Search results

The purpose of this article is to support current efforts by policymakers to limit the value of implicit bank debt guarantees that they are perceived as providing. It does so by analyzing the determinants of the value of such guarantees and by proposing a framework for categorizing and analyzing the host of different financial regulatory reform measures recently adopted and proposed.

The starting point is the observation that public authorities have provided the guarantor-of-last-resort function in more explicit form as part of the financial safety net. This choice has inadvertently further entrenched the perception that bank debt benefits from an implicit guarantee and, in the meantime, policymakers have decided to limit the value of such guarantees. To support these efforts, the present articles use a valuation framework based on concepts of contingent claims analysis to model the value of insurance of risky bank debt when the sovereign providing the guarantee can itself be risky. This framework allows one to monitor any progress made in reducing the value of these guarantees. It is applied here to a measure of implicit external (mostly from the sovereign) support for the debt of a panel of 184 large worldwide banks headquartered in 23 countries for the period from 2007 to 2012.

Consistent with the implications of the conceptual model, the empirical evidence suggests that implicit bank debt support is higher, the lower the bank's stand-alone creditworthiness and the higher the sovereign's creditworthiness. The result is consistent with previous work that showed that the decline in the value of implicit bank debt guarantees most recently observed owes much to reduced strength of the sovereigns seen as providing the guarantees. Obviously, a more desirable way to limit the value of implicit bank debt guarantees is to foster the intrinsic strength of banks. Alternative categories of policy measures aim at withdrawing the guarantee function or charging for its use.

The author is not aware of any similar work using a rigid theoretical and empirical framework to structuring the policy discussion on bank regulatory reform.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate a deposit insurance program for household deposits, which is designed to act as safety net in order to minimize or eliminate the risk of loss of depositors' funds with banks represents a primary element of this reform.

This research paper is scientific investigation aimed at discovering and interpreting facts related to deposit insurance system in Azeri context. The goal of the research process is to produce new knowledge, through the exploratory research, which structures and identifies new problems, and the constructive research, which develops solutions to a problem.

The main finding is that the deposit insurance system in Azeri context as well everywhere provides for the security of funds in the event of bank failure and, thus, contributes substantially to the stability of the financial system in Azerbaijan. The deposit insurance system supports the smooth functioning of the payment system and the credit mechanisms and facilitates the exit of problem banks.

As a result of this research paper some changes may be made in local legislation in order to defend the depositor's rights in the most effective way in the case of bank failures.

The originality of this paper is that it for the first time describes the deposit insurance system of the Republic of Azerbaijan, its advantages and disadvantages. The paper is addressed to the international business community, particularly those involved in all aspects of banking and deposit insurance law.

This paper investigates the relationship between the sustainable finance disclosure regulation (SFDR) and the performance of unlisted real estate funds.

While existing literature has primarily focused on the impact of voluntary sustainability disclosure, such as certifications or reporting standards, this study addresses a significant research gap by constructing and analyzing the financial J-Curve of 40 funds under the SFDR. The authors employ a panel regression analysis to examine the effects of different SFDR categories on fund performance.

The findings reveal that funds categorized under Article 8 of the SFDR do not exhibit significantly poorer performance compared to funds categorized under Article 6 during the initial phase after launch. On average, Article 8 funds even demonstrate positive returns earlier than their peers. However, the panel regression analysis suggests that Article 8 funds slightly underperform when compared to Article 6 funds over time.

While investors may not anticipate lower initial returns when opting for higher SFDR categories, they should nevertheless be aware of the limitations inherent in the existing SFDR labeling system within the unlisted real estate sector.

To the best of our knowledge, this study represents the first quantitative examination of unlisted real estate fund performance under the SFDR. By providing unique insights into the J-Curves of funds, our research contributes to the existing body of knowledge on the impact of sustainability regulations in the financial sector.