Institute for Monetary and Financial Stability (IMFS)
Refine
Year of publication
- 2013 (15) (remove)
Document Type
- Working Paper (12)
- Report (2)
- Part of Periodical (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (15) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (15)
Keywords
The IMFS Interdisciplinary Study 2/2013 contains speeches of Michael Burda (Humboldt University ), Benoît Coeuré (European Central Bank), Stefan Gerlach (Bank of Ireland and former IMFS Professor), Patrick Honohan (Bank of Ireland), Sabine Lautenschläger (Deutsche Bundesbank), Athanasios Orphanides (MIT) and Helmut Siekmann as well as Volker Wieland.
This study contains articles based on speeches and presentations at the 14th CFS-IMFS Conference "The ECB and its Watchers" on June 15, 2012 by Mario Draghi, John Vickers, Peter Praet, Lucrezia Reichlin, Vitor Gaspar, Lucio Pench and Stefan Gerlach and a post-conference outlook by Helmut Siekmann and Volker Wieland.
Dem Druck standhalten
(2013)
This paper outlines relatively easy to implement reforms for the supervision of transnational banking-groups in the E.U. that should not be primarily based on legal form but on the actual risk structures of the pertinent financial institutions. The proposal also aims at paying close attention to the economics of public administration and international relations in allocating competences among national and supranational supervisory bodies.
Before detailing the own proposition, this paper looks into the relationship between sovereign debt and banking crises that drive regulatory reactions to the financial turmoil in the Euro area. These initiatives inter alia affirm effective prudential supervision as a pivotal element of crisis prevention.
In order to arrive at a more informed idea, which determinants apart from a per-ceived appetite for regulatory arbitrage drive banks’ organizational choices, this paper scrutinizes the merits of either a branch or subsidiary structure for the cross-border business of financial institutions. In doing so, it also considers the policy-makers perspective. The analysis shows that no one size fits all organizational structure is available and concludes that banks’ choices should generally not be second-guessed, particularly because they are subject to (some) market discipline.
The analysis proceeds with describing and evaluating how competences in prudential supervision are currently allocated among national and supranational supervisory authorities. In order to assess the findings the appraisal adopts insights form the economics of public administration and international relations. It argues that the supervisory architecture has to be more aligned with bureaucrats’ incentives and that inefficient requirements to cooperate and share information should be reduced. The evolving Single Supervisory Mechanism for euro area banks with its rather complicated allocation of responsibilities between the ECB and the national supervisors in participating and non-participating Member States will not solve all the problems identified as it is partly in disaccord with bureaucrats’ incentives.
The last part of this paper finally sketches an alternative solution that dwells on far-reaching mutual recognition of national supervisory regimes and allocates competences in line with supervisors’ incentives and the risk inherent in cross-border banking groups.
The financial services industry worldwide has undergone major transformation since the late 1970s. Technological advancements in information processing and communication facilitated financial innovation and narrowed traditional distinctions in financial products and services, allowing them to become close substitutes for one another. The deregulation process in many major economies prior to the recent financial crisis blurred the traditional lines of demarcation between the distinct types of financial institutions, exposing those firms to new competitors in their traditional business areas, while the increasing globalization of financial markets fostered the provision of financial services across national borders. Against this backdrop, a trend toward consolidation across financial sectors as well as across national borders increasingly manifested itself since the 1990s. The developments in the financial markets ever more intensified competition in the financial services industry and induced financial institutions to redefine their business strategies in search of higher profitability and growth opportunities. Consolidation across distinct financial sectors, i.e. financial conglomeration, in particular became a popular business strategy in light of the potential operational synergies and diversification benefits it can offer. This trend spurred the growth of diversified financial groups, the so-called financial conglomerates, which commingle banking, securities, and insurance activities under one corporate umbrella.5 Still today, large, complex financial conglomerates are represented among major players in the financial markets worldwide, whose activities not only sway across traditional boundaries of banking, securities, and insurance sectors but also across national borders.
Notwithstanding the economic benefits that conglomeration may produce as a business strategy, the emergence of financial conglomerates also exacerbated existing and created new prudential risks in the financial system. 6 The mixing of a variety of financial products and services under one corporate roof and the generally large and complex group structure of financial conglomerates expose such organizations to specific group risks such as contagion and arbitrage risk as well as systemic risk. When realized, these risks may not only cause the failure of an entire financial group but threaten the stability of the financial system as a whole, as evidenced by the events during recent financial crisis of 2007-2009...
Following the experience of the global financial crisis, central banks have been asked to undertake unprecedented responsibilities. Governments and the public appear to have high expectations that monetary policy can provide solutions to problems that do not necessarily fit in the realm of traditional monetary policy. This paper examines three broad public policy goals that may overburden monetary policy: full employment; fiscal sustainability; and financial stability. While central banks have a crucial position in public policy, the appropriate policy mix also involves other institutions, and overreliance on monetary policy to achieve these goals is bound to disappoint. Central Bank policies that facilitate postponement of needed policy actions by governments may also have longer-term adverse consequences that could outweigh more immediate benefits. Overburdening monetary policy may eventually diminish and compromise the independence and credibility of the central bank, thereby reducing its effectiveness to preserve price stability and contribute to crisis management.
How does the need to preserve government debt sustainability affect the optimal monetary and fiscal policy response to a liquidity trap? To provide an answer, we employ a small stochastic New Keynesian model with a zero bound on nominal interest rates and characterize optimal time-consistent stabilization policies. We focus on two policy tools, the short-term nominal interest rate and debt-financed government spending. The optimal policy response to a liquidity trap critically depends on the prevailing debt burden. While the optimal amount of government spending is decreasing in the level of outstanding government debt, future monetary policy is becoming more accommodative, triggering a change in private sector expectations that helps to dampen the fall in output and inflation at the outset of the liquidity trap.
This paper analyzes the evolving architecture for the prudential supervision of banks in the euro area. It is primarily concerned with the likely effectiveness of the SSM as a regime that intends to bolster financial stability in the steady state. By using insights from the political economy of bureaucracy it finds that the SSM is overly focused on sharp tools to discipline captured national supervisors and thus underincentives their top-level personnel to voluntarily contribute to rigid supervision. The success of the SSM in this regard will hinge on establishing a common supervisory culture that provides positive incentives for national supervisors. In this regard, the internal decision making structure of the ECB in supervisory matters provides some integrative elements. Yet, the complex procedures also impede swift decision making and do not solve the problem adequately. Ultimately, a careful design and animation of the ECB-defined supervisory framework and the development of inter-agency career opportunities will be critical.
The ECB will become a de facto standard setter that competes with the EBA. A likely standoff in the EBA’s Board of Supervisors will lead to a growing gap in regulatory integration between SSM-participants and other EU Member States.
Joining the SSM as a non-euro area Member State is unattractive because the current legal framework grants no voting rights in the ECB’s ultimate decision making body. It also does not supply a credible commitment opportunity for Member States who seek to bond to high quality supervision.