当信任是不够的:银行决议,SPE,围栏和团体支持

M. Dewatripont, Marie Montigny, G. Nguyen
{"title":"当信任是不够的:银行决议,SPE,围栏和团体支持","authors":"M. Dewatripont, Marie Montigny, G. Nguyen","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3850103","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This discussion paper investigates the differences existing between the Single Point of Entry and the Multiple Point of Entry resolution models and links this question to the issue of support that bank subsidiaries can expect from their parent companies both in resolution and in normal insolvency proceedings. Given that parental support remains imperfect in these two resolution models, the paper concludes that existing safeguards aiming at preserving the corporate interests of subsidiaries remain needed and justified. The paper then identifies potential avenues that could be further explored to reinforce the support model and thereby reduce incentives to adopt ring-fencing measures.","PeriodicalId":443031,"journal":{"name":"Political Economy - Development: Political Institutions eJournal","volume":"56 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"When Trust is Not Enough: Bank Resolution, SPE, Ring-fencing and Group Support\",\"authors\":\"M. Dewatripont, Marie Montigny, G. Nguyen\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.3850103\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This discussion paper investigates the differences existing between the Single Point of Entry and the Multiple Point of Entry resolution models and links this question to the issue of support that bank subsidiaries can expect from their parent companies both in resolution and in normal insolvency proceedings. Given that parental support remains imperfect in these two resolution models, the paper concludes that existing safeguards aiming at preserving the corporate interests of subsidiaries remain needed and justified. The paper then identifies potential avenues that could be further explored to reinforce the support model and thereby reduce incentives to adopt ring-fencing measures.\",\"PeriodicalId\":443031,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Political Economy - Development: Political Institutions eJournal\",\"volume\":\"56 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-05-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Political Economy - Development: Political Institutions eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3850103\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Political Economy - Development: Political Institutions eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3850103","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

本讨论文件调查了单点进入和多点进入解决模式之间存在的差异,并将这一问题与银行子公司在解决和正常破产程序中可以从其母公司获得的支持问题联系起来。鉴于在这两种解决模式中父母的支持仍然不完善,本文得出结论,现有的旨在保护子公司公司利益的保障措施仍然是必要的和合理的。然后,本文确定了可以进一步探索的潜在途径,以加强支持模式,从而减少采取围栏措施的动机。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
When Trust is Not Enough: Bank Resolution, SPE, Ring-fencing and Group Support
This discussion paper investigates the differences existing between the Single Point of Entry and the Multiple Point of Entry resolution models and links this question to the issue of support that bank subsidiaries can expect from their parent companies both in resolution and in normal insolvency proceedings. Given that parental support remains imperfect in these two resolution models, the paper concludes that existing safeguards aiming at preserving the corporate interests of subsidiaries remain needed and justified. The paper then identifies potential avenues that could be further explored to reinforce the support model and thereby reduce incentives to adopt ring-fencing measures.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Fall in Shadow Banking and the Slow U.S. Recovery Leviathan's Offer: State-Building with Elite Compensation in Early Medieval China Assessing the double materiality of climate risks in the EU economy and banking sector Local Journalism under Private Equity Ownership Is Flood Risk Priced in Bank Returns?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1