Search results

This paper aims to investigate whether the establishment of commodity futures can effectively hedge systemic risk in the spot network, given the context of financialization in the commodity futures market.

Utilizing industry association data from the Chinese commodity market, the authors identify systemically important commodities based on their importance in the production process using multiple graph analysis methods. Then the authors analyze the effect of listing futures on the systemic risk in the spot market with the staggered difference-in-differences (DID) method.

The findings suggest that futures contracts help reduce systemic risks in the underlying spot network. Systemic risk for a commodity will decrease by approximately 5.7% with the introduction of each corresponding futures contract, since the hedging function of futures reduces the timing behavior of firms in the spot market. Establishing futures contracts for upstream commodities lowers systemic risks for downstream commodities. Energy commodities, such as crude oil and coal, have higher systemic importance, with the energy sector dominating systemic importance, while some chemical commodities also have considerable systemic importance. Meanwhile, the shortest transmission path for risk propagation is composed of the energy industry, chemical industry, agriculture/metal industry and final products.

The paper provides the following policy insights: (1) The role of futures contracts is still positive, and future contracts should be established upstream and at more systemically important nodes in the spot production chain. (2) More attention should be paid to the chemical industry chain, as some chemical commodities are systemically important but do not have corresponding futures contracts. (3) The risk source of the commodity spot market network is the energy industry, and therefore, energy-related commodities should continue to be closely monitored.

Cryptocurrency arose, and grew in popularity, following the financial crisis of 2008 built upon a promise of decentralizing money and payments. An examination of the history of money and banking in the United States demonstrates that stable money benefits from strict controls and commitments by a centralized government through chartering restrictions and a broad safety net, rather than decentralization. In addition, financial crises happen when the government allows money creation to occur outside of official channels. The US central bank is then forced into a policy of supporting a range of money-like assets in order to maintain a grip on monetary policy and some semblance of financial stability.

In addition, this chapter argues that cryptocurrency as a form of shadow money shares many of the problematic attributes of both the privately issued bank notes that created instability during the “free banking” era and the “shadow banking” activities that contributed to the 2008 crisis. In this sense, rather than being a novel and disruptive idea, cryptocurrency replicates many of the systemically destabilizing aspects of privately issued money and money-like instruments.

This chapter proposes that, rather than allowing a new, digital “free banking” era to emerge, there are better alternatives. Specifically, it argues that the Federal Reserve (Fed) should use its tools to improve public payment systems, enact robust utility-like regulations for private digital currencies and limit the likelihood of bubbles using prudential measures.

The purpose of this paper is to summarize and provide commentary on the US Department of Treasury's Blueprint for a Modernized Financial Regulatory Structure, issued on March 31, 2008.

The paper summarizes and comments on the short‐, intermediate‐, and long‐term recommendations laid out in the Blueprint. The short‐term recommendations are to modernize the President's Working Group on Financial Markets, principally by broadening its focus to include the entire financial sector; to address gaps in mortgage origination oversight, principally though creating a federal Mortgage Origination Commission; and to enhance the Federal Reserve Board's current temporary liquidity provisioning process. The Treasury's intermediate‐term recommendations are intended to modernize the regulatory structure and to eliminate duplication. They are to phase out and transition the thrift charter to the national banking charter; to merge the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC); to establish a uniform, comprehensive regulatory system for, and create a federal charter for, “systemically important” payment and settlement systems; and to create an optional federal charter for insurers. The Blueprint's long‐term optimal regulatory structure envisions an “objectives‐based” regulatory approach in which three primary regulators would be established to focus individually on market stability regulation, prudential financial regulation and business conduct; three types of charters for financial institutions: federal insured depository institutions, federal insurance institutions, and federal financial services providers; the Federal Reserve Board assuming the role of market stability regulator; a prudential federal regulatory agency to regulate financial institutions with some type of explicit government guarantee associated with their business operations; and a conduct‐of‐business regulatory agency to regulate the business conduct of all financial institutions. In addition to the three objectives‐based regulators, the Blueprint recommends establishing two other regulatory entities: a federal insurance guarantee corporation and a corporate finance regulator.

The Blueprint finds that substantial regulatory reform is necessary to respond to significant developments including globalization of the capital markets, innovative and sophisticated new financial products and trading strategies, growing institutionalization of the capital markets, and convergence of financial service providers and financial products. Among the areas where one may see action and debate in the near future are: broadening the scope and membership of the President's Working Group on Capital Markets, adoption of uniform minimum licensing standards and the creation of a mortgage origination commission, further discussion of the terms and conditions attached to non‐depository institutions' access to the Federal Reserve discount window, continuing debate around the possible merger of the SEC and the CFTC, and updating by the SEC of the self‐regulatory organization (SRO) rule‐making process.

The paper is a clear and concise summary with commentary from expert securities lawyers.

This study aims to examine the uncertainty spillover among eight important asset classes (cryptocurrencies, US stocks, US bonds, US dollar, agriculture, metal, oil and gold) using weekly data from 2014 to 2020. This study also examines the US macro uncertainty and US financial stress spillover on these assets.

The authors use time–frequency connectedness method to study the uncertainty spillover among the asset classes.

This study’s findings revealed that the uncertainty spillover is time-varying and peaked during the 2016 oil supply glut and COVID-19 pandemic. US stocks are the highest transmitter of uncertainty to all other assets, followed by the US dollar and oil. US stocks (US dollar and oil) transmit uncertainty in long (short) term. Furthermore, US macro uncertainty is the net transmitter of uncertainty to the US stocks, industrial metals and oil markets. In contrast, US financial stress is the net transmitter of uncertainty to the US bonds, cryptocurrencies, the US dollar and gold markets. US financial stress (US macro uncertainty) has long (short)-term effects on asset price volatility.

This study complements the studies on volatility spillover among the important asset classes. This study also includes recently financialized asset classes such as cryptocurrencies, agricultural and industrial commodities. This study examines the macro uncertainty and financial stress spillover on these assets.

The Dodd‐Frank Act of 2010 is the keystone policy response directed at reforming US financial system activities and oversight in the wake of the 2007‐2009 financial crisis. The USA also has financial system reform policy commitments in the international arena, including in particular by virtue of its membership in the G20. The purpose of this paper is to consider US policy initiatives related to a core dimension of financial system reform: risks posed by systemically important financial institutions (“SIFIs”).

The paper provides a deta‘iled comparison of SIFI policy initiatives and timetables under both the Dodd‐Frank Act and the G20 agenda, as reflected in the ongoing work plan of the Financial Stability Board (FSB), and poses the question “Are US domestic and international financial system reform commitments in sync?”

The study finds that, fundamentally, the answer is “yes.” However, the comparison yields two caveats with potential policy implications. First, the two agendas differ in their relative emphasis on the coverage of both banks and nonbanks. The G20/FSB focus, at least over the near‐term, is bank‐centric compared with the Dodd‐Frank Act, which consistently addresses both bank and nonbank financial firms. Second, implementation of Dodd‐Frank Act provisions is subject to long‐established US law mandating that there be sufficient opportunity for public input into the rulemaking process, whereas the G20/FSB process has been less systematic and transparent on public consultation and feedback.

These observations may be relevant to the current debate over the speed and scope of Dodd‐Frank Act implementation measures, and to the discussion about the future international competitiveness of US banks and nonbank financial firms.

This study is the first to present a detailed, comprehensive comparison of financial system reform initiatives and provisions in the Dodd‐Frank Act and the G20 agenda.

The current paper aims to expand an empirical assessment of correlations of the stock exchange in Poland with other stock markets and foreign economies. The paper attempts to explore international spillover effects during the current financial crisis.

The study builds upon questionnaires and interviews with practitioners associated with the Polish stock market. The interviewees represent both the advanced and emerging European economies. At this point, analyzing the notions of a cross‐section of experts from different geographical regions increases the value of the findings. The interviewees were asked to comment on a wide range of examples mirroring the reaction of the Warsaw Stock Exchange (WSE) to economic and financial information derived from foreign markets in times of the current financial crisis. An empirical model evaluating the cross‐border implications for the Polish stock market was specified. The model encompassed a wide range of variables and events influencing the performance of the Polish stock market and investors' uncertainty during the nascent financial crisis. Semi‐structured interviews complemented the quantitatively obtained findings and allowed for a gap between theory and practice to be bridged. The qualitative approach injected a dose of realism into the empirical model utilized in the paper and contributed to the value of general findings.

The current paper reports initial responses of the WIG20 indexed equity prices to 41 economic and financial information sets, originating from systemically significant markets. The influence of these sets is ranked in accordance with their influential powers. The ranking indicates which information events are more likely to be prioritized by investors associated with the WSE and which news are ignored in times of the current financial crisis. Henceforth, the findings outline the crisis‐induced changes in the uncertainty of equity investors and the implications for investment decision making processes. Comparing the responses to economic and financial information sets among different stock markets and industries delivers insight into the profitability of the international portfolio diversification based on either the country or industry specific factors.

The paper focuses on the Polish stock market, which is relatively under‐researched by the existing body of literate. However, Poland's stock market became a leading central European bourse during the current financial crisis. Reporting a number of useful and important implications for the practitioners associated with the WSE constitutes the core value of the paper.