Search results

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Introducing radical changes to the methodologies for the determination of capital requirements, the final stage of the Basel III standards, which is referred to as “Basel IV” by the industry, will be a significant challenge for the global banking sector. This article reviews the main components of the new framework, analyses its ongoing implementation in the European Union and discusses its potential impact on banks, putting forward policy recommendations.

This article uses primary sources such as the publications by the Basel Committee for Banking Supervision and the European Commission. It also reviews the secondary sources, including both academic articles and analyses by various stakeholders. However, this article does not undertake any empirical analysis.

This article discusses that Basel IV will introduce strategic, operational and regulatory challenges for banks in scope. It also identifies a number of areas which are subject to further debate in the European Union such as the enhanced due diligence requirements under the new credit risk framework; governance, reporting and control rules under the operational risk framework; exemptions for certain derivative transactions under the credit valuation adjustment framework and the level of application of the capital floors within banking groups. This article concludes that the global implementation of the reforms by all jurisdictions and transposition into national banking laws concurrently with the European Union in line with the Basel Committee's implementation timeline is important from a financial stability standpoint.

The article presents an up-to-date and comprehensive review of the practical implications of Basel IV standards. It analyses the implementation of the standards in the case of the European Union, reviews the potential policy implications and presents recommendations for risk management practitioners.

The purpose of this article is to make a contribution to the existing knowledge by using the unique cross-jurisdiction data drawn from the FCA’s REP-CRIM submissions to explore dynamics behind firms’ perceptions on financial crime. Capturing firm’s sentiment is notoriously challenging, and any relevant regulatory data is usually not available in the public domain. A recent exception is the UK Financial Conduct Authority’s (FCA’s) financial crime data return (REP-CRIM) submissions which include the cross-country regulatory data on the UK financial institutions’ perceptions of jurisdiction risk. Despite a broad literature with respect to financial crime, there exists an important gap in the existing knowledge with respect to factors that are associated with the perceptions of firms with respect to jurisdiction risk, which this article aims to close.

Using cross-country regulatory data on the UK financial institutions’ perceptions of jurisdiction risk, this study empirically determines that perceptions of jurisdiction risk is significantly and positively associated with anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism (AML/CFT) framework, as well as with tax burden on business and institutional and legal risk in the case of 165 jurisdictions.

The findings lend support to the proposition that unsystematic efforts and too much publicity may ascertain the high-risk image of a jurisdiction, deterring cross-border business. Policy implications that emerge from the study also add to the case for strengthening institutional and legal frameworks, as well as relieving the tax burden on doing business.

Findings of the present study should be interpreted with caution, as the dependent variable used in the present study reflects UK firms’ perceptions of jurisdiction risk, which may depend on various factors such as different risk appetites and the countries in which firms carry out business, and not necessarily the actual level of risks based on financial crime statistics. For example, a jurisdiction which may indeed be considered high risk, would not necessarily be ranking high on the FCA’s list of UK firms’ jurisdiction risk perceptions due to few firms operating in that particular country. As a result, the list could differ from the Financial Action Task Force’s black and grey lists. Findings based on the regulatory data on the UK financial institutions’ perceptions of jurisdiction risk should be considered preliminary in nature, given that they are based on a single year cross sectional data. As global and country-level AML/CFT efforts continue to intensify and as more regulatory data becomes publicly available, it would be imperative to bring further empirical evidence to bear on the question of whether financial crime perceptions are likely to be more pronounced for jurisdictions where AML/CFT efforts are more intensified. Likewise, from a policy standpoint, it would be equally important to explore further the role that institutional and legal risk, as well as tax burden on businesses, play in shaping firms’ perceptions of jurisdiction risk.

Findings lend support to the proposition that unsystematic efforts and too much publicity may ascertain the high-risk image of a jurisdiction, deterring cross-border business. Therefore, rather than waiting for more data to be made available by other financial regulators, which could lead to a more conclusive evidence in the future, on balance, the findings of this study add to the case for carefully designing and systematically implementing AML/CFT measures in a less publicized manner. Findings lend support to the theoretical postulation that disorderly efforts and undue publicity regarding AML/CFT efforts serve to ascertain the high-risk image of a jurisdiction, which could deter cross-border business and could be detrimental to how firms undertake due diligence. They also suggest that disorderly implementation of AML/CFT measures may hinder access to formal financial service and jeopardize authorities’ ability to trace the movement of funds, which may also add to negative perceptions of jurisdiction risk.

Findings are in line with the theoretical expectations that perceptions of jurisdiction risk would be expected to be higher in countries with inadequate disclosure rules, lax regulation and opacity jurisdiction. Likewise, results are aligned with the expectations that tax burden on business would be expected to be in a positive relationship with jurisdiction risk, as it would increase the likelihood of tax evasion, which incentivizes financial crime. Therefore, policy implications that emerge from the study also add to the case for strengthening institutional and legal frameworks and relieving the tax burden on doing business as part of efforts to improve the international image of jurisdictions with respect to financial crime risks.

Using the cross-country regulatory data on the UK financial institutions’ perceptions of jurisdiction risk, this study has empirically determined that perceptions of jurisdiction risk is significantly and positively associated with AML/CFT framework, as well as with tax burden on business and institutional and legal risk. These findings have implications from a policy standpoint.

Financial crime presents a serious threat to the stability and integrity of the global financial system. To combat illicit financial activities, regulatory bodies worldwide have implemented various measures, including the requirement for financial institutions to assess the financial crime risks they are exposed to in the jurisdictions they operate in. These risks include inadequate anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism frameworks and other financial crime risks that have significant strategic implications for firms’ geographical footprints and customer risk classifications. This paper aims to make a contribution to the literature by undertaking a cross-country analysis of 158 countries to shed light on what drives perceived jurisdiction risk of the UK financial services firms.

Capturing firms’ perceptions of financial crime risk requires significant data collection efforts, including surveys and interviews with key personnel. This can be highly resource-intensive and may require access to sensitive information that firms may be reluctant to share. Furthermore, the dynamic nature of financial crime risks means that perceptions can change rapidly in response to changes in the regulatory and geopolitical landscape. As a result, capturing and monitoring firms’ perceptions of financial crime risks requires ongoing monitoring and analysis. Capturing firms’ perceptions of financial crime risks at a cross-jurisdictional level is a particularly complex and challenging task that requires careful consideration of a range of factors. As a result of data limitations, empirical investigation of the factors underlying the firms’ perceptions of jurisdiction risk is in its infancy. This paper uses regulatory financial crime data from the UK in a multivariate regression analysis, following a general-to-specific approach where any redundant variables were removed from the general model sequentially.

Results suggest that perceived jurisdiction risk is significantly and positively associated with evasion of tax and regulations, while it is significantly and negatively associated with political stability and regulatory stringency. These have important implications for home and host supervisors with respect to the factors that drive perceived jurisdiction risks and the evaluation of the nature of inherent financial crime risks within regulated firms. The findings confirm the critical role of the shadow economy, political stability and regulatory rigor in shaping jurisdiction risk perceptions. From a policy standpoint, the findings support the case for taking prompt policy action to identify, prioritize and implement specific and targeted measures with respect to the shadow economy, political stability and rigor of regulations to improve international firms’ perceptions of jurisdiction risk.

While there exists different measures of financial crime risk, it is notoriously challenging to capture firms’ perceptions of it, particularly at a cross-jurisdiction level. This is because financial crime risks can vary significantly across different jurisdictions due to differences in legal and regulatory frameworks, cultural norms and levels of economic development. This makes it difficult for firms to compare and evaluate the financial crime risks they face in different jurisdictions. Besides, firms’ perceptions of financial crime risks can be influenced by a range of subjective factors, including personal experiences, media coverage and hearsay. These perceptions may not always align with objective risk assessments, which are based on more systematic and empirical methods of risk measurement. This paper contributes to the existing literature by undertaking a cross-country analysis drawing on a unique set of UK regulatory financial crime data, which is based on a total of 1,900 annual financial crime data regulatory return (REP-CRIM) submissions to the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority.

The purpose of this study is to provide a comprehensive analysis on the economic relationship between trade openness and economic growth and to identify current developments, potential research area and future directions. The emphasis is on the identification of annual growth of publications, country-wise distribution, publication pattern, intellectual structure and cluster analysis of scientific production in this field.

This study used evaluative techniques, text mining approach and performance analysis to identify possible patterns and correlation and to measure the impact of authors/citations/scientific production. Further, this study used the bibliometric mapping to represent the structural features of scientific production. This study emphasized on identification of the research hotspots based on occurrence of indexed keywords, productive researchers and journals during 2000–2022. Further, cluster analysis is performed using VOS viewer to analyze the current dynamics and future direction of the association between trade openness and economic growth (Eck and Waltman, 2011). Also, co-citation analysis is used in this study to identify the relations among authors or journals or documents using citation data, whereas the bibliographic coupling/mapping is intended to analyze the citing documents. Similarly, co-word analysis is used to study the article keywords that are mainly used to assess the conceptual structure of a concerning subject.

Economic growth is a function of trade openness, and it is important to analyze the relationship between trade openness and economic growth. Trade openness tends to become more liberalized over time, to contribute more to economic growth. Empirical evidence suggested that there exists a strong association between trade openness and economic growth. Further, keyword timeline analysis illustrated that the linkage between trade openness and economic growth is current area of interest among researchers. As per bibliometric analysis, China, Pakistan and Malaysia are the three most prolific countries in the terms of published articles on this theme. However, the most influential publications based on h-index and citation on trade openness–economic growth relationship is produced by Turkey. Based on cluster analysis, this study suggests that researchers are currently working on trade openness–economic growth relationship with other variables such as FDI, financial development, labor force, environment degradation and carbon emission, while in future, researchers could work on variables such as technology and sustainable development.

There are some limitations of this study. The first limitation is the authors have used Scopus database, leaving the possibility for future research to use Web of Science, Google Scholar or other similar sources. The second limitation is that the authors have used search terms “trade openness “and “economic growth,” although research could be performed using synonyms or even relevant terms in other languages.

Cluster analysis suggested that researchers are currently working on trade openness–economic growth relationship with other variables such as FDI, financial development, labor force, environment degradation and carbon emission, while in future, researchers could work on variables such as technology and sustainable development. Therefore, this study identified the potential research area in this research domain.

To confirm the originality of this study, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study to combine bibliometric analysis and cluster analysis on trade openness–economic growth relationship. This study makes a comparison with phenomena/processes/events in contemporary economic and social reality in the field of trade openness and economic growth relationship.