We isolate the direct bank-to-sovereign distress channel within the eurozone’s sovereign-bank-loop by exploiting the global, non-eurozone related variation in stock prices. We instrument banking sector stock returns in the eurozone with exposure-weighted stock market returns from non-eurozone countries and take further precautions to remove any eurozone crisis-related variation. We find that the transmission of instrumented bank distress, while economically relevant, is significantly smaller than the corresponding coefficient in the unadjusted OLS framework, confirming concerns on reverse causality and omitted variables in previous studies. Furthermore, we show that the spillover of bank distress is significantly stronger for countries with poorer macroeconomic performances, weaker financial sectors and financial regulation and during times of elevated political uncertainty.

Die wirtschaftliche Entwicklung Italiens war in den vergangenen Jahren durch eine ausgesprochen schwache Produktivitätsentwicklung gekennzeichnet. Das Bruttoinlandsprodukt je Einwohner beträgt nur 92% des Niveaus im Jahr 2007, während es im Euroraum insgesamt (inklusive Italien) bei 103% des Vorkrisenniveaus von 2007 liegt. Die Staatsschuldenquote ist im Zeitraum von 2007 bis 2017 von 100% in Relation zum Bruttoinlandsprodukt um 30 Prozentpunkte auf 130% gestiegen. Es bestehen daher Zweifel, ob die Wirtschaftskraft Italiens ausreichend ist, um die weiter steigenden Staatsschulden künftig bedienen zu können. Diese Zweifel kommen zum Beispiel in der gegenwärtig (August 2018) um gut 3 Prozentpunkte höheren Umlaufsrendite 10-jähriger italienischer Staatsanleihen im Vergleich zu deutschen Staatsanleihen zum Ausdruck.

Die Regierung Italiens will der Wirtschaft durch expansive Finanzpolitik wieder auf die Beine helfen. Im vorliegenden Beitrag wird die Tragfähigkeit der italienischen Staatsverschuldung für verschiedene Szenarien analysiert. Dabei gibt es je nach den getroffenen Annahmen zu wichtigen Wirkungszusammenhängen eine ganze Bandbreite von möglichen Entwicklungen, die aber allesamt eine deutlich expansive Finanzpolitik für Italien nicht ratsam erscheinen lassen, weil sie insgesamt nicht förderlich für die Stabilisierung der Staatsverschuldung wäre. Vielmehr sollten produktivitätssteigernde Strukturreformen umgesetzt werden, die dann auch moderat höhere Staatsausgaben erlauben würden.

• In summer 2018 the cyclical upswing of the world economy is not over, but it appears to be fragmenting. While economic activity in the European Union has lost steam, the upswing in the US has gained pace, and growth in China appears to be robust. • Markets for commodities as well as for capital are at present strongly affected by political movements: oil prices are more than 50% higher than one year ago, as the US exit from the Iran nuclear deal puts the long run oil supply from Iran at risk, and the strongly expansionary US tax reform explains the rise in US long run interest rates. . • Uncertainties about the future international trade system cause firms to slow down or even reverse the globalization of value chains. As an early consequence, world trade in the second half of 2018 and in 2019 will expand at much slower rates than during 2017. • In the euro area growth slowed in the first quarter 2018, due to weaker investment activity in France and Italy and, more importantly, a fall in exports in all larger euro area economies except Spain. However, the drivers of the upswing such as low interest rates for credit and expanding real incomes will still be supportive in the near future, and fiscal policies will be slighly more expansionary. But a slowdown in world trade will dent export growth as well as corporate profits. All in all, we expect GDP growth in the euro area to go down from 2.4% in 2017 to 2.1% in 2018 and to 1.7% in 2019 – a forecast that will only be realized if damages to the international trade system are limited and if the European sovereign debt crisis does not come back. • While wage inflation has been slowly increasing during the past quarters to about 2%, a clear upwards trend of core consumer price inflation is still not detectable. The recent jump of the headline rate to 1.9% is due to higher oil prices. Our forecasts for 2018 and 2019 are close, although still below, 2%.

The adverse macroeconomic consequences of the Great Recession in 2009 spread well beyond the United States, highlighting the importance of financial stability and the housing market for real economic activity. Moreover, the vicious bank-sovereign cycle and the resulting sovereign-debt crisis of 2010-2012 posed a big threat to the survival of the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) as a whole. While there is widespread consensus about the underlying causes of these crises, policy makers are still debating about what can be done to prevent future crises and, especially in the Euro area, deeply disagree on the direction of reforms. After all, most regulatory measures face not only the trade-off between financial resilience versus efficiency but also the fundamental choice between rule or discretion based interventions (Bénassy-Quéré et al., 2018).

The BCBS discussion paper on the regulatory treatment of sovereign exposures addresses a so far hardly touched topic as concerns capital regulation. While the regulatory framework has been changed substantially over recent years including the establishment of the European Banking Union, risk weights on sovereign exposures have remained mostly unchanged and sovereign exposures of banks benefit from a favourable capital treatment. This applies despite the fact that the recent European sovereign debt crisis has revealed the potential of a doom loop between bank and sovereign risk and demonstrated that sovereign exposures are by no means “risk-free”. The paper is thus an important proposal how to change the risk evaluation of banks’ sovereign exposures.

In this paper, we investigate to what extent sovereign stress and banking stress have contributed to the increase in the level and in the heterogeneity of nonfinancial firms’ refinancing costs in the Euro area during the European debt crisis and how they did affect the monetary transmission mechanism. We identify the increasing effect of government bond yield spreads (sovereign stress) and the share of non-performing loans (banking stress) on firms’ financing costs using an instrumental-variable approach. Moreover, we estimate both sources of stress to have significantly impaired the monetary transmission mechanism during the European debt crisis.

Die Europäische Zentralbank (EZB) hat mit dem Securities Markets Programme (SMP) im Mai 2010 ein Instrument unkonventioneller Geldpolitik eingeführt. Im Rahmen des SMP erwarb sie im Wert von 218 Mrd. Euro Staatsanleihen ausgewählter Länder, welche erhöhten Risikoaufschlägen am Kapitalmarkt ausgesetzt waren. Eine mögliche Nebenwirkung solcher Ankaufprogramme ist es, auch jene Banken zu stützen, die nicht zum direkten Adressatenkreis gehören, aber Anleihen betroffener Länder in ihren Portfolios hielten. Möglicherweise resultierende Refinanzierungs-, Ertrags-, und Liquiditätsvorteile für bevorteilte Banken könnten zu Wettbewerbsverzerrungen führen. Dieser Beitrag betrachtet deshalb die Wertpapierportfolios regionaler deutscher Banken, um den kausalen Effekt des SMP auf das Wettbewerbsverhalten zu identifizieren. Die empirischen Befunde belegen in der Tat eine statistisch nachweisbare Zunahme der lokalen Marktanteile jener regionalen Banken, welche Anleihen in ihren Portfolios hielten, die Teil des SMP waren. Während dieses Ergebnis somit einen Beleg für die Existenz unbeabsichtigter Nebenwirkungen unkonventioneller Geldpolitik darstellt, so ist auch festzuhalten dass diese Wettbewerbseffekte ausgesprochen klein sind. Somit ist zumindest für den regionalen Bankenmarkt in Deutschland keine nennenswerte Verwerfung aufgrund dieses Ankaufprogramms festzustellen.

A distinctive aspect of the recent financial crises is that they emerged primarily in the industrial world. Since the 2008-2009 global financial crisis emerging countries have been therefore confronted with financial shocks triggered at the core of the international financial system, affecting the volatility of capital flows worldwide. Emerging countries’ dependence on capital and trade flows, combined with a large presence of foreign-owned banks, has been identified as a central driver of the cross-border transmission of these crises (see IMF, 2009). While historical events such as the Latin American debt crisis or the 1997 Asian financial crisis highlighted the importance of sound balance of payments and inflation targeting policies at the macroeconomic level, the global financial crisis has revealed the importance of weighing the costs and benefits of banking globalization. This is foremost important from a policy perspective, since emerging countries faced for the first time in decades an external shock in a context free of large local macroeconomic imbalances, having to adapt their traditional policy framework to new challenges. This has been emphasized, among others, by the former Chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve Ben Bernanke. In particular, this changing scenario implied that microeconomic aspects involved in the cross-border transmission of shocks gained increasing momentum in the international policy debate (see for instance Freixas et al., 2015).