Search

The introduction of the euro has helped to reduce problems linked to the 11 member states having different inflation rates and it should increase the number of cross-border acquisitions and mergers. It was hoped the euro would become stronger than the US dollar. Yet the introduction of the euro has increased the length of currency swings. Money moves between the markets in Japan, Europe and the US. Investors therefore have a major influence on currency swings which are the basis of economic policy. Countries considered as unfavourable can be badly affected when investment money is withdrawn.

Robert Mundell (1961. “A Theory of Optimum Currency Areas.” The American Economic Review 51 (4): 657–665) framed the fixed-versus-flexible exchange rate controversy in a novel way when he focused attention on currency areas and the ingredients necessary for a group of nations to form an optimal currency area (OCA). This paper proposes an analogous theory for cryptocurrencies, called optimal currency scope (OCS), and explains the conditions necessary for an OCS to exist. In contrast to an OCA, which is defined by its non-overlapping geographic areas, an OCS is defined by its multiple-overlapping attributes and the needs they solve, which we call scope. Scopes are not geographic and have fuzzy boundaries; so, the possibility of competing currencies in a single scope needs to be considered. The central issues surrounding an OCS are the optimal number and magnitude of currency attributes, rather than whether nations should adopt fixed versus fluctuating exchange rates. Similar to the findings since Mundell first introduced his OCA Theory, we find that the optimum number of cryptocurrency attributes and, therefore, the optimal number of cryptocurrencies must be determined empirically rather than theoretically. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Residential homes are the largest, most leveraged assets in most U.S. familie's portfolios. Home equity protection (HEP) contracts offer opportunities to safeguard these real estate interests. In the United States, each state decides if a HEP contract is financial guarantee insurance (FGI) and therefore, regulated by the state laws and insurance commission rules, or non-insurance financial protection (NIFP), which may escape state and federal regulations. Because HEP contracts have the potential to provide substantial benefits to homeowners, their regulation should be designed to protect state residents and encourage the development of safe alternatives. This article explains HEP contracts, their development and why states should treat those that require material interests as FGI. Particular focus is put on: (1) the advantages and disadvantages of HEP contracts that are linked to home price indices, (2) why linking these contracts to price indices should not disqualify them as FGI and (3) how HEP companies engage in regulatory arbitrage by linking their policies to home price indices and claiming NIFP status. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]