Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 4

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  bailout
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
EN
The aim of this paper is to determine to which extent systemic risk is a cause and an effect of the 2008 financial crisis. In the context of Spanish bailouts, we study the transmission of risk in the Spanish banking system. We make use of data from Google Trends on all Spanish financial institutions, which are selected as examples of one of the countries most affected in the last financial crisis. This analysis is one of the first attempts to use this kind of data for purposes of financial analysis. We compute the impact of each bailout in the banking system and we show how it affects the activity of the bailed-out bank and other institutions according to their status both before and after the announcement of the bailouts. We then show that it is possible to quantify the subjective systemic risk, an elusive concept that is difficult to measure with data from standard sources.
2
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Debt Reduction in the Eurozone

88%
EN
When the Greek crisis exploded in the spring of 2010 the eurozone countries collected funds to refinance Greece’s debt in order to stave off a banking crisis. Later Ireland and Portugal asked for similar eurozone assistance. Because refinancing (bailout) was not sufficient to enable these peripheral countries to solve their debt problems, they agreed to implement austerity programs so that they could use eurozone countries’ public funds. But these austerity measures, even if politically affordable, will not suffice. It is exceedingly possible that the peripheral countries will not outgrow their problems and will be unable to return to capital markets at their pre-crisis levels. Their debt-to-GDP as well as debt services-to-income ratios are likely to grow and additional debt reorganization programs including debt reduction (haircut) will be required. At the heart of the issue is the potential impact of a reduction of the peripheral economies’ debt on the monetary financial institutions of all European Union countries. As a result of the restructuring and partial debt reduction, banks may need to receive public support. To address these problems a new solution in the form of the European Stability Mechanism (EMS) has been proposed. It is expected to change the way in which the eurozone functions. However, the EMS idea is based on the same philosophy as the existing bailout instruments. It does not address the equal treatment and moral hazard issues, while the conditionality programs proposed so far have not softened the adverse impact of the growing debt burden on the economic performance of the debt-laden countries. The entire European Union financial system is at risk and remains vulnerable as long as the refinancing mechanisms are not supported by debt restructuring and reduction. Debt managers do not seem to know how to draw on past experience and so ad hoc measures prevail. To effectively manage that kind of debt reorganization, the European Union should create the necessary procedures to efficiently address the economic future of all heavily indebted economies. The EU should also be prepared politically to accept the costs of debt reduction or of a fundamental reorganization of the eurozone.
Bezpieczny Bank
|
2021
|
vol. 82
|
issue 1
48-69
EN
Financial crises cause a substantial destruction in the financial system if not timely and correctly managed. For many years government guarantees and banks’ recapitalizations have allowed to counteract the contagion effects of crises and to restore the confidence in the financial market. The recent regulatory changes, like the implementation of the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (BRRD) tries to eliminate the government’s role in managing a financial crisis. However, the question which arises is whether and under what circumstances available methods of resolution are effective during a systemic event. We test the effectiveness of main resolution mechanisms available in the regulatory document on the sample of 215 distressed banks, which were in need of an intervention during 39 systemic banking crises between 1990 and 2017. Our regression results document that the effectiveness of the resolution measures largely depends on the scale and phase of the financial crisis. While the government-assisted merger seems to be effective in the initial phase of crisis (or during less severe crises), during systemic banking crises it does not help to stop the contagion effects. In turn, we find that Asset Management Vehicle (AMV) with sufficient (generally induced by the government) recapitalization is the only effective measure to address banks’ distress, at the same time limiting the systemic effect of the crisis. Our further analysis documents that government should participate in the resolution process, however its role should be limited to minority stakes. In turn, the full bailouts do not appear out to be successful. We find that the regulatory framework is imperfect and the regulators should rethink the design of resolution measures for systemic crises.
PL
Kryzysy bankowe powodują znaczące zniszczenia w systemie finansowym, w przypadku, gdy nie są odpowiednio zarządzane. Przez wiele lat gwarancje państwa, jak również ogromna skala dokapitalizowania banków pozwoliły na szybkie przeciwdziałanie ich negatywnym skutkom w gospodarce. Ostatnie zmiany regulacyjne, takie jak Dyrektywa dot. naprawy i restrukturyzacji oraz uporządkowanej likwidacji instytucji kredytowych, dalej zwanych „bankami” (ang. Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive – BRRD) ma stworzyć mechanizmy interwencyjne umożliwiające restrukturyzację zagrożonych upadłością banków bez ingerencji państwa. Powstaje jednak pytanie, czy i w jakich okolicznościach dostępne metody okażą się skuteczne podczas zdarzeń kryzysowych, a w szczególności podczas zdarzeń systemowych. Celem naszego badania jest empiryczna analiza skuteczności określonych w dokumencie BRRD mechanizmów restrukturyzacyjnych na próbie 215 banków, które doświadczyły różnych działań interwencyjnych podczas 39 systemowych kryzysów bankowych w latach 1992–2017. Wyniki badania wskazują, że skuteczność mechanizmów zależy w dużej mierze od skali kryzysu i jego fazy. Podczas gdy sprzedaż zagrożonego upadłością banku przez instytucję nadzorczą jest skuteczna w początkowej fazie kryzysu, w trakcie zdarzeń systemowych nie przyczynia się do przywrócenia zaufania do rynku, co jest kluczowe w rozprzestrzenianiu się tego typu zjawisk. W czasie kryzysów systemowych jedynym skutecznym mechanizmem okazuje się dokapitalizowanie problematycznego banku wraz z przeprowadzeniem głębokiej restrukturyzacji w ramach Asset Management Vehicle („AMV”). W dalszej kolejności wyniki wskazują, że dokapitalizowanie powinno odbyć się przy mniejszościowym udziale państwa w akcjonariacie banku. Wyniki badania są znaczące dla organów regulacyjnych, które muszą dostosować swoje regulacje do dyrektywy, jak również opracować swoje własne plany dotyczące uporządkowanej restrukturyzacji sektora bankowego na wypadek kryzysów bankowych.
PL
W niniejszym artykule udowodniono tezę, że podmioty o największym wpływie na gospodarkę traktowane są przez rządy państw oraz organizacje międzynarodowe zgodnie z zasadami „Zbyt duży, żeby upaść” (TBTF To Big to Fail) oraz „Zbyt ważny, żeby upaść” (TITF To Important to Fail). Zaprezentowano organizacje, które od 2008 r. otrzymały fi nansową pomoc od rządów swoich państw lub od Unii Europejskiej. Analizie poddano sytuacje wybranych korporacji o międzynarodowym zasięgu oraz zaprezentowano przypadek Grecji jako państwa o niestabilnej sytuacji fi nansowej.
EN
The purpose of this paper is to prove that during the economic crisis many companies receive financial support from government so there is a presentation of two rules: Too Important To Fail and Too Big To Fail. The present article is concerned with organizations that since 2008 have received financial support from the governments of their countries or from the European Union. The author focuses on an analysis of the situation of chosen corporations which present an international reach and shows Greece as example of an organization with an unstable financial situation.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.