Wirtschaftswissenschaften
Refine
Document Type
- Working Paper (16)
- Book (1)
- Report (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (18)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (18)
Keywords
- Bond Markets (1)
- Dark Pools (1)
- Dark Trading (1)
- Double Volume Caps (1)
- Durable consumption (1)
- EZB (1)
- Financing Conditions (1)
- Geldpolitik (1)
- Household saving (1)
- Liquidity (1)
Institute
- Institute for Law and Finance (ILF) (18) (remove)
Using a novel regulatory dataset of fully identified derivatives transactions, this paper provides the first comprehensive analysis of the structure of the euro area interest rate swap (IRS) market after the start of the mandatory clearing obligation. Our dataset contains 1.7 million bilateral IRS transactions of banks and non-banks. Our key results are as follows:
1) The euro area IRS market is highly standardised and concentrated around the group of the G16 Dealers but also around a significant group of core “intermediaries"(and major CCPs).
2) Banks are active in all segments of the IRS euro market, whereas non-banks are often specialised.
3) When using relative net exposures as a proxy for the “flow of risk" in the IRS market, we find that risk absorption takes place in the core as well as the periphery of the network but in absolute terms the risk absorption is largely at the core.
4) Among the Basel III capital and liquidity ratios, the leverage ratio plays a key role in determining a bank's IRS trading activity.
Exploiting heterogeneity in U.S. firms' exposure to an unconventional monetary policy shock that reduced debt financing costs, I identify the impact of financing conditions on firms' toxic emissions. I find robust evidence that lower financing costs reduce toxic emissions and boost investments in emission reduction activities, especially capital-intensive pollution control activities. The effect is stronger for firms in noncompliance with environmental regulation. Examining the ability of regaining regulatory compliance by implementing pollution control activities I find that only capital-intensive activities help firms regaining compliance. These findings underscore the impact of firms' financing conditions for emissions and the environment.
We show that "quasi-dark" trading venues, i.e., markets with somewhat non-transparent trading mechanisms, are important parts of modern equity market structure alongside lit markets and dark pools. Using the European MiFID II regulation as a quasi-natural experiment, we find that dark pool bans lead to (i) volume spill-overs into quasi-dark trading mechanisms including periodic auctions and order internalization systems; (ii) little volume returning to transparent public markets; and consequently, (iii) a negligible impact on market liquidity and short-term price efficiency. These results show that quasi-dark markets serve as close substitutes for dark pools and consequently mitigate the effectiveness of dark pool regulation. Our findings highlight the need for a broader approach to transparency regulation in modern markets that takes into consideration the many alternative forms of quasi-dark trading.
We study the effects of market incompleteness on speculation, investor survival, and asset pricing moments, when investors disagree about the likelihood of jumps and have recursive preferences. We consider two models. In a model with jumps in aggregate consumption, incompleteness barely matters, since the consumption claim resembles an insurance product against jump risk and effectively reproduces approximate spanning. In a long-run risk model with jumps in the long-run growth rate, market incompleteness affects speculation, and investor survival. Jump and diffusive risks are more balanced regarding their importance and, therefore, the consumption claim cannot reproduce approximate spanning.
Decisions under ambiguity depend on both the belief regarding possible scenarios and the attitude towards ambiguity. This paper exclusively investigates the belief formation and belief updating process under ambiguity, using laboratory experiments. The results show that half of the subjects tend to adopt a simple heuristic strategy when updating beliefs, while the other half seems to partially adopt the Bayesian updates. We recover beliefs, represented by distributions of the priors/posteriors. The recoverable initial priors mostly follow a uniform distribution. We also find that subjects on average demonstrate slight pessimism in an ambiguous environment.
Do household inflation expectations affect consumption-savings decisions? We link survey data on quantitative inflation expectations to administrative data on income and wealth. We document that households with higher inflation expectations save less. Estimating panel data models with year and household fixed effects, we find that a one percentage point increase in a household's inflation expectation over time is associated with a 250-400 euro reduction in the household's change in net worth per year on average. We also document that households with higher inflation expectations are more likely to acquire a car and acquire higher-value cars. In addition, we provide a quantitative model of household-level inflation expectations.
Job loss expectations, durable consumption and household finances : evidence from linked survey data
(2019)
Job security is important for durable consumption and household savings. Using surveys, workers express a probability that they will lose their job in the next 12 months. In order to assess the empirical content of these probabilities, we link survey data to administrative data with labor market outcomes. Workers predict job loss quite well, in particular those whose job loss is followed by unemployment. Workers with higher job loss expectations acquire cheaper cars, and are less likely to buy new cars. In line with models of precautionary saving, higher job loss expectations are associated with more savings and less exposure to risky assets.
Eine neuere Entscheidung des Bundesgerichtshofs zu den Anforderungen an die Mitteilung nach § 20 AktG über die Mitteilung eines Beteiligungserwerbs2 gibt Anlass zu Überlegungen zu den Rechtsfolgen einer Verletzung von Mitteilungspflichten durch mittelbar beteiligte Gesellschafter.
Der Bundesgerichthof hat, ohne auf abweichende Ansichten einzugehen, die h.M.3 bestätigt, nach der bei Verletzungen einer Mitteilungspflicht durch ein herrschendes Unternehmen die Rechtsfolge des Rechtsverlustes das unmittelbar beteiligte Tochterunternehmen selbst dann trifft, wenn dieses seine eigene Mitteilungspflicht ordnungsgemäß erfüllt hat.4 Im Hinblick auf den (zeitweiligen) Verlust von Dividendenansprüchen, um die es in dem vom BGH entschiedenen Fall ging, dürfte die in der Sache entscheidende Erwägung sein, dass anderenfalls dem herrschenden Unternehmen die mittelbaren Folgen der Gewinnausschüttung auch dann erhalten blieben, wenn es den eigenen Verstoß gegen die Mitteilungspflicht und den daraus folgenden temporären Wegfall des Gewinnbezugsrechts kannte oder kennen musste.
Die Empfehlung des Corporate Governance-Kodex (Ziff. 5.4.2), „dem Aufsichtsrat soll eine nach seiner Einschätzung angemessene Anzahl unabhängiger Mitglieder angehören“, wirft in der Praxis nach wie vor Fragen auf. Im Folgenden sollen einige Thesen zur Auslegung dieser Empfehlung aufgestellt werden. Eine rechtspolitische Auseinandersetzung mit ihr und Änderungsvorschläge sind an dieser Stelle nicht beabsichtigt.
André Prüm has asked me to talk about “La Théorie de l´organe” supposing that this is a German invention. Well, we cannot claim the authorship or copyright for that, but it is true that this doctrine is still dominating German doctrinal thinking in company law. Let me first look at the historical development and background of this theory and then ask for its actual meaning and practical consequences.
„Corporate groups are a fact of life“.1 This was the starting point for a group of renowned European experts to deliver a report on a possible Directive on corporate group law in 2000.2 We all know that no such Directive has been issued.3 However, these days a fresh group of eminent experts has started, among other things, to develop an initiative „on groups of companies“.4 One reason for a European regulation to take its time might be the enormous national differences in dealing with group situations. While some countries, notably the UK,5 rely on general company law to deal with corporate groups, others provide most detailed rules specifically for groups of companies.6 German law provides an example for the latter. Do we need a law of corporate groups? Most countries regulate one or another aspect of group law.7
This is probably most common for tax and for accounting law. Insolvency law will often take group situations into account and the same is true for labour law. Regulatory oversight for financial institutions or insurance companies usually includes a group dimension. Competition law necessarily does so as well. However, in what follows when we speak about „group law“ we will focus on regulation more specifically tuned to genuine questions of company law such as the protection of minority shareholders or creditors, the standards for managerial behavior and the „enabling“ function of legal structures.
Capital maintenance rules are part of a legal capital regime that consists of rules on raising capital and rules on maintaining it. The function of these rules is the protection of the corporation’s creditors. This is evidenced by the fact that in public as well as private companies the provisions on legal capital are not open to disapplication or variation even with unanimous shareholder consent. Thus, providing the company with a minimum of funding and ensuring equal treatment of shareholders are mere reflexes of creditor protection or, at best, ancillary purposes of legal capital. Legal capital is part of a corporation’s equity. The key feature of equity is that it ranks behind the claims of other stakeholders in the distribution of a corporation’s assets. Consequently, equity will also be the first part of a corporation’s funds to be depleted by losses. Capital maintenance rules seek to enforce this order of priority of different groups of stakeholders by restricting distributions to shareholders. Such restrictions are not unique to legal systems that have adopted a legal capital regime. A prominent example of a statute that has eliminated mandatory legal capital is the Delaware General Corporation Law. § 154 DCGL leaves it up to the directors to decide whether any part of the consideration received by the corporation for its shares shall be attributed to capital. Thus, a Delaware corporation need not have any stated capital. This has significant impact on the funds available for distribution to shareholders. Pursuant to § 170 (a) DGCL dividends may only be paid out of surplus or, in the absence of surplus, out of net profits of the current or the preceding fiscal year. § 154 DGCL defines surplus as the excess of a corporation’s net assets over the amount of its capital, and net assets as the amount by which total assets exceed total liabilities. A corporation without stated capital may, therefore, distribute all of its net assets to its shareholders and continue business without any equity on its balance sheet. This highlights the difference between the different approaches to creditor protection in Germany and the U.S. Both legal systems acknowledge the priority of creditors over shareholders in corporate distributions. However, German law seeks to give creditors additional comfort by requiring companies to raise and maintain additional layers of assets above and beyond those corresponding to the company’s liabilities that may not be depleted by way of distributions to shareholders. While private companies must merely raise and maintain their stated capital, public companies are required to raise and maintain additional equity accounts unavailable for distributions to shareholders such as the share premium account1 and the legal reserve.2
In recent years a number of objections have been raised against this concept of creditor protection. Critics argue that contractual arrangements are a more efficient means for protecting the interests of creditors.3 Capital maintenance does not prevent creditors from negotiating for more stringent protection of their claims such as collateral or financial covenants. It does, however, provide a minimum standard of protection for the benefit of creditors who lack the commercial experience or the bargaining power or who, like tort victims, are simply unable to negotiate for contractual safeguards. Capital maintenance ensures that their protection against excessive distributions does not depend on large creditors who are free to waive covenants that, in effect, benefit all creditors in exchange for individual arrangements that work exclusively in their favour.
Anleihen werden in der Regel in zahlreiche Teilschuldverschreibungen aufgespalten und diese an verschiedene Investoren verkauft. Dies begründet, der Zahl der umlaufenden Teilschuldverschreibungen entsprechend, jeweils unterschiedliche Schuldverhältnisse zwischen dem Emittenten und dem jeweiligen Investor. Hält ein Investor mehrere Teilschuldverschreibungen, so entstehen dementsprechend mehrere rechtlich voneinander zu unterscheidende Schuldverhältnisse mit gleichem Inhalt.1 Diese können jeweils ein unterschiedliches rechtliches Schicksal haben, z. B. getrennt voneinander übertragen werden. Sie können auch, von atypischen Gestaltungen abgesehen, je einzeln vom Gläubiger gekündigt werden, wenn die Anleihebedingungen insoweit keine Vorkehrungen treffen. Die folgenden Bemerkungen dazu befassen sich zunächst mit der umstrittenen Frage, ob auch eine Kündigung aus wichtigem Grund seitens eines Gläubigers gemäß §§ 490 Abs. 1, 314 BGB in Betracht kommt (im Folgenden I. - VII.)
Die sog. Business Judgment Rule wurde durch Art. 1 Nr. 1a des UMAG1 auf entsprechende Vorschläge im Schrifttum2 als neuer § 93 Abs. 1 Satz 2 in das Aktiengesetz eingefügt. Der Sache nach war sie bereits zuvor in Rechtsprechung3 und Lehre4 anerkannt. Nach gängigem Verständnis soll die Business Judgment Rule einen „sicheren Hafen“ bieten, der Organmitglieder davor schützt, dass unternehmerische Misserfolge auf der Grundlage nachträglicher besserer Erkenntnis als Sorgfaltspflichtverstöße sanktioniert werden. Nach ganz überwiegen-der Auffassung beschränkt sich die Bedeutung von § 93 Abs. 1 Satz 2 AktG nicht darauf, durch ausdrückliche Regelung von Elementen der Sorgfaltspflicht klarzustellen, dass das Gesetz mit dem strengen Sorgfaltsmaßstab des ordentlichen und gewissenhaften Geschäftslei-ters nicht etwa eine Erfolgshaftung statuiert. Die Business Judgment Rule wird vielmehr als Privilegierung gegenüber dem ansonsten geltenden Haftungsmaßstab des § 93 Abs. 1 Satz 1 AktG verstanden. Ausdrückliche Stellungnahmen zur Wirkungsweise dieses Privilegs reichen von der Annahme eines der richterlichen Nachprüfung entzogenen unternehmerischen Ermes-sensspielraums5 über die Einordnung als unwiderlegliche Vermutung objektiv rechtmäßigen Verhaltens6 bis hin zu der Annahme, dass im Anwendungsbereich der Business Judgment Rule eine Haftung gegenüber der Gesellschaft nur ab der Grenze der groben Fahrlässigkeit in Betracht komme.7 Aber auch die zahlreichen Stellungnahmen, die sich nicht ausdrücklich zur Frage der Haftungserleichterung äußern, setzen eine privilegierende Wirkung der Business Judgment Rule voraus. Anderenfalls hätten die eingehenden Überlegungen zur Abgrenzung unternehmerischer von anderen, insbesondere rechtlich gebundenen Entscheidungen, für die offenbar ein strengerer Sorgfalts- und Haftungsmaßstab gelten soll, keinerlei praktische Bedeutung.
1.Hinsichtlich der Haftung von Organmitgliedern gegenüber der Gesellschaft für Fehlein-schätzungen der Rechtslage gilt kein anderer Maßstab als hinsichtlich der Haftung für Fehler bei unternehmerischen Entscheidungen (dazu sogleich, II).
2.Die Business Judgment Rule des § 93 Abs. 1 Satz 2 AktG enthält kein Haftungsprivileg; insbesondere stellt sie Organmitglieder nicht grundsätzlich von der Haftung für grobe Fahr-lässigkeit frei. Sie konkretisiert vielmehr lediglich die Sorgfaltsanforderungen an einen or-dentlichen und gewissenhaften Geschäftsleiter und stellt klar, dass dessen Haftung nicht mit nachträglicher besserer Erkenntnis begründet werden kann. Aus diesem Grund ist es unbe-denklich, dass sich die Haftung für unternehmerische, rechtliche und sonstige Fehler nach einheitlichen Haftungsgrundsätzen richtet (dazu unten, III.).
9.01 This chapter outlines the development of Contingent Convertible Securities (CoCos) for financial institutions from their theoretical origins to their current form under the European Union’s Fourth Capital Requirements Directive framework and its Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive and examines the effect the framework and the directive have had on their design and ability to fulfill the ends for which they were initially conceived. It examines this from two viewpoints: the policy goals CoCos are meant to achieve and the corporate law issues raised by the requirements of CRD IV. On the policy side we conclude that CRD IV and the RRD have significantly limited the amount of CoCos a financial institution is likely to issue, but expanded their possible forms by including write-down as well as convertible structures and narrowed the differences between them and pure regulatory bail-in structures, thus calling into question whether they are truly ‘going concern’ rather than ‘gone concern’ capital. On the company law side we conclude that a number of issues, in particular the limits on an authorization of management to issue CoCos and shares, the scope of the shareholders’ right of pre-emption, the concept of dilution and the distinction between contributions in cash and in kind merit closer attention than they appear to have received in the current discussion on CoCos.
Dem Druck standhalten
(2013)