Suchergebnisse

Acknowledging the role of different forms of entrepreneurship to continued economic prosper-ity and the role of institutional dimensions on entrepreneurship, this paper investigates if and to what extent a selected number of institutional dimensions influence students' intentions to ei-ther start a company or take over an existing one. Based on a Global University Entrepreneurial Spirit Students' Survey (GUESS) dataset and international country-level databases, evidence shows that both entrepreneurship options are hampered by corruption and limited business freedom while promoted through favourable labour regulations and trade freedom. Property rights, fiscal freedom, government spending, monetary freedom, and investment freedom only affect start-ups, while financial freedom adversely affects both options. The study provides new insight into the impact of institutional dimensions on different types of entrepreneurship. Thus, in contrast to extant research in this area, it goes beyond the typical focus on start-ups. Evidence also suggests that male students prefer starting a new company, while female students seem to prefer a takeover. This improved understanding could help in not only designing more targeted entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial financing policies but also in improving entrepreneurship education.

We investigate how bank charter value affects risk for a sample of OECD banks by using standalone and systemic risk measures before, during, and after the global financial crisis of 2007-2008. Prior to the crisis, bank charter value is positively associated with risk-taking and systemic risk for very large " too-big-too-fail " banks and large U.S. and European banks but such a relationship is inverted during and after the crisis. A deeper investigation shows that such a behavior before the crisis is mostly relevant for very large banks and large banks with high growth strategies. Banks' business models also influence this relationship. In presence of strong diversification strategies, higher charter value increases standalone risk for very large banks. Conversely, for banks following a focus strategy, higher charter value amplifies systemic risk for very large banks and both standalone and systemic risk for large U.S. and European banks. Our findings have important policy implications and cast doubts on the relevance of the uniform more stringent capital requirements introduced by Basel III.

We investigate how bank charter value affects risk for a sample of OECD banks by using standalone and systemic risk measures before, during, and after the global financial crisis of 2007-2008. Prior to the crisis, bank charter value is positively associated with risk-taking and systemic risk for very large " too-big-too-fail " banks and large U.S. and European banks but such a relationship is inverted during and after the crisis. A deeper investigation shows that such a behavior before the crisis is mostly relevant for very large banks and large banks with high growth strategies. Banks' business models also influence this relationship. In presence of strong diversification strategies, higher charter value increases standalone risk for very large banks. Conversely, for banks following a focus strategy, higher charter value amplifies systemic risk for very large banks and both standalone and systemic risk for large U.S. and European banks. Our findings have important policy implications and cast doubts on the relevance of the uniform more stringent capital requirements introduced by Basel III.

Frictions prevent banks to immediately adjust their capital ratio towards their desired and/or imposed level. This paper analyzes (i) whether or not these frictions are larger for regulatory capital ratios vis-à-vis a plain leverage ratio; (ii) which adjustment channels banks use to adjust their capital ratio; and (iii) how the speed of adjustment and adjustment channels differ between large, systemic and complex banks versus small banks. Our results, obtained using a sample of listed banks across OECD countries for the 2001-2012 period, bear critical policy implications for the implementation of new (systemic risk-based) capital requirements and their impact on banks' balance sheets.

Frictions prevent banks to immediately adjust their capital ratio towards their desired and/or imposed level. This paper analyzes (i) whether or not these frictions are larger for regulatory capital ratios vis-à-vis a plain leverage ratio; (ii) which adjustment channels banks use to adjust their capital ratio; and (iii) how the speed of adjustment and adjustment channels differ between large, systemic and complex banks versus small banks. Our results, obtained using a sample of listed banks across OECD countries for the 2001-2012 period, bear critical policy implications for the implementation of new (systemic risk-based) capital requirements and their impact on banks' balance sheets.