Search results

Although the world of banking and finance is becoming more integrated every day, in most aspects the world of financial regulation continues to be narrowly defined by national boundaries. The main players here are still national governments and governmental agencies. And until recently, they tended to follow a policy of shielding their activities from scrutiny by their peers and members of the academic community rather than inviting critical assessments and an exchange of ideas. The turbulence in international financial markets in the 1980s, and its impact on U.S. banks, gave rise to the notion that academics working in the field of banking and financial regulation might be in a position to make a contribution to the improvement of regulation in the United States, and thus ultimately to the stability of the entire financial sector. This provided the impetus for the creation of the "U.S. Shadow Financial Regulatory Committee". In the meantime, similar shadow committees have been founded in Europe and Japan. The specific problems associated with financial regulation in Europe, as well as the specific features which distinguish the European Shadow Financial Regulatory Committee from its counterparts in the U.S. and Japan, derive from the fact that while Europe has already made substantial progress towards economic and political integration, it is still primarily a collection of distinct nation-states with differing institutional set-ups and political and economic traditions. Therefore, any attempt to work towards a European approach to financial regulation must include an effort to promote the development of a European culture of co-operation in this area, and this is precisely what the European Shadow Financial Regulatory Committee (ESFRC) seeks to do. In this paper, Harald Benink, chairman of the ESFRC, and Reinhard H. Schmidt, one of the two German members, discuss the origin, the objectives and the functioning of the committee and the thrust of its recommendations.

Although the world of banking and finance is becoming more integrated every day, in most aspects the world of financial regulation continues to be narrowly defined by national boundaries. The main players here are still national governments and governmental agencies. And until recently, they tended to follow a policy of shielding their activities from scrutiny by their peers and members of the academic community rather than inviting critical assessments and an exchange of ideas. The turbulence in international financial markets in the 1980s, and its impact on U.S. banks, gave rise to the notion that academics working in the field of banking and financial regulation might be in a position to make a contribution to the improvement of regulation in the United States, and thus ultimately to the stability of the entire financial sector. This provided the impetus for the creation of the "U.S. Shadow Financial Regulatory Committee". In the meantime, similar shadow committees have been founded in Europe and Japan. The specific problems associated with financial regulation in Europe, as well as the specific features which distinguish the European Shadow Financial Regulatory Committee from its counterparts in the U.S. and Japan, derive from the fact that while Europe has already made substantial progress towards economic and political integration, it is still primarily a collection of distinct nation-states with differing institutional set-ups and political and economic traditions. Therefore, any attempt to work towards a European approach to financial regulation must include an effort to promote the development of a European culture of co-operation in this area, and this is precisely what the European Shadow Financial Regulatory Committee (ESFRC) seeks to do. In this paper, Harald Benink, chairman of the ESFRC, and Reinhard H. Schmidt, one of the two German members, discuss the origin, the objectives and the functioning of the committee and the thrust of its recommendations.

Utilizando una muestra de bancos cotizados de Estados Unidos, Europa, Japón y China durante el período 2004-2014, los autores analizan el impacto que el nuevo marco de regulación prudencial aprobado en el G-20 tras la gran crisis financiera tiene sobre el riesgo bancario. El riesgo se mide en función de la volatilidad de la cotización de los bancos. Los autores analizan también cómo influyeron las recapitalizaciones públicas durante la crisis así como la designación de G-SIB (banco de importancia sistémica global). Se llega a la conclusión de que hay evidencia que demuestra el impacto positivo que la designación de G-SIB tiene sobre el riesgo. No hay evidencia de una relación negativa entre riesgo y capitalización pública y sí de la relación positiva entre riesgo y actividad de negociación de valores. Los niveles de capital más altos reducen el riesgo, mientras que la liquidez no afecta de manera significativa al riesgo ; Using international listed banks from the United States, Europe, Japan and China from 2004 to 2014, we analyse the effect on bank risk of some of the most relevant new elements of the prudential regulatory framework proposed in the wake of the Great Financial Crisis. We measure risk by a market measure, namely the volatility of banks' stock returns. We also examine the effect of government support during the financial crisis and of designation as a G-SIB. We find little support for an association with government support and none for a negative relationship. We find support for a positive effect of designation as a G-SIB on risk. We find a positive association with securities trading and a negative association with capital. Banks' chosen liquidity is unimportant for this measure of risk

AbstractCongress imposes statutory deadlines in an attempt to influence agency regulatory agendas, but agencies regularly fail to meet them. What explains agency responsiveness to statutory deadlines? Taking a transaction cost politics approach, the authors develop a theory of responsiveness to deadlines centered on political feasibility to explain how agency managers map rulemaking onto calendar and political time. This theory is tested on all unique rules with statutory deadlines published in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions between 1995 and 2012. The argument and findings about the timing and ultimate promulgation of rules have implications that reorient the study of the regulatory agenda from legal and political into more managerial terms.

AbstractRetraction: Anthony M. Bertelli, Kathleen M. Doherty, "Setting the Regulatory Agenda: Statutory Deadlines and the Conditions for Compliance, (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/puar.13057)." This article from Public Administration Review, published online on April 30, 2019 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com), has been retracted by agreement between the journal's Editors‐in‐chief, R. Paul Battaglio and Jeremy L. Hall, the authors, and Wiley Periodicals, Inc. This action has been agreed due to an error which caused an incorrect version of the manuscript to be published. The correct version of the article is forthcoming.

At their very first summit in Washington in November 2008, the G20 leaders placed the reform of international financial regulation at the core of their agenda. The issue has retained a central place in discussions and communiqués at every subsequent meeting. It has been remarkable to see heads of state commit such detailed attention in their communiqués to a topic which has historically been the more obscure preserve of technocratic officials. Equally striking has been the fact that policymakers have looked beyond the immediate task of managing the crisis to focus on this more forward-looking agenda to prevent future crises. It took more than a decade after the crisis of the early 1930s for political leaders to agree at the 1944 Bretton Woods conference on international financial reforms designed to prevent a repetition of that economic calamity. This time around, the crisis has been used as an immediate catalyst for reform. But what have the G20 leaders actually accomplished so far in this field? There is no question that they have successfully negotiated more initiatives in this area than in any other, initiatives that are aimed at reforming both the content and the governance of international financial regulation. While the breadth of these reforms has been impressive, they also suffer from some important limitations. Despite the scale of the crisis, the reforms have been much more incremental than radical. Their implementation has also been slow and uneven, and some important issues have been neglected entirely. As we have entered a new phase of financial instability unleashed by the eurozone's difficulties, these limitations have become increasingly evident, with political consequences that are very difficult to predict.