Search

The increasingly service-based U.S. economy relies on innovation. While there is considerable research on the importance of certain innovative activities, such as patents, less attention has been paid to unpatented innovation, about which there is naturally less publicly available information. Our study exploits disclosure on the fair value of acquired innovation to show that unpatented innovation plays an important, though often ignored, role in merger value creation. We detail the importance of unpatented technology and show that traditional approaches that rely only on R&D expenditures and patents lead to both misclassification of merger types and underestimates of the impact of innovation in value creation. Our evidence suggests that, on average, unpatented innovation accounts for a larger portion of synergies. We further show that higher (lower) gains accrue to the acquirer (the target) in relation to unpatented innovation, consistent with limited publicly available information about unpatented innovation reducing the target’s bargaining power.

In Chapter 6, Muysken and Meijers look at the increase in total assets of the financial sector in the Netherlands over the past 25 years from 600% of GDP in 1995 to over 1400% in 2020. There are specific features of the Dutch economy that caused the financial sector to continue to grow strongly even after the financial crisis. Two outstanding features are the continued growth of net trade surplus and the presence of a funded pension system with defined benefits. The authors analyse the growth of the financial sector in more detail using balance sheet data from the national account statistics. The explicit role of balance sheets and portfolios of financial assets of the various sectors in the model, together with the detailed impact of wealth effects on expenditure, makes it possible to identify the impact of financial sector operations in detail. In the present chapter, the authors employ the insights from their earlier analyses and the work of Meijers, Muysken and Sleijpen to construct a coherent data set from the national account data and to use these data to analyse the growth of the financial sector in the Netherlands over the past 25 years in a descriptive way.

ilustracioes, graficas, mapas Las cooperativas de ahorro y crédito revisten una gran importancia para la economía colombiana ya que tienen como objetivo incluir aquellos sectores de la población que no tienen la oportunidad de acceder a los servicios ofrecidos por la banca tradicional. En consecuencia, este tipo de organizaciones se ha convertido en objetivo clave de las redes ilegales que ejercen actividades de lavado de activos y financiación del terrorismo (LAFT), haciéndolas especialmente vulnerables a dicho riesgo. Este hecho demanda la implementación de análisis basados en riesgos que permitan la generación de alertas oportunas, las cuales redunden en acciones efectivas de prevención y mitigación del riesgo LAFT. La Superintendencia de la Economía Solidaria, representa entonces un actor fundamental en la lucha contra este flagelo y es por esta razón que sus acciones deben enmarcarse en la independencia, el criterio técnico y la inspección constante de sus vigiladas para atacar las amenazas y disminuir las vulnerabilidades que ocasionan el riesgo LAFT. Por ende, el presente trabajo de investigación busca brindar un aporte técnico y crítico, a través de la propuesta de un procedimiento de supervisión basado en riesgos (SBR), que constituya para el ente de control una guía práctica para el análisis y evaluación de la implementación del Sistema de Administración de Riesgos de Lavado de Activos y Financiación al Terrorismo (SARLAFT) en sus vigilados. (Texto tomado de la fuente) Credit unions are very important for the Colombian economy because their purpose is to include those sectors of the population that can´t access the services offered by traditional banks. Consequently, this kind of organization has become a key target for illegal networks involved in money laundering and terrorist financing activities, turning them highly vulnerable to this risk. It requires the implementation of risk-based analyses that allow the generation of early alerts, which result in effective actions to prevent and mitigate the LAFT risk. Superintendencia de la Economía Solidaria represents as follows, an important agent in the struggle against this scourge and that is the reason why its actions must be framed in independence, technical criteria and constant inspection of its supervised entities to attack the threats and reduce the vulnerabilities that cause the LAFT risk. Therefore, this research seeks to provide a technical and critical contribution, through the proposal of a risk-based supervision procedure, which constitutes for the control entity a practical guide for the analysis and evaluation of the implementation of the Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Risk Management System in its supervised entities. Maestría Magíster en Contabilidad y Finanzas En el presente capítulo se expone la metodología empleada en el desarrollo del presente trabajo, la cual permitió la recopilación y análisis de información, los cuales resultaron en la obtención del procedimiento de supervisión basado en riesgos. Para la realización de la investigación se consideraron los elementos teóricos propios de la metodología de estudio de caso, a través de la recolección histórica de datos normativos y procedimentales relativos al funcionamiento de las cooperativas de ahorro y crédito a nivel nacional e internacional, los cuales fueron organizados, analizados y segmentados con el fin de aportar elementos conceptuales y metodológicos en el procedimiento. Se mantuvo un enfoque cualitativo, que conllevó dos aspectos fundamentales que describe Katayama (2014): la identificación de mecanismos mediante los cuales los sujetos sociales crean sus realidades y la distinción de procedimientos e interrelación entre ellos para crear dichas realidades. Estos postulados se aplicaron de la siguiente manera: i) Se identificaron los mecanismos mediante los cuales los entes de supervisión de cada país objeto de estudio (Colombia, Estados Unidos y México) ejecutan sus labores ii) Se analizaron los procedimientos de manera particular, y se distinguieron aquellos aspectos que a la fecha no han sido contemplados en Colombia con el fin de diseñar el procedimiento de supervisión basado en riesgos. Control

Deregulation and globalization since the early 1990s caused a boom in the current global financial cycle, which cumulated in the financial crisis in 2007. Austerity fiscal policies after the financial crisis induced Central Banks all over the world to intervene by stimulating ‘unconventional’ monetary policies. In earlier papers, we developed several stock flow consistent models for an open Euro Area economy to investigate various aspects of the impact of these developments, with special attention to the role of the Central Bank with low interest policy and quantitative easing. We analysed the influence on mortgage growth and house prices, the growing amount of funded pension savings held abroad and the destabilising impact of low interest rates on pension claims, and the phenomenon that firms more and more use their savings for share buy-backs and (speculative) investments abroad – see Muysken and Meijers (2022) for an overview. However, we did not pay explicit attention to the distributional consequences these developments might have. The social and economic impact of the COVID crisis since early 2020 stimulated the awareness in the literature and the policy debate that the increase in house prices and asset prices invigorated wealth inequality. These developments create social tensions and therefore can have severe economic consequences. In the present paper, we bring all our earlier models together in one stock-flow consistent model, which we estimate and simulate for the Netherlands. The model is based on a stock-flow consistent set of macroeconomic data, which we collected for the Netherlands. In line with our previous research we argue that these phenomena can be captured very well by a stock flow consistent model in the tradition of Godley and Lavoie, which we estimate and simulate for the Netherlands. From simulations with our model we show that both housing price bubbles and asset price bubbles occur due to low interest rates and riskier bank behaviour, induced by a central bank policy of Quantitative Easing. The intended aim of this central bank policy – enhancing economic growth – is not reached, because the monetary stimulus is absorbed by the financial sector. Moreover, a presumably unintended consequence of Quantitative Easing in the Netherlands is an increase in wealth inequality.

Deregulation and globalization since the early 1990s caused a boom in the current global financial cycle, which cumulated in the financial crisis in 2007. Austerity fiscal policies after the financial crisis induced Central Banks all over the world to intervene by stimulating ‘unconventional’ monetary policies. In earlier papers, we developed several stock flow consistent models for an open Euro Area economy to investigate various aspects of the impact of these developments, with special attention to the role of the Central Bank with low interest policy and quantitative easing. We analysed the influence on mortgage growth and house prices, the growing amount of funded pension savings held abroad and the destabilising impact of low interest rates on pension claims, and the phenomenon that firms more and more use their savings for share buy-backs and (speculative) investments abroad – see Muysken and Meijers (2022) for an overview. However, we did not pay explicit attention to the distributional consequences these developments might have. The social and economic impact of the COVID crisis since early 2020 stimulated the awareness in the literature and the policy debate that the increase in house prices and asset prices invigorated wealth inequality. These developments create social tensions and therefore can have severe economic consequences. In the present paper, we bring all our earlier models together in one stock-flow consistent model, which we estimate and simulate for the Netherlands. The model is based on a stock-flow consistent set of macroeconomic data, which we collected for the Netherlands. In line with our previous research we argue that these phenomena can be captured very well by a stock flow consistent model in the tradition of Godley and Lavoie, which we estimate and simulate for the Netherlands. From simulations with our model we show that both housing price bubbles and asset price bubbles occur due to low interest rates and riskier bank behaviour, induced by a central bank policy of Quantitative Easing. The intended aim of this central bank policy – enhancing economic growth – is not reached, because the monetary stimulus is absorbed by the financial sector. Moreover, a presumably unintended consequence of Quantitative Easing in the Netherlands is an increase in wealth inequality.

Deregulation and globalization since the early 1990s caused a boom in the current global financial cycle, which cumulated in the financial crisis in 2007. Austerity fiscal policies after the financial crisis induced Central Banks all over the world to intervene by stimulating ‘unconventional’ monetary policies. In earlier papers, we developed several stock flow consistent models for an open Euro Area economy to investigate various aspects of the impact of these developments, with special attention to the role of the Central Bank with low interest policy and quantitative easing. We analysed the influence on mortgage growth and house prices, the growing amount of funded pension savings held abroad and the destabilising impact of low interest rates on pension claims, and the phenomenon that firms more and more use their savings for share buy-backs and (speculative) investments abroad – see Muysken and Meijers (2022) for an overview. However, we did not pay explicit attention to the distributional consequences these developments might have. The social and economic impact of the COVID crisis since early 2020 stimulated the awareness in the literature and the policy debate that the increase in house prices and asset prices invigorated wealth inequality. These developments create social tensions and therefore can have severe economic consequences. In the present paper, we bring all our earlier models together in one stock-flow consistent model, which we estimate and simulate for the Netherlands. The model is based on a stock-flow consistent set of macroeconomic data, which we collected for the Netherlands. In line with our previous research we argue that these phenomena can be captured very well by a stock flow consistent model in the tradition of Godley and Lavoie, which we estimate and simulate for the Netherlands. From simulations with our model we show that both housing price bubbles and asset price bubbles occur due to low interest rates and riskier bank behaviour, induced by a central bank policy of Quantitative Easing. The intended aim of this central bank policy – enhancing economic growth – is not reached, because the monetary stimulus is absorbed by the financial sector. Moreover, a presumably unintended consequence of Quantitative Easing in the Netherlands is an increase in wealth inequality.

Deregulation and globalization since the early 1990s caused a boom in the current global financial cycle, which cumulated in the financial crisis in 2007. Austerity fiscal policies after the financial crisis induced Central Banks all over the world to intervene by stimulating ‘unconventional’ monetary policies. In earlier papers, we developed several stock flow consistent models for an open Euro Area economy to investigate various aspects of the impact of these developments, with special attention to the role of the Central Bank with low interest policy and quantitative easing. We analysed the influence on mortgage growth and house prices, the growing amount of funded pension savings held abroad and the destabilising impact of low interest rates on pension claims, and the phenomenon that firms more and more use their savings for share buy-backs and (speculative) investments abroad – see Muysken and Meijers (2022) for an overview. However, we did not pay explicit attention to the distributional consequences these developments might have.The social and economic impact of the COVID crisis since early 2020 stimulated the awareness in the literature and the policy debate that the increase in house prices and asset prices invigorated wealth inequality. These developments create social tensions and therefore can have severe economic consequences.In the present paper, we bring all our earlier models together in one stock-flow consistent model, which we estimate and simulate for the Netherlands. The model is based on a stock-flow consistent set of macroeconomic data, which we collected for the Netherlands. From simulations with our model we show (a) why housing price bubbles occur (due to riskier bank behaviour); (b) why asset price bubbles occur (also due to speculation by firms); (c) the destabilising impact of low interest rates on pension claims; (d) how these developments have contributed to an increasing wealth inequality and income inequality. We also show how inequality reacts to various shocks, for instance in the interest rate, the wage rate, the risk appetite of banks and firms and the fall in world trade.

Deregulation and globalization since the early 1990s caused a boom in the current global financial cycle, which cumulated in the financial crisis in 2007. Austerity fiscal policies after the financial crisis induced Central Banks all over the world to intervene by stimulating ‘unconventional’ monetary policies. In earlier papers, we developed several stock flow consistent models for an open Euro Area economy to investigate various aspects of the impact of these developments, with special attention to the role of the Central Bank with low interest policy and quantitative easing. We analysed the influence on mortgage growth and house prices, the growing amount of funded pension savings held abroad and the destabilising impact of low interest rates on pension claims, and the phenomenon that firms more and more use their savings for share buy-backs and (speculative) investments abroad – see Muysken and Meijers (2022) for an overview. However, we did not pay explicit attention to the distributional consequences these developments might have. The social and economic impact of the COVID crisis since early 2020 stimulated the awareness in the literature and the policy debate that the increase in house prices and asset prices invigorated wealth inequality. These developments create social tensions and therefore can have severe economic consequences. In the present paper, we bring all our earlier models together in one stock-flow consistent model, which we estimate and simulate for the Netherlands. The model is based on a stock-flow consistent set of macroeconomic data, which we collected for the Netherlands. From simulations with our model we show (a) why housing price bubbles occur (due to riskier bank behaviour); (b) why asset price bubbles occur (also due to speculation by firms); (c) the destabilising impact of low interest rates on pension claims; (d) how these developments have contributed to an increasing wealth inequality and income inequality. We also show how inequality reacts to various shocks, for instance in the interest rate, the wage rate, the risk appetite of banks and firms and the fall in world trade.

Deregulation and globalization since the early 1990s caused a boom in the current global financial cycle, which cumulated in the financial crisis in 2007. Austerity fiscal policies after the financial crisis induced Central Banks all over the world to intervene with stimulating ‘unconventional’ monetary policies. In earlier papers we developed several stock flow consistent models for an open Euro Area economy to investigate various aspects of the impact of these developments, with special attention to the role of the Central Bank with low interest policy and quantitative easing. We analysed the influence on mortgage growth and house prices, the growing amount of funded pension savings held abroad and the destabilising impact of low interest rates on pension claims, and the phenomenon that firms more and more use their savings for share buy-backs and (speculative) investments abroad – see Muysken and Meijers (2022) for an overview. However, we did not pay explicit attention to the distributional consequences these developments might have. The social and economic impact of the COVID crisis since early 2020 stimulated the awareness in the literature and the policy debate that the increase in house prices and asset prices invigorated wealth inequality. This inequality was strengthened in countries with funded pension systems, because low interest rates strongly increased pension claims, which implies higher mandatory pension contributions for employees with different implications for young and old workers. Finally, there is a more evasive impact related to the attitude that rules that held prior to the financial crises should no longer be followed too close – the lenience allowed to enable individual banks to survive and to enable central banks to influence the economy directly since the low interest rate policy is no longer effective and has a demoralising impact on society. These developments create social tensions and therefore can have severe economic consequences. In the present paper we bring all our earlier models together in one stock-flow consistent model, which we estimate and calibrate for the Netherlands. The model is based on a stock-flow consistent set of macroeconomic data, which we collected for the Netherlands. From simulations with our model we show (a) why housing price bubbles occur (due to riskier bank behaviour); (b) why asset price bubbles occur (also due to speculation by firms); (c) the destabilising impact of low interest rates on pension claims; (d) how these developments have contributed to an increasing wealth inequality and income inequality. We also show how inequality reacts to various shocks, for instance in the interest rate, the wage rate, the risk appetite of banks and firms and the fall in world trade. JEL Code: E44, B5, E6, F45, G21, G32 Key words: financialisation, wealth distribution, income distribution, stock-flow consistent modelling

Deregulation and globalization since the early 1990s caused a boom in the current global financial cycle, which cumulated in the financial crisis in 2007. Austerity fiscal policies after the financial crisis induced Central Banks all over the world to intervene with stimulating ‘unconventional’ monetary policies. In earlier papers we developed several stock flow consistent models for an open Euro Area economy to investigate various aspects of the impact of these developments, with special attention to the role of the Central Bank with low interest policy and quantitative easing. We analysed the influence on mortgage growth and house prices, the growing amount of funded pension savings held abroad and the destabilising impact of low interest rates on pension claims, and the phenomenon that firms more and more use their savings for share buy-backs and (speculative) investments abroad – see Muysken and Meijers (2022) for an overview. However, we did not pay explicit attention to the distributional consequences these developments might have. The social and economic impact of the COVID crisis since early 2020 stimulated the awareness in the literature and the policy debate that the increase in house prices and asset prices invigorated wealth inequality. This inequality was strengthened in countries with funded pension systems, because low interest rates strongly increased pension claims, which implies higher mandatory pension contributions for employees with different implications for young and old workers. Finally, there is a more evasive impact related to the attitude that rules that held prior to the financial crises should no longer be followed too close – the lenience allowed to enable individual banks to survive and to enable central banks to influence the economy directly since the low interest rate policy is no longer effective and has a demoralising impact on society. These developments create social tensions and therefore can have severe economic consequences. In the present paper we bring all our earlier models together in one stock-flow consistent model, which we estimate and calibrate for the Netherlands. The model is based on a stock-flow consistent set of macroeconomic data, which we collected for the Netherlands. From simulations with our model we show (a) why housing price bubbles occur (due to riskier bank behaviour); (b) why asset price bubbles occur (also due to speculation by firms); (c) the destabilising impact of low interest rates on pension claims; (d) how these developments have contributed to an increasing wealth inequality and income inequality. We also show how inequality reacts to various shocks, for instance in the interest rate, the wage rate, the risk appetite of banks and firms and the fall in world trade. JEL Code: E44, B5, E6, F45, G21, G32 Key words: financialisation, wealth distribution, income distribution, stock-flow consistent modelling

Deregulation and globalization since the early 1990s caused a boom in the current global financial cycle, which cumulated in the financial crisis in 2007. Austerity fiscal policies after the financial crisis induced Central Banks all over the world to intervene with stimulating ‘unconventional’ monetary policies. In earlier papers we developed several stock flow consistent models for an open Euro Area economy to investigate various aspects of the impact of these developments, with special attention to the role of the Central Bank with low interest policy and quantitative easing. We analysed the influence on mortgage growth and house prices, the growing amount of funded pension savings held abroad and the destabilising impact of low interest rates on pension claims, and the phenomenon that firms more and more use their savings for share buy-backs and (speculative) investments abroad – see Muysken and Meijers (2022) for an overview. However, we did not pay explicit attention to the distributional consequences these developments might have.The social and economic impact of the COVID crisis since early 2020 stimulated the awareness in the literature and the policy debate that the increase in house prices and asset prices invigorated wealth inequality. This inequality was strengthened in countries with funded pension systems, because low interest rates strongly increased pension claims, which implies higher mandatory pension contributions for employees with different implications for young and old workers. Finally, there is a more evasive impact related to the attitude that rules that held prior to the financial crises should no longer be followed too close – the lenience allowed to enable individual banks to survive and to enable central banks to influence the economy directly since the low interest rate policy is no longer effective and has a demoralising impact on society. These developments create social tensions and therefore can have severe economic consequences.In the present paper we bring all our earlier models together in one stock-flow consistent model, which we estimate and calibrate for the Netherlands. The model is based on a stock-flow consistent set of macroeconomic data, which we collected for the Netherlands. From simulations with our model we show (a) why housing price bubbles occur (due to riskier bank behaviour); (b) why asset price bubbles occur (also due to speculation by firms); (c) the destabilising impact of low interest rates on pension claims; (d) how these developments have contributed to an increasing wealth inequality and income inequality. We also show how inequality reacts to various shocks, for instance in the interest rate, the wage rate, the risk appetite of banks and firms and the fall in world trade.JEL Code: E44, B5, E6, F45, G21, G32Key words: financialisation, wealth distribution, income distribution, stock-flow consistent modelling

The German Federal Government passed the “Easter Package” in July 2022, which envisages a number of measures for the expansion of renewable energy sources. The package retains sliding market premiums as a remuneration mechanism, which protect electricity producers unilaterally, while contracts for difference (CfDs), which also protect electricity customers, are only used in the offshore wind sector. However, CfDs could lead to a reduction in financing costs and reduce electricity price risks for producers as well as households and companies. The decline in financing costs would strengthen the expansion of renewable energy sources. In this context, a simplified market value model and further developing the reference yield model could ensure a system-friendly expansion of renewable energy sources., DIW Weekly Report

Die Bundesregierung hat im Juli 2022 das sogenannte „Osterpaket“ verabschiedet, das eine Vielzahl an Maßnahmen zum Ausbau erneuerbarer Energien vorsieht. Das Paket hält an der gleitenden Marktprämie als Vergütungsmechanismus fest, welche einseitig nur StromerzeugerInnen absichert, während auch StromkundInnen absichernde Differenzverträge nur im Windbereich offshore zum Einsatz kommen sollen. Differenzverträge könnten jedoch zu einer Reduktion der Förderkosten führen, Strompreisrisiken für StromerzeugerInnen sowie Haushalte und Unternehmen reduzieren. Die damit einhergehende Senkung von Finanzierungskosten würde den Ausbau erneuerbarer Energien stärken. Dabei könnte ein vereinfachtes Marktwertmodell sowie eine Weiterentwicklung des Referenzertragsmodells sicherstellen, dass der Ausbau erneuerbarer Energien systemfreundlich erfolgt., DIW Wochenbericht

Do banks charge an environmental premium when lending to publicly listed firms? Using a unique and comprehensive database on carbon emissions, we find that higher carbon emissions are associated with higher loan spreads. This effect exists for loans arranged by all lenders suggesting that spread premia are driven by environmental risks rather than investor preferences. Consistent with ex-post risk, companies without appropriate board-level responsibility pay higher spreads. While countries might introduce effective legislation to mitigate the effects of climate change, our results indicate that there is scope for a market-based solution to complement explicit environmental regulation.