To read this content please select one of the options below:

RETRACTED: Calibration issues under the EU capital regime for investment firms

Mete Feridun (Faculty of Business and Economics, Eastern Mediterranean University, Famagusta, Cyprus)

Journal of Financial Regulation and Compliance

ISSN: 1358-1988

Article publication date: 2 May 2023

Issue publication date: 1 August 2023

159
This article was retracted on 19 Jan 2024.

Retraction statement

The publisher of the Journal of Financial Regulation and Compliance wishes to retract the article by Mete Feridun (2023) “Calibration issues under the EU capital regime for investment firms”, published in the Journal of Financial Regulation and Compliance, Vol. 31, No. 4, pp. 483-502, https://doi.org/10.1108/JFRC-12-2022-0146. It has come to our attention that generative AI was used in the creation of the literature review in breach of Emerald’s policy on authorship and that a significant number of the papers referenced do not exist. The publisher of the journal sincerely apologizes to the readers.

Abstract

Purpose

The EU prudential regime for investment firms comprising the Directive (EU) 2019/2034 (IFD) and Regulation (EU) 2019/2033 (IFR) introduces a fit-for-purpose capital framework for investment firms. The capital impact on the practice of investment management can be material depending on firms’ specific business models and risk profiles, which may require them to take strategic decisions with respect to the services they provide. Despite the importance of this issue for the practice of investment management, there exists no study among the existing studies that focuses on this issue. This study aims to fill this gap in the literature.

Design/methodology/approach

This paper reviews the calibration approaches the European Banking Authority (EBA) has used by exploring the deficiencies of the regime with respect to the calibration of categorization thresholds and coefficients that are used by the EBA to calculate regulatory capital requirements.

Findings

This paper sets out that the choice of the relevant percentile for setting the firm categorization thresholds was not based on any theoretical rule. It also discusses that the calibration of the K-factors was subjective and lacked consistency. In addition, it criticizes the sample that the EBA used for business model coverage on the grounds that it was unbalanced, resulting in certain K-factors driving the overall capital impact.

Research limitations/implications

Further research is needed on the calibration of thresholds as this will remain a crucial factor for the effectiveness of the new regime. In particular, a more data-driven and transparent approach would be necessary to ensure the accuracy and consistency of the thresholds.

Practical implications

This paper leads to the policy implication that, despite its merits that overweigh its shortcomings, potential market competition and financial stability issues that may stem from inconsistencies and a general lack of objectivity in certain aspects of the regime should not be underestimated by the EU policy makers.

Originality/value

The present paper contributes to the existing knowledge primarily by reviewing the EBA’s calibration approaches with respect to the K-factor coefficients and firm categorization thresholds, concluding that lack of objectivity and precision in the relevant methodologies could distort capital allocation decisions in the practice of investment management.

Keywords

Citation

Feridun, M. (2023), "RETRACTED: Calibration issues under the EU capital regime for investment firms", Journal of Financial Regulation and Compliance, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 483-502. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFRC-12-2022-0146

Publisher

:

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2023, Emerald Publishing Limited

Related articles