Wirtschaftswissenschaften
Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Working Paper (12)
- Part of Periodical (8)
Has Fulltext
- yes (20)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (20)
Keywords
Almost ten years after the European Commission action plan on building a capital markets union (CMU) and despite incremental progress, e.g. in the form of the EU Listing Act, the picture looks dire. Stock exchanges, securities markets, and supervisory authorities remain largely national, and, in many cases, European companies have decided to exclusively list overseas. Notwithstanding the economic and financial benefits of market integration, CMU has become a geopolitical necessity. A unified capital market can bolster resilience, strategic autonomy, and economic sovereignty, reduce dependence on external funding, and may foster economic cooperation between member states.
The reason for the persistent stand-still in Europe’s CMU development is not so much the conflict between market- and state-based integration, but rather the hesitancy of national regulatory and supervisory bodies to relinquish powers. If EU member states wanted to get real about CMU (as they say, and as they should), they need to openly accept the loss of sovereignty that follows from a true unified capital market. Building on economic as well as historical evidence, the paper offers viable proposals on how to design competent institutions within the current European framework.
This note outlines the case for speedy capital market integration and for the adoption of a common regulatory framework and single supervisory authority from a political economy perspective. We also show the alternative case for harmonization and centralization via regulatory competition, elaborating how competition between EU jurisdictions by way of full mutual recognition may lead to a (cost-)efficient and standardized legal framework for capital markets. Lastly, the note addresses the political economy conflict that underpins the implementation of both models for integrating capital markets. We point out that, in both cases, national authorities experience a loss of legislative and jurisdictional competence at the national level. We predict that any plan to foster a stronger capital market union, following an institution based or a market-based strategy, will face opposition from powerful national stakeholders.
Der Beitrag führt in das sozialpsychologische Phänomen des Gruppendenkens ein. Kennzeichen und Gegenstrategien werden anhand von Zeugenaussagen vor dem Wirecard-Untersuchungsausschuss am Beispiel des Aufsichtsrats illustriert. Normative Implikationen de lege ferenda schließen sich an. Sie betreffen unabhängige Mitglieder (auch auf der Arbeitnehmerbank), Direktinformationsrechte im Unternehmen (unter Einschluss von Hinweisgebern) und den Investorendialog (auch mit Leerverkäufern).
Die Erklärung von Intelligenz fasziniert Menschen seit Jahrtausenden, scheint sich doch mit ihr die menschliche Singularität gegenüber Natur und Tier zu manifestieren. Zugleich betonen nicht nur philosophische Strömungen, sondern auch die Mathematik, die Neuro- und die Computerwissenschaften die Abhängigkeit menschlicher Intelligenz von mechanistischen Prozessen. Ob damit eine Verwandtschaft beider Formen der Informationsverarbeitung verbunden ist oder genau umgekehrt fundamentale Unterschiede bestehen, ist seit knapp hundert Jahren Gegenstand wissenschaftlicher Kontroversen. Fest steht allerdings, dass Maschinen jedenfalls in manchen Bereichen die menschliche Leistungsfähigkeit in Schnelligkeit und Präzision übertreffen können. Nähert man sich dieser Vorstellung, drängt sich die Frage auf, ob es sich empfiehlt, bestimmte Entscheidungen besser von Maschinen treffen, jedenfalls aber unterstützen zu lassen. Neben Ärzten, Rechtsanwälten und Börsenhändlern betrifft das auch Leitungsentscheidungen von Unternehmensführern.
Vor diesem Hintergrund wird im Folgenden ein Überblick über Formen künstlicher Intelligenz (KI) gegeben. Im Anschluss fokussiert der Beitrag auf die Rolle von KI im Kontext von Vorstandsentscheidungen. Dazu zählen allgemeine Sorgfaltspflichten, wenn über den Einsatz von KI im Unternehmen zu entscheiden ist. Geht es um die Unterstützung gerade von Vorstandsentscheidungen stellen sich zusätzlich Fragen der Kooperation von Mensch und Maschine, der Delegation des Kernbestands von Leitungsentscheidungen und der Einstandspflicht für KI.
Search costs for lenders when evaluating potential borrowers are driven by the quality of the underwriting model and by access to data. Both have undergone radical change over the last years, due to the advent of big data and machine learning. For some, this holds the promise of inclusion and better access to finance. Invisible prime applicants perform better under AI than under traditional metrics. Broader data and more refined models help to detect them without triggering prohibitive costs. However, not all applicants profit to the same extent. Historic training data shape algorithms, biases distort results, and data as well as model quality are not always assured. Against this background, an intense debate over algorithmic discrimination has developed. This paper takes a first step towards developing principles of fair lending in the age of AI. It submits that there are fundamental difficulties in fitting algorithmic discrimination into the traditional regime of anti-discrimination laws. Received doctrine with its focus on causation is in many cases ill-equipped to deal with algorithmic decision-making under both, disparate treatment, and disparate impact doctrine. The paper concludes with a suggestion to reorient the discussion and with the attempt to outline contours of fair lending law in the age of AI.
Search costs for lenders when evaluating potential borrowers are driven by the quality of the underwriting model and by access to data. Both have undergone radical change over the last years, due to the advent of big data and machine learning. For some, this holds the promise of inclusion and better access to finance. Invisible prime applicants perform better under AI than under traditional metrics. Broader data and more refined models help to detect them without triggering prohibitive costs. However, not all applicants profit to the same extent. Historic training data shape algorithms, biases distort results, and data as well as model quality are not always assured. Against this background, an intense debate over algorithmic discrimination has developed. This paper takes a first step towards developing principles of fair lending in the age of AI. It submits that there are fundamental difficulties in fitting algorithmic discrimination into the traditional regime of anti-discrimination laws. Received doctrine with its focus on causation is in many cases ill-equipped to deal with algorithmic decision-making under both, disparate treatment, and disparate impact doctrine. The paper concludes with a suggestion to reorient the discussion and with the attempt to outline contours of fair lending law in the age of AI.