Refine
Year of publication
- 2023 (88) (remove)
Document Type
- Working Paper (87)
- Article (1)
Language
- English (88) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (88)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (88)
Keywords
- Monetary Policy (4)
- DSGE (3)
- ESG (3)
- Machine Learning (3)
- Numerical accuracy (3)
- Solution methods (3)
- Sustainable Finance (3)
- climate change (3)
- household finance (3)
- social preferences (3)
Institute
- Center for Financial Studies (CFS) (88) (remove)
We contribute to the debate about the future of capital markets and corporate finance, which has ensued against the background of a significant boom in private markets and a corresponding decline in the number of firms and the amount of capital raised in public markets in the US and Europe.
Our research sheds light on the fluctuating significance of public and private markets for corporate finance over time, and challenges the conventional view of a linear progression from one market to the other. We argue instead that a more complex pattern of interaction between public and private markets emerges, after taking a long-term perspective and examining historical developments more closely.
We claim that there is a dynamic divide between these markets, and identify certain factors that determine the degree to which investors, capital, and companies gravitate more towards one market than the other. However, in response to the status quo, other factors will gain momentum and favor the respective other market, leading to a new (unstable) equilibrium. Hence, we observe the oscillating domains of public and private markets over time. While these oscillations imply ‘competition’ between these markets, we unravel the complementarities between them, which also militate against a secular trend towards one market. Finally, we examine the role of regulation in this dynamic divide as well as some policy implications arising from our findings.
The European low-carbon transition began in the last few decades and is accelerating to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. This paper examines how climate-related transition indicators of a large European corporate firm relate to its CDS-implied credit risk across various time horizons. Findings show that firms with higher GHG emissions have higher CDS spreads at all tenors, including the 30-year horizon, particularly after the 2015 Paris Agreement, and in prominent industries such as Electricity, Gas, and Mining. Results suggest that the European CDS market is currently pricing, to some extent, albeit small, the exposure to transition risk for a firm across different time horizons. However, it fails to account for a company’s efforts to manage transition risks and its exposure to the EU Emissions Trading Scheme. CDS market participants seem to find challenging to risk-differentiate ETS-participating firms from other firms.
An unfamiliar term in the not-too-distant past, “net zero” has become a headline-maker in the business and financial world with the growing importance of climate change. Succumbing to increasing pressure, companies and financial institutions around the world have come to adopt net-zero transition plans and targets, pledging to hit certain emission-reduction targets in a long-term period. Moreover, regulators around the world have started to require the disclosure or adoption of net-zero transition plans and targets.
However, an unintended consequence of net-zero transition commitments has been the increased popularity of divestments. That is, many firms seeking to fulfill a net-zero plan are passing on carbon-intensive assets (i.e., oil, gas, and coal assets) to other firms that are likely to be non-committal to environmental goals or that operate under less pressure from investors, stakeholders, and regulators. Such divestments, technically mergers and acquisitions (M&A) transactions, present an ideal opportunity to improve a divesting firm’s environmental record and reach ambitious net-zero goals, creating the impression that an emission reduction has occurred. However, the key is how acquiring firms handle these assets. If they continue operating as before, there will not be an overall improvement for the global climate. Worse, such assets can be operated by new owners in a way that causes more emissions. In any case, such divestments undermine the credibility and value of net-zero ambitions by allowing firms to reach targets by simply divesting assets.
This article explores the reasons and motivations for divestments or, more broadly M&As of carbon-intensive assets and explains why the increased role of net-zero commitments can be undermined by those transactions. We provide some evidence to illustrate the landscape of such transactions and the concerns they give rise to. Lastly, we explore several policy options to address the problem.
Using German and US brokerage data we find that investors are more likely to sell speculative stocks trading at a gain. Investors’ gain realizations are monotonically increasing in a stock’s speculativeness. This translates into a high disposition effect for speculative and a much lower disposition effect for non-speculative stocks. Our findings hold across asset classes (stocks, passive, and active funds) and explain cross-sectional differences in investor selling behavior which previous literature attributed primarily to investor demographics. Our results are robust to rank or attention effects and can be linked to realization utility and rolling mental account.
Who should hold bail-inable debt and how can regulators police holding restrictions effectively?
(2023)
This paper analyses the demand-side prerequisites for the efficient application of the bail-in tool in bank resolution, scrutinises whether the European bank crisis management and deposit insurance (CMDI) framework is apt to establish them, and proposes amendments to remedy identified shortcomings.
The first applications of the new European CMDI framework, particularly in Italy, have shown that a bail-in of debt holders is especially problematic if they are households or other types of retail investors. Such debt holders may be unable to bear losses, and the social implications of bailing them in may create incentives for decision makers to refrain from involving them in bank resolution. In turn, however, if investors can expect resolution authorities (RAs) to behave inconsistently over time and bail-out bank capital and debt holders despite earlier vows to involve them in bank rescues, the pricing and monitoring incentives that the crisis management framework seeks to invigorate would vanish. As a result, market discipline would be suboptimal and moral hazard would persist. Therefore, the policy objectives of the CMDI framework will only be achieved if critical bail-in capital is not held by retail investors without sufficient loss-bearing capacity. Currently, neither the CMDI framework nor capital market regulation suffice to assure that this precondition is met. Therefore, some amendments are necessary. In particular, debt instruments that are most likely to absorb losses in resolution should have a high minimum denomination and banks should not be allowed to self-place such securities.
Recent empirical evidence shows that most international prices are sticky in dollars. This paper studies the policy implications of this fact in the context of an open economy model, allowing for an arbitrary structure of asset markets, general preferences and technologies, time- or state-dependent price setting, and a rich set of shocks. We show that although monetary policy is less efficient and cannot implement the flexible-price allocation, inflation targeting remains robustly optimal in non-U.S. economies. The implementation of this non-cooperative policy results in a "global monetary cycle" with other countries importing the monetary stance of the U.S. The capital controls cannot unilaterally improve the allocation and are useful only when coordinated across countries. Thanks to the dominance of the dollar, the U.S. can extract rents in international goods and asset markets and enjoy a higher welfare than other economies. Although international cooperation benefits other countries by improving global demand for dollar-invoiced goods, it is not in the self-interest of the U.S. and may be hard to sustain.
This paper analyzes the current implementation status of sustainability and taxonomy-aligned disclosure under the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR) as well as the development of the SFDR categorization of funds offered via banks in Germany. Examining data provided by WM Group, which consists of more than 10,000 investment funds and 2,000 index funds between September 2022 and March 2023, we have observed a significant proportion of Article 9 (dark green) funds transitioning to Article 8 (light green) funds, particularly among index funds. As a consequence of this process, the profile of the SFDR classes has sharpened, which reflects an increased share of sustainable investments in the group of Article 9 funds. When differentiating between environmental and social investments, the share of environmental investments increased, but the share of social investments decreased in the group of Article 9 funds at the beginning of 2023. The share of taxonomy-aligned investments is very low, but slightly increasing for Article 9 funds. However, by March 2023 only around 1,000 funds have reported their sustainability proportions and this picture might change due to legal changes which require all funds in the scope of the SFDR to report these proportions in their annual reports being published after 1 January 2023.
Biodiversity loss poses a significant threat to the global economy and affects ecosystem services on which most large companies rely heavily. The severe financial implications of such a reduced species diversity have attracted the attention of companies and stakeholders, with numerous calls to increase corporate transparency. Using textual analysis, this study thus investigates the current state of voluntary biodiversity reporting of 359 European blue-chip companies and assesses the extent to which it aligns with the upcoming disclosure framework of the Task Force on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD). The descriptive results suggest a substantial gap between current reporting practices and the proposed TNFD framework, with disclosures largely lacking quantification, details and clear targets. In addition, the disclosures appear to be relatively unstandardized. Companies in sectors or regions exposed to higher nature-related risks as well as larger companies are more likely to report on aspects of biodiversity. This study contributes to the emerging literature on nature-related risks and provides detailed insights on the extent of the reporting gap in light of the upcoming standards.
We examine whether the uncertainty related to environmental, social, and governance (ESG) regulation developments is reflected in asset prices. We proxy the sensitivity of firms to ESG regulation uncertainty by the disparity across the components of their ESG ratings. Firms with high ESG disparity have a higher option-implied cost of protection against downside tail risk. The impact of the misalignment across the different dimensions of the ESG score is distinct from that of ESG score level itself. Aggregate downside risk bears a negative price for firms with low ESG disparity.
This research focuses on the cost of financing green projects on the primary bond market and tests for a potential price differential between green bonds issued by government entities and those issued by supranational and private sector issuers. Our findings indicate that government entities benefit from more favorable pricing conditions worldwide. This advantage is growing over time and particularly pronounced for sovereigns and municipal authorities. Our analysis also reveals that country-specific factors, such as strong political commitment to address climate change, low income level and high degree of indebtedness are significant predictors of the pricing spread across bonds.