Refine
Year of publication
- 2013 (107) (remove)
Document Type
- Working Paper (72)
- Part of Periodical (10)
- Report (8)
- Book (6)
- Part of a Book (4)
- Contribution to a Periodical (2)
- Doctoral Thesis (2)
- Article (1)
- Conference Proceeding (1)
- Periodical (1)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (107)
Keywords
- Liikanen-Kommission (5)
- euro area (4)
- Bail-in (3)
- Bankenunion (3)
- Banking Union (3)
- Contagion (3)
- Social Interaction (3)
- Trennbanken (3)
- banking union (3)
- debt sustainability (3)
Institute
- Wirtschaftswissenschaften (107) (remove)
Pursuant to art. 45 of the Solvency II Framework Directive, all insurance undertakings will be obliged to conduct an “Own Risk and Solvency Assessment” (ORSA). ORSA’s relevance is not limited only to the second pillar of Solvency II, where mainly qualitative requirements are to be found. ORSA rather exhibits strong interlinks with the first pillar and its quantitative requirements and may also serve as a trigger for transparency duties which form Solvency II’s third pillar. ORSA may thus be described in some respects as the glue that binds together all three pillars of Solvency II. ORSA is one of the most obvious examples of the supervisory shift from a rules-based to a principles-based approach. As such, ORSA has hitherto been only very roughly defined. Since it is for the undertaking to determine its own specific risk profile and to evaluate whether this risk profile deviates significantly from the assumptions underlying the standard formula, it seems only natural that the supervisor must specify in greater detail what these underlying assumptions are. The most practicable way to do so would be for EIOPA to establish a “standard insurer”, which implies a translation of the assumptions concerning the underlying probability distributions into directly observable characteristics. The creation of the standard insurer would be an important step towards relaxing the insurers’ fear of what ORSA might bring about.
This paper compares two classes of models that allow for additional channels of correlation between asset returns: regime switching models with jumps and models with contagious jumps. Both classes of models involve a hidden Markov chain that captures good and bad economic states. The distinctive feature of a model with contagious jumps is that large negative returns and unobservable transitions of the economy into a bad state can occur simultaneously. We show that in this framework the filtered loss intensities have dynamics similar to self-exciting processes. Besides, we study the impact of unobservable contagious jumps on optimal portfolio strategies and filtering.
This paper analyzes the inherent dangers of paternalist economic policies associated with the newly established economic sub-disciplines of behavioral economics, economic happiness research and economic psychology. While the authors in general welcome these sub-disciplines for enriching and critically evaluating mainstream economics – especially their criticism of the Homo oeconomicus-heuristic is of great value contributing to a more realistic idea of man –, the political-economic implications as well as inherent risks of paternalist economic policies should be received with concern and thus be subject to a critical review. The paper is structured as follows: In the first step, we recapitulate Kahneman’s, Thaler/Sunstein’s, and Layard’s versions of paternalism pointing at similarities and differences alike. We contrast libertarian or soft paternalism of behavioral economics (Thaler/Sunstein) and economic psychology (Kahneman) with (Layard’s) happiness economics and its hard paternalism. In the second step, we analyze the political and economic implications and consequences of paternalism. We give an overview of the main points of criticism of paternalism from a constitutional economics perspective. The Ordnungs- vs. Prozesspolitik argument is discussed as well as epistemological, political-economic or idea of man arguments. The paper ends with some concluding remarks.
This study investigates the transition from being a listed company with a dispersed ownership structure to being a privately held company with a concentrated ownership structure. We consider a sample of private equity backed portfolio companies to evaluate the consequences of the corporate governance changes on operational performance. Our analysis shows significant positive abnormal growth in several performance ratios for the private period of our sample companies relative to comparable public companies. These performance differences come from the increase in ownership concentration after the leveraged buyout transaction.
This paper summarizes the key proposals of the report by the Liikanen Commission. It starts with an explanation of a crisis narrative underlying the Report and its proposals. The proposals aim for a revitalization of market discipline in financial markets. The two main structural proposals of the Liikanen Report are: first, for large banks, the separation of the trading business from other parts of the banking business (the "Separation Proposal"), and the mandatory issuing of subordinated bank debt thought to be liable (the strict "Bail-in Proposal"). The credibility of this commitment to private liability is achieved by strict holding restrictions. The anticipated consequences of the introduction of these structural regulations for the financial industry and markets are addressed in a concluding part.
Ausgehend von einer Erläuterung der Kriseninterpretation (crisis narrative), wie sie in dem Bericht der Liikanen-Kommission zugrunde liegt, werden die nach Ansicht des Verfassers zentralen Vorschläge des Kommissionsberichts ausgewählt, vorgestellt und in den größeren Rahmen einer erneuerten Ordnungspolitik für die Finanzmärkte Europas eingeordnet. Die mit den Vorschlägen eng zusammenhängenden Reformelemente der Bankenunion werden in diesem Text bewusst ausgeklammert. Die beiden zentralen Strukturvorschläge des Liikanen-Berichts betreffen die Abspaltung der Handelsgeschäfte von dem Universalbankengeschäft für große, internationale Banken (der Trennbankenvorschlag), sowie die verpflichtende Emission nachrangigen, glaubwürdig haftenden Fremdkapitals (der strenge Bail-in Vorschlag). Glaubwürdigkeit der Haftungszusage wird durch strenge Halterestriktionen erreicht. Vorhersehbare Folgerungen einer Einführung dieser Strukturregeln für die Finanzindustrie und -märkte werden in einem abschließenden Teil angesprochen.