Search

International audience; Cross‐border regulatory arbitrage by global banks remains the main challenge to the effectiveness of macroprudential policy. This article aims to improve the understanding of the extent to which macroprudential initiatives around the world have shaped global banking, focusing on U.S. banks. An ad hoc dataset on the geographical distribution of on and off balance sheet activities of foreign branches allows the investigation of whether regulatory arbitrage has stimulated international leakages of macroprudential regulation. I first focus my attention on the lending behavior in those host countries in which foreign branches are left out of the regulatory perimeter via the institution‐targeted tools implementation. I then investigate whether macroprudential policy leakages due to regulatory arbitrage occur via off‐balance sheet activities. My findings suggest that institution‐targeted macroprudential regulation in host countries increases branches’ local lending, especially when U.S. banks are also exempted from the corresponding tool at home. I further find evidence in support of the fact that stricter local macroprudential policy has increased off‐balance sheet activities of resident foreign branches, as far as interest rate swaps exposures are concerned. From a normative standpoint, my results highlight the importance of reciprocity and international cooperation among macroprudential regulators

SAFE Working Paper No. 260, European Banking Institute Working Paper Series No. 49, LawFin Working Paper No. 2; This paper contributes to the debate on the adequate regulatory treatment of non-bank financial intermediation (NBFI). It proposes an avenue for regulators to keep regulatory arbitrage under control and preserve sufficient space for efficient financial innovation at the same time. We argue for a normative approach to supervision that can overcome the proverbial race between hare and hedgehog in financial regulation and demonstrate how such an approach can be implemented in practice. We first show that regulators should primarily analyse the allocation of tail risk inherent in NBFI. Our paper proposes to apply regulatory burdens equivalent to prudential banking regulation if the respective transactional structures become only viable through indirect or direct access to (ad hoc) public backstops. Second, we use insights from the scholarship on regulatory networks as communities of interpretation to demonstrate how regulators can retrieve the information on transactional innovations and their risk-allocating characteristics that they need to make the pivotal determination. We suggest in particular how supervisors should structure their relationships with semi-public gatekeepers such as lawyers, auditors and consultants to keep abreast of the risk-allocating features of evolving transactional structures. Finally, this paper uses the example of credit funds as non-bank entities economically engaged in credit intermediation to illustrate the merits of the proposed normative framework and to highlight that multipolar regulatory dialogues are needed to shed light on the specific risk-allocating characteristics of recent contractual innovations.

Using a large sample of multinational corporations (MNCs), we examine the location of earnings management within the firm. We posit and find that MNCs manage their consolidated earnings through an orchestrated reporting strategy across subsidiaries over which they exert significant influence. Specifically, we find that headquarters' influence on subsidiary earnings management increases with the degree of subsidiary integration and the extent of earnings management opportunities. Most importantly, we provide evidence that MNCs exploit regulatory arbitrage opportunities arising from cross-country differences in institutional quality. We document that, in response to exogenous improvements in the quality of their home-country institutions, MNCs rebalance their reporting strategies by clustering earnings management in subsidiaries from countries with more lenient regulations. Taken together, our findings yield important insights on the drivers of earnings management location within the firm and highlight the need for better cross-country coordination in regulatory design. JEL Classifications: F23; G15; G34; G38; M41; M48.

Using country-by-country reports from the Systemically Important Banks in the European Union, we measure ``abnormal'' banking activity in tax havens (TH). Our assessment is based on a gravity model used to predict the expected international turnover of EU banks worldwide. We find that: 1) banks turnover in TH represents on average twice the gravity predictions; 2) the abnormal turnover of EU banks represents 1.46\% of GDP in TH and varies between 16\% of GDP and zero; 3) there is a large heterogeneity across TH with Hong Kong, Luxembourg and Singapore concentrating the bulk of the abnormal turnover; 4) we observe a decline and a concentration of abnormal turnover since the reporting requirement has been introduced in the EU.

Since 2008, regulatory arbitrage has attracted a lot of attention. Circumventions of banking prudential rules (such as Basel rules) using shadow banking (such as securitization or derivatives instruments) have been pointed out as one of the main causes of the banking crisis. According to the financial literature, regulatory arbitrage would be the results of “loopholes” that emerge within regulations and which are used by arbitragers to minimise their regulatory cost. However, regulatory arbitrage has not truly been analysed from a theoretical and economic perspective which is key to understand fully its causes and consequences. The first part of this dissertation will focus more specifically on the causes of regulatory arbitrage. While light is usually shed on the action of arbitragers who attempt to manipulate the legal structure of their transactions to capture profit opportunities, we emphasize the role of the regulator who purposely or not, generates the necessary conditions for regulatory arbitrage to take place. The role of rules production type and institutions are usually omitted. This point leads us to discuss in detail the difference in nature between regulation and contractual rules and their incidence on regulatory arbitrage. The second part will focus on the consequences of regulatory arbitrage. These have not only been discussed partially in the existing literature. Efficiency of regulation, quality of rules, redistributive effect, creation or destruction of resources, increased regulatory competition or harmonization strategies among jurisdictions will be discussed in this dissertation as potential outcome of this phenomenon.; Depuis 2008, le thème de l’arbitrage réglementaire a attiré beaucoup d’attention. Le contournement des réglementations prudentielles (notamment des accords de Bâle) par l’utilisation de techniques de « Shadow Banking » (telles que la titrisation ou les instruments dérivés) a été dénoncé comme étant une des causes principales de la crise bancaire. D’après la littérature spécialisée, l’arbitrage réglementaire serait le résultat de failles qui émergeraient au sein des réglementations, lesquelles seraient exploitées par des arbitragistes pour minimiser leurs coûts. Cependant, l’arbitrage réglementaire n’a pas réellement fait l’objet d’une analyse théorique et économique satisfaisante permettant de comprendre pleinement ses causes et ses conséquences. La première partie de cette dissertation s’attache plus spécifiquement aux causes de l’arbitrage réglementaire. Bien que l’attention soit bien souvent portée sur l’arbitragiste qui tente de manipuler les structures juridiques de ses transactions pour capturer des opportunités de profits, nous soulignerons le rôle du régulateur qui de manière intentionnelle ou non, crée les conditions nécessaires à l’arbitrage réglementaire. Le mode de production des règles et le rôle de l’environnement institutionnel sont bien souvent omis. Ce point nous mène à discuter en détail de la différence de nature entre réglementations et règles contractuelles et son incidence sur l’arbitrage réglementaire. La seconde partie porte sur les conséquences de l’arbitrage réglementaire. Celles-ci n’ont été que partiellement discutées dans la littérature existante. Efficacité des réglementations, qualité des règles, effet redistributif, création ou destruction de richesses, concurrence réglementaire accrue ou tentative d’harmonisation des juridictions, tels seront les thèmes qui sont impactés par ce phénomène et qui seront abordés dans cette dissertation.

Since 2008, regulatory arbitrage has attracted a lot of attention. Circumventions of banking prudential rules (such as Basel rules) using shadow banking (such as securitization or derivatives instruments) have been pointed out as one of the main causes of the banking crisis. According to the financial literature, regulatory arbitrage would be the results of “loopholes” that emerge within regulations and which are used by arbitragers to minimise their regulatory cost. However, regulatory arbitrage has not truly been analysed from a theoretical and economic perspective which is key to understand fully its causes and consequences. The first part of this dissertation will focus more specifically on the causes of regulatory arbitrage. While light is usually shed on the action of arbitragers who attempt to manipulate the legal structure of their transactions to capture profit opportunities, we emphasize the role of the regulator who purposely or not, generates the necessary conditions for regulatory arbitrage to take place. The role of rules production type and institutions are usually omitted. This point leads us to discuss in detail the difference in nature between regulation and contractual rules and their incidence on regulatory arbitrage. The second part will focus on the consequences of regulatory arbitrage. These have not only been discussed partially in the existing literature. Efficiency of regulation, quality of rules, redistributive effect, creation or destruction of resources, increased regulatory competition or harmonization strategies among jurisdictions will be discussed in this dissertation as potential outcome of this phenomenon.; Depuis 2008, le thème de l’arbitrage réglementaire a attiré beaucoup d’attention. Le contournement des réglementations prudentielles (notamment des accords de Bâle) par l’utilisation de techniques de « Shadow Banking » (telles que la titrisation ou les instruments dérivés) a été dénoncé comme étant une des causes principales de la crise bancaire. D’après la littérature spécialisée, l’arbitrage réglementaire serait le résultat de failles qui émergeraient au sein des réglementations, lesquelles seraient exploitées par des arbitragistes pour minimiser leurs coûts. Cependant, l’arbitrage réglementaire n’a pas réellement fait l’objet d’une analyse théorique et économique satisfaisante permettant de comprendre pleinement ses causes et ses conséquences. La première partie de cette dissertation s’attache plus spécifiquement aux causes de l’arbitrage réglementaire. Bien que l’attention soit bien souvent portée sur l’arbitragiste qui tente de manipuler les structures juridiques de ses transactions pour capturer des opportunités de profits, nous soulignerons le rôle du régulateur qui de manière intentionnelle ou non, crée les conditions nécessaires à l’arbitrage réglementaire. Le mode de production des règles et le rôle de l’environnement institutionnel sont bien souvent omis. Ce point nous mène à discuter en détail de la différence de nature entre réglementations et règles contractuelles et son incidence sur l’arbitrage réglementaire. La seconde partie porte sur les conséquences de l’arbitrage réglementaire. Celles-ci n’ont été que partiellement discutées dans la littérature existante. Efficacité des réglementations, qualité des règles, effet redistributif, création ou destruction de richesses, concurrence réglementaire accrue ou tentative d’harmonisation des juridictions, tels seront les thèmes qui sont impactés par ce phénomène et qui seront abordés dans cette dissertation.