Refine
Year of publication
- 2014 (213)
- 2015 (180)
- 2016 (179)
- 2013 (162)
- 2003 (150)
- 2021 (142)
- 2008 (137)
- 2018 (132)
- 2017 (129)
- 2022 (126)
- 2006 (123)
- 2020 (123)
- 2023 (121)
- 2009 (116)
- 2004 (114)
- 2005 (109)
- 2007 (99)
- 2019 (96)
- 2011 (92)
- 2012 (87)
- 2010 (84)
- 2002 (83)
- 2001 (78)
- 1999 (71)
- 1998 (70)
- 2000 (67)
- 1997 (43)
- 2024 (32)
- 1996 (27)
- 1995 (19)
- 1993 (16)
- 1994 (16)
- 1976 (10)
- 1983 (10)
- 1984 (10)
- 1988 (10)
- 1992 (9)
- 1986 (8)
- 1989 (8)
- 1990 (8)
- 1991 (8)
- 1970 (7)
- 1975 (7)
- 1987 (7)
- 1969 (6)
- 1977 (6)
- 1982 (6)
- 1978 (5)
- 1980 (5)
- 1971 (4)
- 1985 (4)
- 1972 (3)
- 1974 (2)
- 1979 (2)
- 1981 (2)
- 1921 (1)
- 1968 (1)
- 1973 (1)
Document Type
- Working Paper (3387) (remove)
Language
- English (2351)
- German (1016)
- Spanish (8)
- French (7)
- Multiple languages (2)
Keywords
- Deutschland (223)
- USA (64)
- Corporate Governance (53)
- Geldpolitik (53)
- Schätzung (52)
- Europäische Union (51)
- monetary policy (47)
- Bank (41)
- Sprachtypologie (34)
- Monetary Policy (31)
Institute
- Wirtschaftswissenschaften (1496)
- Center for Financial Studies (CFS) (1469)
- Sustainable Architecture for Finance in Europe (SAFE) (803)
- House of Finance (HoF) (663)
- Rechtswissenschaft (402)
- Institute for Monetary and Financial Stability (IMFS) (214)
- Informatik (119)
- Exzellenzcluster Die Herausbildung normativer Ordnungen (75)
- Gesellschaftswissenschaften (75)
- Geographie (64)
We use a structural VAR model to study the German natural gas market and investigate the impact of the 2022 Russian supply stop on the German economy. Combining conventional and narrative sign restrictions, we find that gas supply and demand shocks have large and persistent price effects, while output effects tend to be moderate. The 2022 natural gas price spike was driven by adverse supply
shocks and positive storage demand shocks, as Germany filled its inventories before the winter. Counterfactual simulations of an embargo on natural gas imports from Russia indicate similar positive price and negative output effects compared to what we observe in the data.
The EU Commission proposed a regulation on artificial intelligence (AI) on 21 April 2021, which categorizes the use of AI in “social credit” as a prohibited application. This paper examines the definition and structure of the Social Credit System in China, which comprises various systems operating at different levels and sectors. The analysis focuses on two main subsystems: the database and one-stop inquiry platform for financial credit records, and the social governance tool designed to facilitate legal and political compliance. The development of the commercial customer credit reference is also explored. This paper further discusses the impacts and concerns associated with the implementation of the Chinese social credit system to raise awareness. The objective is to offer insights from the existing system and contribute to the ongoing discussion on regulating AI applications in social credit within the EU.
Regulating IP exclusion/inclusion on a global scale: the example of copyright vs. AI training
(2024)
This article builds upon the literature on inclusion/inclusivity in IP law by applying these concepts to the example of the scraping and mining of copyright-protected content for the purpose of training an artificial intelligence (AI) system or model. Which mode of operation dominates in this technological area: exclusion, inclusion or even inclusivity? The features of AI training appear to call for universal and sustainable “inclusivity” instead of a mere voluntary “inclusion” of AI provider bots by copyright holders. As the overview on the copyright status of AI training activities in different jurisdictions and emerging laws on AI safety (such as the EU AI Act) demonstrates, the global regulatory landscape is, however, much too fragmented and dynamic to immediately jump to an inclusive global AI regime. For the time being, legally secure global AI training requires the voluntary cooperation between AI providers and copyright holders, and innovative techno-legal reasoning is needed on how to effectuate this inclusion.
Why do banks issue contingent convertible debt? To answer this question we study comprehensive data covering all issues by publicly traded banks in Europe of contingent convertible bonds (CoCos) that count as additional tier 1 capital (AT1). We find that banks with lower asset volatility are more likely to issue AT1 CoCos than their riskier counterparts, but that CDS spreads do not react following issue announcements. Our estimates therefore suggest that agency costs play a crucial role in banks' ability to successfully issue CoCos. The agency costs may be higher for CoCos than for equity explaining why we observe riskier or lowly capitalized banks to issue equity rather than CoCos.