Universitätspublikationen
Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Part of Periodical (34)
- Working Paper (16)
Has Fulltext
- yes (50) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (50)
Keywords
- Banking Union (50) (remove)
To ensure the credibility of market discipline induced by bail-in, neither retail investors nor peer banks should appear prominently among the investor base of banks’ loss absorbing capital. Empirical evidence on bank-level data provided by the German Federal Financial Supervisory Authority raises a few red flags. Our list of policy recommendations encompasses disclosure policy, data sharing among supervisors, information transparency on holdings of bail-inable debt for all stakeholders, threshold values, and a well-defined upper limit for any bail-in activity. This document was provided by the Economic Governance Support Unit at the request of the ECON Committee.
The Judgement of the EGC in the Case T-122/15 – Landeskreditbank Baden-Württemberg - Förderbank v European Central Bank is the first statement of the European judiciary on the sub-stantive law of the Banking Union. Beyond its specific holding, the decision is of great importance, because it hints at the methodological approach the EGC will take in interpreting prudential banking regulation in the appeals against supervisory measures that fall in its jurisdiction under TFEU, arts. 256(1) subpara 1 and 263(4). Specifically, the case pertained to the scope of direct ECB oversight of significant banks in the euro area and the reassignment of this competence to national competent authorities (NCAs) in individual circumstances (Single Supervisory Mechanism (SSM) Regulation, art. 6(4) subpara 2; SSM Framework Regulation, arts. 70, 71).
Following the financial crash and the subsequent recession, European policymakers have undertaken major reforms regarding the European Economic and Monetary Union (EMU). Yet, the success rate is mixed. Several reform proposals have either completely failed due to opposition forces or are still pending, sometimes for years. This article provides an overview of reforms in four major policy fields: financial stabilisation, economic governance, fiscal solidarity, and cooperative dissolution. Building on the conceptual foundation of policy analysis, it distinguishes between policy outputs and outcomes. Policy output refers to legislation being adopted or agreement on treaty changes, while policy outcomes depict the result from the implementation process.
In diesem explorativen Beitrag machen wir uns Gedanken über die Zukunft von Deutscher Bank und Commerzbank und entwickeln einen neuen Zugang zu dem Thema: Statt einer Fusion von DB und CB schlagen wir eine Teilfusion nur der Datenzentren vor – es entsteht auf diese Weise die Grundlage für eine Open Banking Plattform als „utility“, also als Betrieb im Eigentum der Nutzer, an der perspektivisch weitere Finanzinstitute teilnehmen können. Die über die Daten kooperierenden Institute bleiben mit Blick auf Produkte und Dienstleistungen unverändert Konkurrenten – „national champions“ entstehen auf diese Weise nicht. Aber es wird damit in Europa die Basis für einen erfolgversprechenden Wettbewerb mit den großen Datenplattformen aus USA und China (Facebook, Amazon, Alipay) gelegt, die früher oder später in den Finanzmarkt eindringen werden. Das von uns vorgeschlagene Modell einer offenen Datenplattform für Banken verhindert das Entstehen von „national champions“ und schützt damit auch das Kernanliegen der Bankenunion: Die Schaffung eines Finanzsystems, dessen Banken jede für sich ausscheiden können ohne eine systemische Krise auszulösen, und ohne den Steuerzahler zu einer Rettungsaktion zu zwingen
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“).