Although people are a very important asset for financial firms, they are a key source of risk. Banks must allocate regulatory capital for covering their people-risk exposure. By using the Algo OpDataTM data set from US banks, and based on the loss distribution approach, we first estimate people-value-at-risk (people-VaR), assuming perfect correlation among people-risk categories but nonperfect dependence, for which the multivariate fast Fourier transformation is proposed. The diversified people-VaR is provided as a key indicator of an efficient capital allocation, and the traditional risk-adjusted return on capital measure is then readapted to evaluate the people-risk-adjusted performance.
{"title":"Toward an Efficient People-Risk Capital Allocation for Financial Firms: Evidence from US Banks","authors":"J. Feria‐Dominguez, Enrique Jiménez-Rodríguez","doi":"10.21314/JOP.2017.198","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21314/JOP.2017.198","url":null,"abstract":"Although people are a very important asset for financial firms, they are a key source of risk. Banks must allocate regulatory capital for covering their people-risk exposure. By using the Algo OpDataTM data set from US banks, and based on the loss distribution approach, we first estimate people-value-at-risk (people-VaR), assuming perfect correlation among people-risk categories but nonperfect dependence, for which the multivariate fast Fourier transformation is proposed. The diversified people-VaR is provided as a key indicator of an efficient capital allocation, and the traditional risk-adjusted return on capital measure is then readapted to evaluate the people-risk-adjusted performance.","PeriodicalId":376194,"journal":{"name":"ERN: Regulation & Supervision (Topic)","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-03-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129399068","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Greg Buchak, Gregor Matvos, T. Piskorski, Amit Seru
Shadow bank market share in residential mortgage origination nearly doubled from 2007 to 2015, with particularly dramatic growth among online “fintech” lenders. We study how two forces, regulatory differences and technological advantages, contributed to this growth. Difference in difference tests exploiting geographical heterogeneity induced by four specific increases in regulatory burden–capital requirements, mortgage servicing rights, mortgage-related lawsuits, and the movement of supervision to Office of Comptroller and Currency following closure of the Office of Thrift Supervision–all reveal that traditional banks contracted in markets where they faced more regulatory constraints; shadow banks partially filled these gaps. Relative to other shadow banks, fintech lenders serve more creditworthy borrowers and are more active in the refinancing market. Fintech lenders charge a premium of 14–16 basis points and appear to provide convenience rather than cost savings to borrowers. They seem to use different information to set interest rates relative to other lenders. A quantitative model of mortgage lending suggests that regulation accounts for roughly 60% of shadow bank growth, while technology accounts for roughly 30%.
{"title":"Fintech, Regulatory Arbitrage, and the Rise of Shadow Banks","authors":"Greg Buchak, Gregor Matvos, T. Piskorski, Amit Seru","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2941561","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2941561","url":null,"abstract":"Shadow bank market share in residential mortgage origination nearly doubled from 2007 to 2015, with particularly dramatic growth among online “fintech” lenders. We study how two forces, regulatory differences and technological advantages, contributed to this growth. Difference in difference tests exploiting geographical heterogeneity induced by four specific increases in regulatory burden–capital requirements, mortgage servicing rights, mortgage-related lawsuits, and the movement of supervision to Office of Comptroller and Currency following closure of the Office of Thrift Supervision–all reveal that traditional banks contracted in markets where they faced more regulatory constraints; shadow banks partially filled these gaps. Relative to other shadow banks, fintech lenders serve more creditworthy borrowers and are more active in the refinancing market. Fintech lenders charge a premium of 14–16 basis points and appear to provide convenience rather than cost savings to borrowers. They seem to use different information to set interest rates relative to other lenders. A quantitative model of mortgage lending suggests that regulation accounts for roughly 60% of shadow bank growth, while technology accounts for roughly 30%.","PeriodicalId":376194,"journal":{"name":"ERN: Regulation & Supervision (Topic)","volume":"52 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129940944","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Jinho Lee, Hyun-Dam Jung, Kang Baek, Young Seog Park
Korean Abstract: 본 논문은 2004년 ~ 2011년 국내 예금액(자) 분포 자료를 활용하여 부보금융회사의 고액예금자에 의한 시장규율을 확인하고 2001년 이후 5천만원으로 유지되고 있는 예금보호한도의 적정성을 논의하였다. 특히 은행업권에 한정되어 있는 기존 국내연구들과 달리 본 논문은 5천만원의 예금보호한도가 일괄 적용되고 있는 전체 금융업권의 시장규율을 실증분석을 통해 확인하였다. 분석결과, 첫째, 금융기관의 위험추구행위에 대해 예금자의 시장규율을 부분적으로 확인할 수 있었다. 은행과 상호저축은행의 고액예금자는 금융기관의 위험추구행위에 크게 민감하지 않은 것으로 나타난 반면, 증권사는 자본적정성 지표에, 생명보험사와 손해보험사는 각각 자본적정성 지표와 수익성 지표에, 종합금융회사는 자본적정성 지표와 건전성 지표에 민감하게 반응하였다. 둘째, 금융권역별 예금자의 시장규율을 반영하여 현행 예금보호한도를 조정한다면, 증권사와 종합금융회사의 경우 상향 조정하는 방안을 검토할 수 있을 것으로 판단된다. 은행, 생명보험 및 손해보험, 상호저축은행의 경우 현행 예금보호한도의 조정은 불필요한 것으로 보인다. 요컨대, 본고의 실증분석결과는 최근 도입된 차등보험료율제를 지지하는 결과로서, 국내외 관련 정책입안자에게 시의적절한 시사점을 제공할 것으로 기대된다. English Abstract: This study confirmed the market discipline of large depositors in each financial sector and discussed the adequacy of the current deposit insurance coverage using the deposit amount (depositors) distribution data during the period of 2004-2011 in Korea. The empirical results are as follows. First, the depositor’s market discipline was partially confirmed with regard to the risk-taking behavior of financial institutions. Whereas large depositors of banks and mutual saving banks were less sensitive to the risk-taking behavior of financial institutions, large depositors in other financial sectors were more sensitive to it, e.g. capital adequacy in securities firms, capital adequacy in life insurance companies, profitability in non-life insurance companies, and capital adequacy and prudential in merchant banking corporations. Second, if necessary, raising the coverage in securities firms and merchant banking corporations, but not in banks, life and non-life insurance companies and mutual saving banks should be considered. In short, the results of this study support the recently introduced risk-based premium system. So We expect that these will contribute to design the timely policy orientations of the domestic and international financial supervisory authorities.
Korean Abstract:本论文利用2004年~ 2011年国内存款额(子)分布资料，确认了附保金融公司的高额存款人的市场规律，讨论了2001年以后维持在5千万韩元的存款保护限度的适当性。与局限于银行业的现有研究不同，本论文通过实证分析确认了全部适用5千万韩元存款保护限度的金融行业的市场规律。分析结果表明，第一，对于金融机构的风险追求行为，可以部分确认存款人的市场规律。银行和相互储蓄银行的高额存款金融机构的风险追求行为大大不敏感的出现,而证券公司资本适当性指标,生命保险公司和损害保险公司分别是资本适当性指标和效益指标,综合性金融资本适当性指标和健全性指标反应敏感。第二，如果根据金融圈域不同存款人的市场规律调整现行存款保护限度，证券公司和综合金融公司可以讨论上调的方案。以银行、生命保险及损害保险、相互储蓄银行为例，似乎没有必要调整现行的存款保护限度。总之，本文的实证分析结果是支持最近引入的差别保险费率制的结果，有望为国内外相关政策立案者提供符合时宜的启示。english abstract:This study confirmed the market discipline of large depositors in each financial sector and discussed the adequacy of the current deposit insurance coverage using the deposit amount (depositors)distribution data during the period of 2004-2011 in Korea。The empirical results are as follows。First, the depositor ' s market discipline was partially confirmed with regard to the risk-taking behavior of financial institutions。Whereas large depositors of banks and mutual saving banks were less sensitive to the risk-taking behavior of financial institutions;large depositors in other financial sectors were more sensitive to it, e.g. capital adequacy in securities firms, capital adequacy in life insurance companies;profitability in non-life insurance companies, and capital adequacy and prudential in merchant banking corporations。Second, if necessary, raising the coverage in securities firms and merchant banking corporations, but not in banks, life and non-life insurance companies and mutual saving banks should be considered。In short, the results of this study support the recently introduced risk-based premium system。So We expect that these will contribute to design the timely policy orientations of the domestic and international financial supervisory authorities。
{"title":"예금보호한도와 시장규율에 관한 연구 (A Study on Deposit Insurance Coverage and Market Discipline)","authors":"Jinho Lee, Hyun-Dam Jung, Kang Baek, Young Seog Park","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3085496","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3085496","url":null,"abstract":"<b>Korean Abstract:</b> 본 논문은 2004년 ~ 2011년 국내 예금액(자) 분포 자료를 활용하여 부보금융회사의 고액예금자에 의한 시장규율을 확인하고 2001년 이후 5천만원으로 유지되고 있는 예금보호한도의 적정성을 논의하였다. 특히 은행업권에 한정되어 있는 기존 국내연구들과 달리 본 논문은 5천만원의 예금보호한도가 일괄 적용되고 있는 전체 금융업권의 시장규율을 실증분석을 통해 확인하였다. 분석결과, 첫째, 금융기관의 위험추구행위에 대해 예금자의 시장규율을 부분적으로 확인할 수 있었다. 은행과 상호저축은행의 고액예금자는 금융기관의 위험추구행위에 크게 민감하지 않은 것으로 나타난 반면, 증권사는 자본적정성 지표에, 생명보험사와 손해보험사는 각각 자본적정성 지표와 수익성 지표에, 종합금융회사는 자본적정성 지표와 건전성 지표에 민감하게 반응하였다. 둘째, 금융권역별 예금자의 시장규율을 반영하여 현행 예금보호한도를 조정한다면, 증권사와 종합금융회사의 경우 상향 조정하는 방안을 검토할 수 있을 것으로 판단된다. 은행, 생명보험 및 손해보험, 상호저축은행의 경우 현행 예금보호한도의 조정은 불필요한 것으로 보인다. 요컨대, 본고의 실증분석결과는 최근 도입된 차등보험료율제를 지지하는 결과로서, 국내외 관련 정책입안자에게 시의적절한 시사점을 제공할 것으로 기대된다. <b>English Abstract:</b> This study confirmed the market discipline of large depositors in each financial sector and discussed the adequacy of the current deposit insurance coverage using the deposit amount (depositors) distribution data during the period of 2004-2011 in Korea. The empirical results are as follows. First, the depositor’s market discipline was partially confirmed with regard to the risk-taking behavior of financial institutions. Whereas large depositors of banks and mutual saving banks were less sensitive to the risk-taking behavior of financial institutions, large depositors in other financial sectors were more sensitive to it, e.g. capital adequacy in securities firms, capital adequacy in life insurance companies, profitability in non-life insurance companies, and capital adequacy and prudential in merchant banking corporations. Second, if necessary, raising the coverage in securities firms and merchant banking corporations, but not in banks, life and non-life insurance companies and mutual saving banks should be considered. In short, the results of this study support the recently introduced risk-based premium system. So We expect that these will contribute to design the timely policy orientations of the domestic and international financial supervisory authorities.","PeriodicalId":376194,"journal":{"name":"ERN: Regulation & Supervision (Topic)","volume":"83 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133665189","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Dodd-Frank is a sprawling law, many pieces of which are unrelated to any financial crisis — past or future. What unifies the disparate pieces is an unquestioning faith in regulatory omniscience and broad grants of power to these infallible regulators. The law calls on regulators to step in where the rest of us — individuals, firms, and nongovernmental institutions — are supposedly destined to fail, namely, to identify and address all systemic and a wide array of nonsystemic risks. In giving such heavy responsibilities to regulators, Dodd-Frank’s drafters overlooked the fact that precrisis regulators missed risks and that precrisis regulatory design contributed to the buildup of risk. By giving regulators an outsized role, Dodd-Frank suppresses the market’s intrinsic disciplining mechanisms and builds bailout expectations. Revisiting Dodd-Frank thus requires a marked change in perspective — a shift away from the comforting but ineffective “entrust the financial system to the skilled hands of the all-knowing regulators” approach to financial regulation, as well as a piece-by-piece substantive overhaul.
{"title":"Revisiting Dodd-Frank","authors":"Hester M. Peirce","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2935107","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2935107","url":null,"abstract":"Dodd-Frank is a sprawling law, many pieces of which are unrelated to any financial crisis — past or future. What unifies the disparate pieces is an unquestioning faith in regulatory omniscience and broad grants of power to these infallible regulators. The law calls on regulators to step in where the rest of us — individuals, firms, and nongovernmental institutions — are supposedly destined to fail, namely, to identify and address all systemic and a wide array of nonsystemic risks. In giving such heavy responsibilities to regulators, Dodd-Frank’s drafters overlooked the fact that precrisis regulators missed risks and that precrisis regulatory design contributed to the buildup of risk. By giving regulators an outsized role, Dodd-Frank suppresses the market’s intrinsic disciplining mechanisms and builds bailout expectations. Revisiting Dodd-Frank thus requires a marked change in perspective — a shift away from the comforting but ineffective “entrust the financial system to the skilled hands of the all-knowing regulators” approach to financial regulation, as well as a piece-by-piece substantive overhaul.","PeriodicalId":376194,"journal":{"name":"ERN: Regulation & Supervision (Topic)","volume":"28 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-02-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128202539","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Credit ratings issued by credit rating agencies regulated in Hong Kong are serviceable in the European Union (EU) because Hong Kong is recognized for these purposes as an equivalent jurisdiction. The perimeter of Hong Kong’s credit rating regime has recently come under the scrutiny of the Securities and Futures Appeals Tribunal, which has established important boundary lines impacting on the authorization, supervision and enforcement of the credit rating industry in Hong Kong. This article analyzes the case and identifies four elements central to it, namely, the information-based, document-based and act-based perimeters of the Hong Kong regime as well as its primary regulatory objective. It is suggested that the Tribunal’s approach to these elements may represent a material departure of Hong Kong’s legal and supervisory framework from the regime in the EU that could adversely affect Hong Kong’s standing as an equivalent jurisdiction.
{"title":"Does Hong Kong Remain an Equivalent Jurisdiction for the EU Credit Rating Regime?","authors":"S. Johnstone","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2949585","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2949585","url":null,"abstract":"Credit ratings issued by credit rating agencies regulated in Hong Kong are serviceable in the European Union (EU) because Hong Kong is recognized for these purposes as an equivalent jurisdiction. The perimeter of Hong Kong’s credit rating regime has recently come under the scrutiny of the Securities and Futures Appeals Tribunal, which has established important boundary lines impacting on the authorization, supervision and enforcement of the credit rating industry in Hong Kong. This article analyzes the case and identifies four elements central to it, namely, the information-based, document-based and act-based perimeters of the Hong Kong regime as well as its primary regulatory objective. It is suggested that the Tribunal’s approach to these elements may represent a material departure of Hong Kong’s legal and supervisory framework from the regime in the EU that could adversely affect Hong Kong’s standing as an equivalent jurisdiction.","PeriodicalId":376194,"journal":{"name":"ERN: Regulation & Supervision (Topic)","volume":"2016 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134402256","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The clearing of over-the-counter transactions through central counterparties (CCPs), one of the pillars of financial reform following the crisis of 2007-2008, has promoted CCPs as key elements of the new global financial architecture. It is important to examine how these reforms have affected risks in the financial system and whether central clearing has attained the initial objective of the reform, which is to enhance financial stability and reduce systemic risk. We show that, rather than eliminating counterparty risk, central clearing transforms it into liquidity risk: margin calls transform accounting losses into realised losses which affect the liquidity buffers of clearing members. Accordingly, initial margin and default fund calculations should account for this liquidity risk in a realistic manner, especially for large positions. While recent discussions have centred on the solvency of CCPs, their capital and 'skin-in-the-game' and capital requirements for CCP exposures of banks, we argue that these issues are secondary and that the main focus of risk management and financial stability analysis should be on the liquidity of clearing members and the liquidity resources of CCPs. Clearing members should assess their exposure to CCPs in terms of liquidity, rather than counterparty risk. Stress tests involving CCPs should focus on liquidity stress testing and adequacy of liquidity resources.
{"title":"Central Clearing and Risk Transformation","authors":"R. Cont","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2955647","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2955647","url":null,"abstract":"The clearing of over-the-counter transactions through central counterparties (CCPs), one of the pillars of financial reform following the crisis of 2007-2008, has promoted CCPs as key elements of the new global financial architecture. It is important to examine how these reforms have affected risks in the financial system and whether central clearing has attained the initial objective of the reform, which is to enhance financial stability and reduce systemic risk. We show that, rather than eliminating counterparty risk, central clearing transforms it into liquidity risk: margin calls transform accounting losses into realised losses which affect the liquidity buffers of clearing members. Accordingly, initial margin and default fund calculations should account for this liquidity risk in a realistic manner, especially for large positions. While recent discussions have centred on the solvency of CCPs, their capital and 'skin-in-the-game' and capital requirements for CCP exposures of banks, we argue that these issues are secondary and that the main focus of risk management and financial stability analysis should be on the liquidity of clearing members and the liquidity resources of CCPs. Clearing members should assess their exposure to CCPs in terms of liquidity, rather than counterparty risk. Stress tests involving CCPs should focus on liquidity stress testing and adequacy of liquidity resources.","PeriodicalId":376194,"journal":{"name":"ERN: Regulation & Supervision (Topic)","volume":"42 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115969232","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper presents the main challenges currently facing China’s financial supervisory authority and the supervisory response to these challenges, focusing on the shadow banking system and Digital Finance. The author seeks to find out what reforms were introduced and what tools were applied in the realm of supervision in the recent period, what results they have yielded and whether any further reform is necessary to improve the efficiency of Chinese financial supervision, and if so, in what area(s). This paper focuses on the activities and toolset of the CBRC, the main financial supervisory body, and also covers the relevant tasks discharged by the PBC.
{"title":"Current Challenges Facing Chinese Financial Supervision and Methods of Handling These Challenges","authors":"B. Varga","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2990415","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2990415","url":null,"abstract":"This paper presents the main challenges currently facing China’s financial supervisory authority and the supervisory response to these challenges, focusing on the shadow banking system and Digital Finance. The author seeks to find out what reforms were introduced and what tools were applied in the realm of supervision in the recent period, what results they have yielded and whether any further reform is necessary to improve the efficiency of Chinese financial supervision, and if so, in what area(s). This paper focuses on the activities and toolset of the CBRC, the main financial supervisory body, and also covers the relevant tasks discharged by the PBC.","PeriodicalId":376194,"journal":{"name":"ERN: Regulation & Supervision (Topic)","volume":"102 10 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129508362","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Bulgarian Abstract: [Статия представя две български институции в съвместната им работа и желанието им противодействие с някои финансови нередности. Целта, поставена преди статията, е свързана с възможността да се докаже, че националната сигурност, тълкувана като причина, би могла да бъде мотив за подобряване на институционалното взаимодействие, от една страна, а от друга, че консолидиращите сили създават условия за постигане на по-добри резултати във всяка област.] English Abstract: This following article presents a pair of Bulgarian institutions in their joint work and the desire to counteract certain financial irregularities. The goal set before the article is related to the opportunity to prove that the national safety interpreted as a cause could be a motive for improving institutional interaction on the one hand and on the other that consolidating forces create conditions for achieving better results in every field.
{"title":"[ЕКИПНАТА ИНСТИТУЦИОНАЛНА РАБОТА- ВЪЗМОЖНОСТ ЗА УСЪВЪРШЕНСТВАНЕ НА ФИНАНСОВИЯ КОНТРОЛ] (Institutional Team Work – Opportunity for Improvement of Financial Control)","authors":"V. Terziev, E. Stoyanov, Marin Georgiev","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3122695","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3122695","url":null,"abstract":"<b>Bulgarian Abstract:</b> [Статия представя две български институции в съвместната им работа и желанието им противодействие с някои финансови нередности. Целта, поставена преди статията, е свързана с възможността да се докаже, че националната сигурност, тълкувана като причина, би могла да бъде мотив за подобряване на институционалното взаимодействие, от една страна, а от друга, че консолидиращите сили създават условия за постигане на по-добри резултати във всяка област.] <b>English Abstract:</b> This following article presents a pair of Bulgarian institutions in their joint work and the desire to counteract certain financial irregularities. The goal set before the article is related to the opportunity to prove that the national safety interpreted as a cause could be a motive for improving institutional interaction on the one hand and on the other that consolidating forces create conditions for achieving better results in every field.","PeriodicalId":376194,"journal":{"name":"ERN: Regulation & Supervision (Topic)","volume":"52 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126163229","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Regulation of credit use by individuals is as old as human history. Sometimes, however, rationales for aspects of regulations become lost in history to the point that current policy debates about them contain elements of mythology. Nowhere is this truer among kinds of consumer credit than for small cash installment loans. The origin of these loans as consumer protection under the Uniform Small Loan Law is often largely forgotten, and policy debates over their current regulation often betray misunderstandings. This paper discusses a group of such beliefs in a number of areas: reasons for using credit in the first place, interest rate ceilings on loans, lending profitability, loan renewals, Rule of 78s, and credit insurance. It seems that good public policy would benefit from less attention to mythology and more to actual experience.
对个人信贷使用的监管与人类历史一样古老。然而，有时候，监管方面的基本原理在历史中消失了，以至于当前关于它们的政策辩论包含了神话的元素。在各种消费信贷中，没有比小额现金分期付款贷款更能体现这一点的了。根据《统一小额贷款法》(Uniform Small Loan Law)，这些贷款的起源是为了保护消费者，但这一点往往被人们遗忘，而围绕当前监管规定的政策辩论往往会暴露出误解。本文讨论了许多领域的一组这样的信念:首先使用信贷的原因，贷款利率上限，贷款盈利能力，贷款续期，78规则和信用保险。似乎良好的公共政策将受益于少关注神话，多关注实际经验。
{"title":"Baggage of Consumer Installment Cash Lending: A New Sorting of the Suitcases","authors":"T. Durkin","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3191500","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3191500","url":null,"abstract":"Regulation of credit use by individuals is as old as human history. Sometimes, however, rationales for aspects of regulations become lost in history to the point that current policy debates about them contain elements of mythology. Nowhere is this truer among kinds of consumer credit than for small cash installment loans. The origin of these loans as consumer protection under the Uniform Small Loan Law is often largely forgotten, and policy debates over their current regulation often betray misunderstandings. This paper discusses a group of such beliefs in a number of areas: reasons for using credit in the first place, interest rate ceilings on loans, lending profitability, loan renewals, Rule of 78s, and credit insurance. It seems that good public policy would benefit from less attention to mythology and more to actual experience.","PeriodicalId":376194,"journal":{"name":"ERN: Regulation & Supervision (Topic)","volume":"49 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134271025","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
A few months ago, we produced a timetable for the implementation of U.S. financial reform under the Dodd-Frank Act.1 One of the main observations was that the legislation did little to consolidate regulation outside of banking. In contrast, the analogous UK reform legislation, the Financial Services Act, made the Bank of England (BoE) the center of UK financial and monetary stability. A 2016 amendment confirmed and strengthened the bank’s role. This paper establishes a timeline summarizing the status of financial regulatory reform in the UK. It then identifies some of the forthcoming difficulties, including Brexit and the recent evolution of macroprudential policies among developed countries
{"title":"UK Financial Reforms: Bank of England 2.0","authors":"Claude Lopez, Elham Saeidinezhad","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2911914","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2911914","url":null,"abstract":"A few months ago, we produced a timetable for the implementation of U.S. financial reform under the Dodd-Frank Act.1 One of the main observations was that the legislation did little to consolidate regulation outside of banking. In contrast, the analogous UK reform legislation, the Financial Services Act, made the Bank of England (BoE) the center of UK financial and monetary stability. A 2016 amendment confirmed and strengthened the bank’s role. This paper establishes a timeline summarizing the status of financial regulatory reform in the UK. It then identifies some of the forthcoming difficulties, including Brexit and the recent evolution of macroprudential policies among developed countries","PeriodicalId":376194,"journal":{"name":"ERN: Regulation & Supervision (Topic)","volume":"36 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-12-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115307064","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：