Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (15825)
- Part of Periodical (2818)
- Working Paper (2353)
- Preprint (2085)
- Doctoral Thesis (2065)
- Book (1736)
- Part of a Book (1071)
- Conference Proceeding (753)
- Report (471)
- Review (165)
Language
- English (29537) (remove)
Keywords
- taxonomy (744)
- new species (444)
- morphology (174)
- Deutschland (142)
- Syntax (125)
- Englisch (120)
- distribution (117)
- biodiversity (101)
- Deutsch (98)
- inflammation (97)
Institute
- Medizin (5347)
- Physik (3819)
- Wirtschaftswissenschaften (1921)
- Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies (FIAS) (1762)
- Biowissenschaften (1550)
- Center for Financial Studies (CFS) (1494)
- Informatik (1401)
- Biochemie und Chemie (1090)
- Sustainable Architecture for Finance in Europe (SAFE) (1071)
- House of Finance (HoF) (710)
Asset-backed securitisation (ABS) is an asset funding technique that involves the issuance of structured claims on the cash flow performance of a designated pool of underlying receivables. Efficient risk management and asset allocation in this growing segment of fixed income markets requires both investors and issuers to thoroughly understand the longitudinal properties of spread prices. We present a multi-factor GARCH process in order to model the heteroskedasticity of secondary market spreads for valuation and forecasting purposes. In particular, accounting for the variance of errors is instrumental in deriving more accurate estimators of time-varying forecast confidence intervals. On the basis of CDO, MBS and Pfandbrief transactions as the most important asset classes of off-balance sheet and on-balance sheet securitisation in Europe we find that expected spread changes for these asset classes tends to be level stationary with model estimates indicating asymmetric mean reversion. Furthermore, spread volatility (conditional variance) is found to follow an asymmetric stochastic process contingent on the value of past residuals. This ABS spread behaviour implies negative investor sentiment during cyclical downturns, which is likely to escape stationary approximation the longer this market situation lasts.
s.a.: Das Recht hybrider Netzwerke. Zeitschrift für das gesamte Handelsrecht und Wirtschaftsrecht 165, 2001, 550-575.. Italienische Fassung: Diritti ibridi: la costituzionalizzazione delle reti private di governance. In: Gunther Teubner, Costituzionalismo societario. Armando, Roma 2004 (im Erscheinen).
Deutsche Fassung: Rechtsentfremdungen: Zum gesellschaftlichen Mehrwert des zwölften Kamels. Zeitschrift für Rechtssoziologie 21, 2000, 189-215 und in Gunther Teubner (Hg.) Die Rückgabe des zwölften Kamels: Niklas Luhmann in der Diskussion über Gerechtigkeit. Lucius & Lucius, Stuttgart 2000, 189-215. Französische Fassung: Les multiples aliénations du droit : Sur la plus-value sociale du douzième chameau. Droit et Société 47, 2001, 75-100. Polnische Fassung: Sprawiedliwosc alienujaca : O dodatkowej wartosci dwunastego wielblada. Ius et Lex 1, 2002, 109-132. Italienische Fassung: Le molteplici alienazioni del diritto : Sul plusvalore sociale del dodicesimo camello. In: Annamaria Rufino und Gunther Teubner, Il diritto possibile: Funzioni e prospettive del medium giuridico. Guerini, Milano, 2005, 93-130.
Deutsche Fassung: Die Episteme des Rechts. Zu den erkenntnistheoretischen Grundlagen des reflexiven Rechts. In: Dieter Grimm (Hg.) Steigende Staatsaufgaben - sinkende Steuerungsfähigkeit des Rechts. Nomos, Baden-Baden 1990, 115-154. Französische Fassung: Pour une épistémologie constructiviste du droit. In Gunther Teubner, Droit et réflexivité. Librairie générale de droit et de jurisprudence, Paris 1994, 171-204. Veränderte Fassung in: Annales: Economies, Sociétés, Civilisations 1992, Paris, 1149-1169. Italienische Fassung: Il diritto come soggetto epistemico: Per una epistemologie giuridica "costruttivista," Rivista critica del diritto privato 8, 1990, 287-326.
By order of 29 November 1999 the Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) referred to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC two questions regarding the interpretation of the "doorstep-selling directive", and the "consumer credit directive", which arose in the course of proceedings involving Mr and Mrs Heininger, who took out from the Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG bank a loan to purchase a flat, secured by a charge on the property (Grundschuld). Five years later they sought to cancel the credit agreement, maintaining that an estate agent had called uninvited at their home and induced them to purchase the flat in question and - at the same time acting on a self-employed basis as agent for the bank - to enter into the loan agreement, without informing them of their right of cancellation. Article 1 para. 1 of the doorstep-selling directive provides that it applies to contracts under which a trader supplies goods or services to a consumer and which are concluded during a visit by a trader to the consumer's home where the visit does not take place at the express request of the consumer'. Article 3 para. 2 a) of that directive provides that the directive shall not apply to contracts for the construction, sale and rental of immovable property or contracts concerning other rights relating to immovable property. Article 4 of the directive provides that traders shall be required to give consumers written notice of their right of cancellation. Article 5 provides that the consumer shall have the right to cancel the contract within seven days from receipt by the consumer of the notice. Article 2 of the consumer credit directive provides that it shall not apply to credit agreements intended primarily for the purpose of acquiring or retaining property rights in land or in an existing or projected building, and that Article 1 a) and Articles 4 to 12 of the directive shall not apply to credit agreements, secured by mortgage on immovable property. The German legislation transposing the doorstep-selling directive (the "HWiG") provides for a right of cancellation by the consumer within a period of one week, if a transaction is entered into away from the trader's business premises. The cooling-off period does not start to run until the customer receives a notice in writing containing information on this right and if that notice is not given, the right of cancellation will not lapse until one month after both parties have performed their obligations under the agreement in full. Section 5 para. 2 of the HwiG provides that where the transaction also falls within the scope of the legislation transposing the consumer credit directive (the "VerbrKrG"), only the provisions of the latter are to apply. Section 3 para. 2 of the VerbrKrG, in setting out the exceptions to the scope of that law, provides that inter alia Section 7 (right of cancellation) shall not apply to credit agreements in which credit is subject to the giving of security by way of a charge on immovable property, and is granted on usual terms for credits secured by a charge on immovable property and the intermediate financing of the same. Given this legal framework it is obvious that the Heiningers could not cancel the credit agreement according to the VerbrKrG. Although the agreement constitutes a consumer credit under section 1 VerbrKrG, the right of revocation is excluded by section 3 para. 2 VerbrKrG, the exclusion of which is backed by the consumer credit directive. Although the credit agreement was entered into away from the banks business premises, they as well could not cancel it under the HWiG since this law is not applicable to consumer credit agreements. Thus, the claim of the Heiningers was denied by German courts until the Federal Court of Justice raised the question, if the subsidiarity clause in section 5 para. 2 of the HWiG constitutes a contradiction to the provisions of the door step selling directive.
In the early Nineties the Hague Conference on International Private Law on initiative of the United States started negotiations on a Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (the "Hague Convention"). In October 1999 the Special Commission on duty presented a preliminary text, which was drafted quite closely to the European Convention on Jurisdiction and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (the "Brussels Convention"). The latter was concluded between the then 6 Member States of the EEC in Brussels in 1968 and amended several times on occasion of the entry of new Member States. In 2000, after the Treaty of Amsterdam altered the legal basis for judicial co-operation in civil matters in Europe, it was transformed into an EC Regulation (the "Brussels I Regulation"). The 1999 draft of the Hague Convention was heavily criticized by the USA and other states for its European approach of a double convention, regulating not only the recognition and enforcement of judgments, but at the same time the extent of and the limits to jurisdiction to adjudicate in international cases. During a diplomatic conference in June 2001 a second draft was presented which contained alternative versions of several articles and thus resembled more the existing dissent than a draft convention would. Difficulties to reach a consensus remained, especially with regard to activity based jurisdiction, intellectual property, consumer rights and employee rights. In addition, the appropriateness of the whole draft was questioned in light of the problems posed by the de-territorialization of relevant conduct through the advent of the Internet. In April 2002 it was decided to continue negotiations on an informal level on the basis of a nucleus approach. The core consensus as identified by a working group, however, was not very broad. The experts involved came to the conclusion that the project should be limited to choice of court agreements. In March 2004 a draft was presented which sets out its aims as follows: "The objective of the Convention is to make exclusive choice of court agreements as effective as possible in the context of international business. The hope is that the Convention will do for choice of court agreements what the New York Convention of 1958 has done for arbitration agreements." In April 2004 the Special Commission of the Hague Conference adopted a Draft "Convention on Exclusive Choice of Court Agreements", which according to its Art. 2 No. 1 a) is not applicable to choice of court agreements, to which a natural person acting primarily for personal, family or household purposes (a consumer) is a party". The broader project of a global judgments convention thus seems to be abandoned, or at least to be postponed for an unlimited time period. There are - of course - several reasons why the Hague Judgments project failed. Samuel Baumgartner has described an important one as the "Justizkonflikt" between the United States and Europe or, more specifically Germany. Within the context of the general topic of this conference, that is (international) jurisdiction for human rights, in the remainder of this presentation I shall elaborate on the socio-cultural aspects of the impartiality of judgments and their enforcement on a global scale.