theoretical explanation for why tranching, or nonproportional risk sharing, which is at the heart of securitization transactions, may allow commercial banks to maximize their shareholder value. However, the analysis makes also clear that the conditions under which credit securitization enhances welfare, are fairly restrictive, and require not only an active role of the banking supervisiory authorities, but also a price tag on the implicit insurance currently provided by the lender of last resort. Klassifikation: D82, G21, D74. February 16, 2005.
Risiko muss wieder kosten
(2011)
This present comment suggests an amendment to the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council, establishing a framework for the recovery and resolution of credit institutions and investment firms. The current proposal focuses on bail-in, but does not sufficiently take into account the pressure exerted on central bankers, supervisors and politicians by the fear of interbank contagion. The only way out of this hold-up type of situation can be found in bail-in bonds. Bail-in bonds are dedicated loss taking debt instruments, whose status of being first in line if it comes to default is clearly communicated from day one.
In dieser Notiz wird ein neues Konzept für eine europäische Einlagensicherung vorgeschlagen, welches den starken politischen Vorbehalten Rechnung trägt, die gegen eine Vergemeinschaftung der Haftung für Bankeinlagen bestehen. Das skizzierte drei-stufige Einlagensicherungsmodell führt existierende nationale Einlagensicherungseinrichtungen weiter, bietet einen europäischen Verlustausgleich und verhindert eine exzessive Risikoübernahme zu Lasten der internationalen Gemeinschaft.
On January 29, 2014, EU Commissioner Barnier published a draft law proposing a ban for proprietary trading by big banks in Europe. In this opinion piece, published in a German newspaper on 30 January, 2014, Jan Pieter Krahnen, who was a member of the Liikanen Commission, argues that the proposal could prove to be effective in preventing systemic risk.
Fünf Jahre nach Beginn der Banken- und Staatsschuldenkrise („Finanzkrise“) kämpfen wir weiterhin mit den elementaren Problemen: Bei Märkten und Marktteilnehmern fehlt es an Stabilität und Vertrauen. Viele Banken stehen immer noch nicht auf eigenen Füßen und nehmen die ihnen in Europa traditionell zukommende zentrale Rolle für Wachstum und Entwicklung nicht wahr. Den guten Absichten, auf die sich die großen politischen Mächte während der ersten G-20 Treffen 2008 und 2009 verständigt hatten, ist eine Reihe von sinnvollen Ideen und Konzepten gefolgt. Die Voraussetzungen für einen grundlegenden reformerischen Erfolg sind somit gegeben – doch nun muss die Umsetzung folgen. Dazu bedarf es mutiger Entscheidungen. Im Jahr 2014 muss die europäische Politik gleich mehrere Weichen stellen. Der Bundesregierung kommt dabei die Schlüsselrolle zu. Sie muss den Mut haben zu radikaler Ordnungspolitik!
In this note, a new concept for a European deposit guarantee scheme is proposed, which takes account of the strong political reservations against a mutualization of the liability for bank deposits. The three-stage model for deposit insurance outlined in the text builds on existing national deposit guarantee schemes, offering loss compensation on a European level and at the same time preventing excessive risk and moral hazard taking by individual banks.
This policy letter provides an overview of the strengths, weaknesses, risks and opportunities of the upcoming comprehensive risk assessment, a euro area-wide evaluation of bank balance sheets and business models. If carried out properly, the 2014 comprehensive assessment will lead the euro area into a new era of banking supervision. Policy makers in euro area countries are now under severe pressure to define a credible backstop framework for banks. This framework, as the author argues, needs to be a broad, quasi-European system of mutually reinforcing backstops.
Mit Blick auf die gescheiterten Verhandlungen mit Griechenland, argumentiert Jan Krahnen im vorliegenden Policy Beitrag, dass eine zielführende Reformagenda nur von der gewählten Regierung Griechenlands formuliert werden kann. Die Euro-Staaten müssten Griechenland für die Zeitdauer einer Restrukturierungszeit eine Grundsicherung zusagen. Die EU-Staaten fordert Krahnen dazu auf, aus der Griechenlandkrise die notwendigen Konsequenzen zu ziehen. Auch die Eurozone brauche eine effektive Reformagenda. Die Verschuldungsdynamik innerhalb der Währungsunion, deren Auswüchse am Beispiel Griechenlands besonders deutlich werden, könne bei fehlendem guten Willen nur durch eine politische Union und eine in sie eingebettete Fiskalunion aufgelöst werden. Krahnen argumentiert, dass ein Weiterverhandeln über Restrukturierungsauflagen aus der derzeitigen verfahrenen Situation nicht herausführen wird. Entscheidend sei, ein mehr oder weniger umfassendes Paket zu schnüren, das Elemente eines teilweisen internationalen Haftungsverbunds mit Elementen eines partiellen nationalen Souveränitätsverzichts verbindet.
Stellungnahme zum Entwurf eines Gesetzes zur Umsetzung der Richtlinie 2014/59/EU (BRRD-Umsetzungsgesetz) der Bundesregierung vom 22.09.2014
Der Gesetzentwurf der Bundesregierung zur Umsetzung der EU-Richtlinie 2014/59/EU zur Festlegung eines Rahmens für die Sanierung und Abwicklung von Kreditinstituten und Wertpapierfirmen (“BRRD-Umsetzungsgesetz“) berührt auch die Frage der institutionellen Struktur für die Zuständigkeit für Bankenaufsicht und Geldpolitik. Es gibt gewichtige Gründe dafür, auf lange Sicht die Geldpolitik von der Bankenaufsicht und möglichen Bankenabwicklungs- und -restrukturierungsfragen institutionell zu trennen. Bei einer Trennung ist zu beachten, dass alle Institutionen für ihre jeweiligen Mandate gleichberechtigt auf erstklassige Daten über die Kapitalmärkte und die Transaktionen und Bilanzen der Banken zugreifen müssen. Ein Y-Modell, in dem zwei voneinander unabhängige Institutionen auf eine gemeinsame Datenbasis aufsetzen, kann im deutschen Kontext erreicht werden, indem die Bundesbank und die Bafin in einer Institution zusammengeführt werden, wobei sowohl die Aufsicht wie auch die Geldpolitik als Anstalt in der Anstalt (AIDA) geführt werden. Im Rahmen dieser „doppelten AIDA“-Lösung können beide Anstalten gleichberechtigt auf eine Datenbasis zugreifen. Die Daten werden im Rahmen der Mandate von Geldpolitik und Aufsicht wie bisher bundesweit erhoben. Die Entwicklung und spätere Einführung des Y-Modells („doppelte AIDA“) würde auch einen Modellcharakter für die noch zu führende Debatte um eine sinnvolle Institutionenstruktur für Europa haben.
Das Financial Stability Board (FSB) schlägt zur Lösung des "too big to fail"-Problems einen neuen Risikokapital-Puffer für global tätige systemrelevante Banken vor. Die Kennzahl „Total Loss Absorbing Capacity“ (TLAC), setzt sich zusammen aus hartem Kernkapital und verlustabsorbierendem Fremdkapital. Das verlustabsorbierende, also bail-in-fähige Fremdkapital soll vor anderen Positionen der Passivseite einer Bank in einer Krisensituation vorrangig haften oder aber in Eigenkapital umgewandelt werden. Jan Krahnen argumentiert, dass es für eine glaubhafte Verringerung des "too big to fail"-Problems auf die Anforderungen an das verlustabsorbierende Fremdkapital ankommt. Dass die Aufsicht die Halter von Bail-in Anleihen im Verlustfall tatsächlich einem Bail-in unterzieht ist vor allem nur dann glaubwürdig, wennn andere Banken nicht die Halter solcher Anleihen sind.
A recent proposal by the Financial Stability Board (FSB) suggests a new risk capital buffer for globally operating systemically important financial institutions. The suggested metric, “Total Loss Absorbing Capacity“ (TLAC), is composed of Tier-1 capital and loss absorbing debt. In a crisis situation, “bail-in-able” debt is to be written down or converted into equity. Jan Krahnen argues that the credibility of bail-in, in the case of systemically important financial institutions, hinges crucially on the design of TLAC and the requirements that will be placed on loss absorbing “bail-in-able” debt.The fear of direct systemic consequences through bail-in could be overcome, if a holding ban were placed on the “bail-in-bonds” of financial institutions. The holding ban would stipulate that these bonds cannot be held by other institutions within the banking sector.
In light of the failed negotiations with Greece, Jan Krahnen argues that an effective reform agenda for Greece can only be designed by the elected government. Fundamental reforms will take time to take full effect and euro area member states will, in the meantime, have to offer Greece a basic level of economic security.
Krahnen demands that policy makers and the professional public involved view the Greek crisis as an opportunity to take the next necessary steps to formulate a reform agenda for the European Monetary Union. A community of supranational and non-party researchers and intellectuals could take the initiative and in a structured process develop a trustworthy and realistic concept that drafts the next big step towards a political union of Europe, including elements of a fiscal union.
Recently, Fuest and Sinn (2018) have demanded a change of rules for the Eurozone’s Target 2 payment system, claiming it would violate the Statutes of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank. The authors present a stylized model based on a set of macro-economic assumptions, and show that Target 2 may lead to loss sharing among national central banks (NCBs), thus violating the no risk-sharing requirement laid out by the Eurosystem Statutes.
In this note, I present an augmented model that incorporates essential features of the micro- and macroprudential regulatory and supervisory regime that today is hard-wired into Europe’s banking system. The model shows that the original no-risk-sharing principle is not necessarily violated during a financial crisis of a member state. Moreover, it shows that under a banking union regime, financial crisis asset value losses at or below the 99.9th percentile are borne by private investors, not by taxpayers, and particularly not by central banks.
Therefore, policy conclusions from the micro-founded model differ significantly from those suggested by Fuest and Sinn (2018).
Um eine grüne Transformation der Volkswirtschaft zu erreichen, werden Finanzmärkte und die mit ihnen verbundenen Banken eine wichtige Rolle einnehmen müssen. Aber allein vermögen Banken und Kapitalmärkte wenig, wenn sie nicht im Kontext einer klugen, politischen Rahmensetzung und einer transparenten Erfassung der verursachten Schäden auf Unternehmensebene gesehen werden. Diese drei Pfeiler stellen bildlich den tragenden Unterbau für eine Brücke hin zu einer klimaneutralen Wirt-schaftsverfassung dar. Ihr Zusammenwirken ist eine Voraussetzung dafür, dass die Finanzwirtschaft die benötigten Finanzmittel für die grüne Transformation bereitstellen kann.
Über Scheinriesen: Was TARGET-Salden tatsächlich bedeuten : eine finanzökonomische Überprüfung
(2018)
Der TARGET-Saldo der Bundesbank beläuft sich gegenwärtig auf knapp 1 Billion Euro. Kritikern zufolge birgt dieser Umstand hohe Lasten und Risiken für den deutschen Steuerzahler und zeigt, dass Deutschland zu einem „Selbstbedienungsladen“ im Eurosystem geworden sei. Vor diesem Hintergrund erörtert das Papier im Detail, wie TARGET-Salden überhaupt entstehen und was sie finanzökonomisch bedeuten. Die wirtschaftspolitische Analyse kommt zu dem Schluss, dass - anders als von den Kritikern behauptet- unter den Bedingungen einer Währungsunion im Normalbetrieb - TARGET-Salden lediglich Verrechnungssalden ohne weitere Implikationen sind, die aber nützliche Informationen über ökonomisch tieferliegende, regionale Verschiebungen geben können. Unter dem Extremszenario eines Zerfalls der Währungsunion können TARGET-Salden zwar als offene Positionen interpretiert werden, deren spätere Erfüllung würde aber ähnlich dem Brexit von komplizierten politischen Verhandlungen abhängen, sodass über die Werthaltigkeit allenfalls spekuliert werden kann. Sollte man das Extremszenario für bedeutend halten, und politisches Handeln fordern, erscheinen zwei Lösungen sinnvoll. Beide Vorschläge führen zu einer institutionellen Stärkung der Eurozone: i) die Einführung einer Tilgungspraxis, wie sie im US-amerikanischen Fedwire-System angewandt wird. Dabei handelt es sich um eine rein fiktive Tilgung in Form einer Umbuchung auf einem gemeinsamen (Offenmarkt-)Konto bei der EZB; ii) die Bündelung aller monetären Aktivitäten bei der EZB, sodass eine regionale Abgrenzung von Zahlungsvorgängen entfällt (und damit die TARGET-Salden verschwinden), weil alle Banken in direkter Beziehung zu ein und derselben Zentralbank stehen und der Zahlungsverkehr direkt zwischen den beteiligten Banken stattfindet.
Die große Herausforderung, um das systemische Risiko im Finanzsektor zu vermindern, besteht darin, kluge Finanzarchitektur zu etablieren, die gewährtleistet, dass ein verbindlicher Anteil von Bankanleihen außerhalb des Finanzsektors gehalten wird. Die Anleihegläubiger von außerhalb des Bankensektors müssen sich dadurch auszeichnen, dass sie kein Refinanzierungsrisiko haben, wenn sie eine plötzliche Verlussituation erleben.
The bail-in puzzle
(2011)
Under the current conditions of a global financial crisis, notably in Europe’s banking industry, the governance role of bond markets is defunct. In fact, investors have understood that bank debt will almost always be rescued with taxpayers’ money. The widespread practice of government-led bank bailouts has thus severely corrupted the bond market, leading to the underestimation of risk and, as a consequence, the destruction of market discipline. Any feasible solution to the bank-debt-is-too-cheap problem will have to re-install true default risk for bank bond holders.
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.
In this paper we put forward a legal argument in favour of granting more independence to BaFin, the German securities market supervisor. Following the Wirecard scandal, our reform proposal aims at strengthening the impartiality and credibility of the German supervisor and, as a consequence, at restoring capital market integrity. In order to achieve the necessary degree of democratic legitimacy for giving BaFin more independence and disassociating it from the Ministry of Finance, the paper sets out the necessary steps for a legal reform that creates accountability of BaFin vis-à-vis the Parliament, subjecting it to strict disclosure and reporting obligations.
This paper discusses policy implications of a potential surge in NPLs due to COVID-19. The study provides an empirical assessment of potential scenarios and draws lessons from previous crises for effective NPL treatment. The paper highlights the importance of early and realistic assessment of loan losses to avoid adverse incentives for banks. Secondary loan markets would help in this process and further facilitate bank resolution as laid down in the BRRD, which should be uphold even in extreme scenarios.
SUMMARY RECOMMENDATIONS 1. One of the major lessons from the current financial crisis refers to the systemic dimension of financial risk which had been almost completely neglected by bankers and supervisors in the pre-2007 years. 2. Accordingly, the most needed change in financial regulation, in order to avoid a repetition of such a crisis in the future, consists of influencing individual bank behaviour such that systemic risk is decreased. This objective is new and distinct from what Basle II was intended to achieve. 3. It is important, therefore, to evaluate proposed new regulatory instruments on the ground of whether or not they contribute to a reduction, or containment of systemic risk. We see two new regulatory measures of paramount importance: the introduction of a Systemic Risk Charge (SRC), and the implementation of a transparent bank resolution regime. Both measures complement each other, thus both have to be realized to be effective. 4. We propose a Systemic Risk Charge (SRC), a levy capturing the contribution of any individual bank to the overall systemic risk which is distinct from the institution’s own default risk. The SRC is set up such that the more systemic risk a bank contributes, the higher is the cost it has to bear. Therefore, the SRC serves to internalize the cost of systemic risk which, up to now, was borne by the taxpayer. 5. Major details of our SRC refer to the use of debt that may be converted into equity when systemic risk threatens the stability of the banking system. Also, the SRC raises some revenues for government. 6. The SRC has to be compared to several bank levies currently debated. The Financial Transaction Tax (FTT) does not directly address systemic risk and is therefore inferior to a SRC. Nevertheless, a FTT may offer the opportunity to subsidize on-exchange trading at the expense of off-exchange (over-the-counter, OTC) transactions, thereby enhancing financial market stability. The Financial Activity Tax (FAT) is similar to a VAT on financial services. It is the least adequate instrument among all instruments discussed above to limit systemic risk. 7. Bank resolution regime: No instrument to contain systemic risk can be effective unless the restructuring of bank debt, and the ensuing loss given default to creditors, is a real possibility. As the crisis has taught, bank restructuring is very difficult in light of contagion risk between major banks. We therefore need a regulatory procedure that allows winding down banks, even large banks, on short notice. Among other things, the procedure will require to distinguish systemically relevant exposures from those that are irrelevant. Only the former will be saved with government money, and it will then be the task of the supervisor to ensure a sufficient amount of nonsystemically relevant debt on the balance sheet of all banks. 8. Further issues discussed in this policy paper and its appendices refer to the necessity of a global level playing field, or the lack thereof, for these new regulatory measures; the convergence of our SRC proposal with what is expected to be long-term outcome of Basle III discussions; as well as the role of global imbalances.