Sustainable Architecture for Finance in Europe (SAFE)
Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Working Paper (61)
- Part of Periodical (12)
- Article (6)
- Report (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (80)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (80)
Keywords
- financial stability (6)
- coronavirus (5)
- OTC markets (4)
- Central Clearing (3)
- Coronavirus (3)
- Corporate Social Responsibility (3)
- Counterparty Risk (3)
- Covid-19 (3)
- Credit Risk (3)
- Derivatives (3)
- Financial Stability (3)
- Liquidity Provision (3)
- Loss Sharing (3)
- Sustainable Finance (3)
- Sustainable Investments (3)
- COVID-19 (2)
- COVID-19 news (2)
- Capital Markets Union (2)
- Car Loans (2)
- Collateral (2)
- Corporate Bonds (2)
- Corporate Finance (2)
- ESG Rating Agencies (2)
- ETFs (2)
- Eligibility premium (2)
- European Market Infrastructure Regulation (EMIR) (2)
- Financial Crisis (2)
- Financial Markets (2)
- Hawkes processes (2)
- High-Frequency Traders (HFTs) (2)
- Liquidity (2)
- Liquidity provision (2)
- Margin (2)
- Non-performing Loans (2)
- Price Discovery (2)
- Regulation (2)
- Sovereign Risk (2)
- Systematic Risk (2)
- Systemic Risk (2)
- banking (2)
- competition (2)
- corporate finance (2)
- credit scoring (2)
- probability of default (2)
- public debt (2)
- small and medium enterprises (2)
- Adverse Selection (1)
- Asset Allocation (1)
- Asset Liquidation (1)
- Asset Management Companies (1)
- Auditing (1)
- BRRD (1)
- Bailin (1)
- Bailout (1)
- Bank Bailout (1)
- Bank Capital (1)
- Bank Capitalization (1)
- Bank Recapitalization (1)
- Bank Resolution (1)
- Banking Union (1)
- Board Appointments (1)
- Business Cycle (1)
- CAPM (1)
- CCP (1)
- CDS (1)
- CMU (1)
- Capital Purchase Program (1)
- Central Counterparty Clearing House (CCP) (1)
- Central counterparty clearing house (CCP) (1)
- Centrality (1)
- Collateral Policy (1)
- Collateral policy (1)
- Comovements (1)
- Contagion (1)
- Corporate Debt Structure (1)
- Corporate bonds (1)
- Credit Default Swap (CDS) (1)
- Credit default swap (CDS) (1)
- Derivate (1)
- Designated Market Makers (DMMs) Market Making (1)
- Dictionary (1)
- Disclosure (1)
- Disintegration (1)
- Dividend Payments (1)
- ECB (1)
- ESG (1)
- ESG Investing (1)
- ESG rating agencies (1)
- ESG ratings (1)
- Energy Efficiency (1)
- Environmental, social, and governance factors (ESG) (1)
- Equity fund (1)
- Euro-zone Government Bonds (1)
- European Central Bank (ECB) (1)
- Feedback (1)
- Financial Crises (1)
- Financial stability (1)
- Fiscal Capacity (1)
- Fixed Income (1)
- Fixed-Income (1)
- Flash Crash (1)
- Flash crash (1)
- Forbearance (1)
- Frictions (1)
- High Frequency Data (1)
- High-Frequency Trading (HFT) (1)
- High-Level-Forum (1)
- High-frequency event study (1)
- Hybrid Markets (1)
- Impulse-response (1)
- Information Frictions (1)
- Insurance Companies (1)
- Interbank Markets (1)
- Interconnectedness (1)
- Interdealer Brokerage (1)
- Interim Report (1)
- Internal Controls (1)
- International Finance (1)
- Investor Protection (1)
- Investor sentiment (1)
- Jumps (1)
- Kontrahentenrisiko (1)
- LSTM neural networks (1)
- Leverage (1)
- Limits to Arbitrage (1)
- Liquidity Coinsurance (1)
- Low-emission vehicles (1)
- MTS Bond Market (1)
- Machine learning (1)
- Market Fragility (1)
- Market Integrity (1)
- Market Liquidity (1)
- Market Microstructure (1)
- Market Oversight (1)
- Market efficiency (1)
- Market fragility (1)
- Mitigation (1)
- Money Market (1)
- Mortgages (1)
- Mundellian trilemma (1)
- Mutually exciting processes (1)
- NLP (1)
- Network theory (1)
- OTC Markets (1)
- OTC derivatives (1)
- OTC-Märkte (1)
- Opening Auction (1)
- Opening Call Auction (1)
- P2P lending (1)
- Policy measures in the EU (1)
- Portfolio Management (1)
- Portfolio choice (1)
- Pre-Opening (1)
- Proprietary Trading (1)
- Public financial news (1)
- Quantitative Easing (1)
- Quantitative easing (1)
- Repo Specialness (1)
- Retail Challenge (1)
- Risk Pooling (1)
- Risk sharing (1)
- Russian Sanction (1)
- S&P 500 (1)
- SFDR (1)
- SIFI (1)
- SWIFT (1)
- Search Frictions (1)
- Secondary Loan Markets (1)
- Securitisation (1)
- Securitization (1)
- Sentiment Analysis (1)
- Sentiment analysis (1)
- Sicherheitenmarge (1)
- Similarity (1)
- Slow-Moving Capital (1)
- Slow-moving capital (1)
- Social media (1)
- Socially responsible investing (1)
- Sovereign (1)
- Sovereign CDS (1)
- Sovereign credit risk (1)
- Sovereign risk (1)
- Stock Markets (1)
- Stock market (1)
- Stock markets (1)
- Supervisory Achitecture (1)
- Sustainabilty (1)
- Systematisches Risiko (1)
- Systemic risk (1)
- TARP (1)
- Taxonomie (1)
- Term Structure of Interest Rates (1)
- Transparency (1)
- Twitter (1)
- Unconventional Monetary policy (1)
- Venue Choice (1)
- Verlustbeteiligung (1)
- Wirecard (1)
- WpHG (1)
- Zentrales Clearing (1)
- asset-backed securities (1)
- assetbacked securities (1)
- bank lending (1)
- central counterparties (1)
- conventional monetary policy (1)
- credit risk (1)
- debt cost (1)
- derivatives (1)
- distress (1)
- equity (1)
- equity cost (1)
- event study (1)
- financial market data (1)
- financial market regulation (1)
- financial market supervision (1)
- flash crashes (1)
- fragmentation (1)
- hedging (1)
- high-frequency data (1)
- high-frequency traders (HFTs) (1)
- insurance industry (1)
- interconnections (1)
- interest rate risk (1)
- liquidity (1)
- liquidity provision (1)
- losses (1)
- market making (1)
- micro data transparency (1)
- monetary policy surprise (1)
- network (1)
- network analysis (1)
- pandemics (1)
- policy measures in the EU (1)
- portfolio management (1)
- recapitalization (1)
- resiliency (1)
- risk management (1)
- risk sharing (1)
- sovereign bonds (1)
- strategies (1)
- sustainable investments (1)
- systematic risk (1)
- systemic risk (1)
- unconventional monetary policy (1)
- volatility (1)
We employ a representative sample of 80,972 Italian firms to forecast the drop in profits and the equity shortfall triggered by the COVID-19 lockdown. A 3-month lockdown generates an aggregate yearly drop in profits of about 10% of GDP, and 17% of sample firms, which employ 8.8% of the sample’s employees, become financially distressed. Distress is more frequent for small and medium-sized enterprises, for firms with high pre-COVID-19 leverage, and for firms belonging to the Manufacturing and Wholesale Trading sectors. Listed companies are less likely to enter distress, whereas the correlation between distress rates and family firm ownership is unclear.
(JEL G01, G32, G33)
We analyze the ESG rating criteria used by prominent agencies and show that there is a lack of a commonality in the definition of ESG (i) characteristics, (ii) attributes and (iii) standards in defining E, S and G components. We provide evidence that heterogeneity in rating criteria can lead agencies to have opposite opinions on the same evaluated companies and that agreement across those providers is substantially low. Those alternative definitions of ESG also a↵ect sustainable investments leading to the identification of di↵erent investment universes and consequently to the creation of di↵erent benchmarks. This implies that in the asset management industry it is extremely dicult to measure the ability of a fund manager if financial performances are strongly conditioned by the chosen ESG benchmark. Finally, we find that the disagreement in the scores provided by the rating agencies disperses the e↵ect of preferences of ESG investors on asset prices, to the point that even when there is agreement, it has no impact on financial performances.
We show that FED policy announcements lead to a significant increase in international comovements in the cross-section of equity and in particular sovereign CDS markets. The relaxation of unconventionary monetary policies is felt strongly by emerging markets, and by countries that are open to the trading of goods and flows, even in the presence of floating exchange rates. It also impacts closed economies whose currencies are pegged to the dollar. This evidence is consistent with recent theories of a global financial cycle and the pricing of a FED’s put. In contrast, ECB announcements hardly affect comovements, even in the Eurozone.
The European Commission is trying to reboot the CMU project: The High-Level Forum on Capital Markets Union – a group of 28 selected experts from industry, academia and civil society – is expected to submit policy recommendations by the end of May 2020 which will feed into the Commission’s new CMU agenda. This contribution is largely based on a letter to the High-Level Forum that gives feedback on the Interim Report published in February. There, we introduce a comprehensive approach to distinguish, from a functional finance perspective, between the ‘game changers’ and what is nice to have. We highlight the importance of common and consistent supervisory practices across Member States and recommend building up a European Securities and Exchange Commission (E-SEC) according to the American model.
We study how the Eurosystem Collateral Framework for corporate bonds helps the European Central Bank (ECB) fulfill its policy mandate. Using the ECBs eligibility list, we identify the first inclusion date of both bonds and issuers. We find that due to the increased supply and demand for pledgeable collateral following eligibility, (i) securities lending market trading activity increases, (ii) eligible bonds have lower yields, and (iii) the liquidity of newly-issued bonds declines, whereas the liquidity of older bonds is unaffected/improves. Corporate bond lending relaxes the constraint of limited collateral supply, thereby making the market more cohesive and complete. Following eligibility, bond-issuing firms reduce bank debt and expand corporate bond issuance, thus increasing overall debt size and extending maturity.
This Policy Letter presents a proposal for designing a program of government assistance for firms hurt by the Coronavirus crisis in the European Union (EU). In our recent Policy Letter 81, we introduced a new, equity-type instrument, a cash-against-tax surcharge scheme, bundled across firms and countries in a European Pandemic Equity Fund (EPEF). The present Policy Letter 84 focuses on the principles and conditions relevant for the operationalization of a EPEF. Our proposal has several desirable features. It: a) offers better risk sharing opportunities, augmenting the resilience of businesses and EU economies; b) is need-based, thereby contributing to an effective use of resources; c) builds on conditions and credible controls, addressing adverse selection and moral hazard; d) is accessible to smaller and medium-sized firms, the backbone of Europe’s economy; e) applies Europe-wide uniform eligibility criteria, strengthening support among member states; f) is a scheme of limited duration, reducing (perceived) government interference in businesses; g) creates a template for a growth-oriented public policy, aligning public and private sector interests; and h) builds on the existing institutional infrastructure and requires minimal legislative adjustments.