IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/safewh/82.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

BaFin (in)dependence - a reform proposal

Author

Listed:
  • Kaufhold, Ann-Katrin
  • Langenbucher, Katja
  • Blank, Patrick
  • Krahnen, Jan Pieter

Abstract

In this paper we put forward a legal argument in favour of granting more independence to BaFin, the German securities market supervisor. Following the Wirecard scandal, our reform proposal aims at strengthening the impartiality and credibility of the German supervisor and, as a consequence, at restoring capital market integrity. In order to achieve the necessary degree of democratic legitimacy for giving BaFin more independence and disassociating it from the Ministry of Finance, the paper sets out the necessary steps for a legal reform that creates accountability of BaFin vis-à-vis the Parliament, subjecting it to strict disclosure and reporting obligations.

Suggested Citation

  • Kaufhold, Ann-Katrin & Langenbucher, Katja & Blank, Patrick & Krahnen, Jan Pieter, 2021. "BaFin (in)dependence - a reform proposal," SAFE White Paper Series 82, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE.
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:safewh:82
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/232028/1/1752342127.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Alberto Alesina & Guido Tabellini, 2007. "Bureaucrats or Politicians? Part I: A Single Policy Task," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(1), pages 169-179, March.
    2. George J. Stigler, 1971. "The Theory of Economic Regulation," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 2(1), pages 3-21, Spring.
    3. Guy L. F. Holburn, 2004. "Influencing Agencies Through Pivotal Political Institutions," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 20(2), pages 458-483, October.
    4. Markus K. Brunnermeier & Luis Garicano & Philip R. Lane & Marco Pagano & Ricardo Reis & Tano Santos & David Thesmar & Stijn Van Nieuwerburgh & Dimitri Vayanos, 2016. "The Sovereign-Bank Diabolic Loop and ESBies," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 106(5), pages 508-512, May.
    5. Emmanuel Farhi & Jean Tirole, 2018. "Deadly Embrace: Sovereign and Financial Balance Sheets Doom Loops," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 85(3), pages 1781-1823.
    6. Langenbucher, Katja & Leuz, Christian & Krahnen, Jan Pieter & Pelizzon, Loriana, 2020. "What are the wider supervisory implications of the Wirecard case?," SAFE White Paper Series 74, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE.
    7. Besfamille, Martin, 2004. "Local public works and intergovernmental transfers under asymmetric information," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(1-2), pages 353-375, January.
    8. Barry Weingast, 1984. "The congressional-bureaucratic system: a principal agent perspective (with applications to the SEC)," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 44(1), pages 147-191, January.
    9. Sugata Roychowdhury & Suraj Srinivasan, 2019. "The Role of Gatekeepers in Capital Markets," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 57(2), pages 295-322, May.
    10. Vaubel, Roland, 1997. "The bureaucratic and partisan behavior of independent central banks: German and international evidence," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 13(2), pages 201-224, May.
    11. Luzi Hail & Christian Leuz, 2006. "International Differences in the Cost of Equity Capital: Do Legal Institutions and Securities Regulation Matter?," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(3), pages 485-531, June.
    12. Yu, Frank & Yu, Xiaoyun, 2011. "Corporate Lobbying and Fraud Detection," Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 46(6), pages 1865-1891, December.
    13. William D. Nordhaus, 1975. "The Political Business Cycle," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 42(2), pages 169-190.
    14. Marc Quintyn & Michael W. Taylor, 2003. "Regulatory and Supervisory Independence and Financial Stability," CESifo Economic Studies, CESifo Group, vol. 49(2), pages 259-294.
    15. Jean-Jacques Laffont & David Martimort, 1999. "Separation of Regulators Against Collusive Behavior," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 30(2), pages 232-262, Summer.
    16. Jones Heese & Mozaffar Khan & Karthik Ramanna, 2017. "Is the SEC Captured? Evidence from Comment-Letter Reviews," Harvard Business School Working Papers 17-087, Harvard Business School.
    17. Jonas Heese, 2019. "The Political Influence of Voters’ Interests on SEC Enforcement," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(2), pages 869-903, June.
    18. Correia, Maria M., 2014. "Political connections and SEC enforcement," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 241-262.
    19. Mehta, Mihir N. & Zhao, Wanli, 2020. "Politician Careers and SEC enforcement against financial misconduct," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(2).
    20. Dell'Ariccia, Giovanni & Marquez, Robert, 2006. "Competition among regulators and credit market integration," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 79(2), pages 401-430, February.
    21. Heese, Jonas & Khan, Mozaffar & Ramanna, Karthik, 2017. "Is the SEC captured? Evidence from comment-letter reviews," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(1), pages 98-122.
    22. Brandon Gipper & Christian Leuz & Mark Maffett, 2020. "Public Oversight and Reporting Credibility: Evidence from the PCAOB Audit Inspection Regime," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 33(10), pages 4532-4579.
    23. Eddy Wymeersch, 2014. "The single supervisory mechanism or “SSM”, part one of the Banking Union," Working Paper Research 255, National Bank of Belgium.
    24. Kydland, Finn E & Prescott, Edward C, 1977. "Rules Rather Than Discretion: The Inconsistency of Optimal Plans," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 85(3), pages 473-491, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Martin Hellwig & Gerhard Schick, 2022. "Versagen und Reformbedarf der deutschen Finanzaufsicht," Working Papers 2, Forum New Economy.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Abdul‐Rahman Khokhar & Hesam Shahriari, 2022. "Is the SEC captured? Evidence from political connectedness and SEC enforcement actions," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 62(2), pages 2725-2756, June.
    2. Ormazabal, Gaizka, 2018. "The Role of Stakeholders in Corporate Governance: A View from Accounting Research," CEPR Discussion Papers 12775, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    3. Knechel, W. Robert & Park, Hyun Jong, 2022. "Audit firm political connections and PCAOB inspection reports," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    4. Kuvvet, Emre & Maskara, Pankaj Kumar, 2018. "Former members of the U.S. Congress and fraud enforcement: Does it help to have politically connected friends on the board?," The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 77-89.
    5. Boland, Matthew & Godsell, David, 2021. "Bureaucratic discretion and contracting outcomes," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    6. Thompson, Anne M., 2022. "Political connections and the SEC confidential treatment process," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(1).
    7. Heese, Jonas & Krishnan, Ranjani & Ramasubramanian, Hari, 2021. "The Department of Justice as a gatekeeper in whistleblower-initiated corporate fraud enforcement: Drivers and consequences," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(1).
    8. Hutton, Amy & Shu, Susan & Zheng, Xin, 2022. "Regulatory transparency and the alignment of private and public enforcement: Evidence from the public disclosure of SEC comment letters," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 145(1), pages 297-321.
    9. Yunsen Chen & Yilu Deng & Yufang Jin & Hetong Lou & Xin Zhang, 2020. "Political Connection and Regulatory Scrutiny through Comment Letters: Evidence from China," International Review of Finance, International Review of Finance Ltd., vol. 20(3), pages 789-798, September.
    10. Jonas Heese, 2022. "Does Industry Employment of Active Regulators Weaken Oversight?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(12), pages 9198-9218, December.
    11. Matthew McCarten & Ivan Diaz‐Rainey & Helen Roberts & Eric K. M. Tan, 2022. "Political connections, tacit power and corporate misconduct," Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(9-10), pages 1530-1552, October.
    12. Hills, Robert & Kubic, Matthew & Mayew, William J., 2021. "State sponsors of terrorism disclosure and SEC financial reporting oversight," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(1).
    13. Miguel Duro & Jonas Heese & Gaizka Ormazabal, 2019. "The effect of enforcement transparency: Evidence from SEC comment-letter reviews," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 24(3), pages 780-823, September.
    14. Donelson, Dain C. & Kubic, Matthew & Toynbee, Sara, 2024. "The SEC's September spike: Regulatory inconsistency within the fiscal year," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 77(2).
    15. Iselin, Michael & Johnson, Bret & Ott, Jacob & Raleigh, Jacob, 2022. "Protecting wall street or main street: SEC monitoring and enforcement of retail-owned firms," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 117743, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    16. Antonio Estache & Liam Wren-Lewis, 2010. "What Anti-Corruption Policy Can Learn from Theories of Sector Regulation," Working Papers ECARES ECARES 2010-033, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    17. Heese, Jonas & Khan, Mozaffar & Ramanna, Karthik, 2017. "Is the SEC captured? Evidence from comment-letter reviews," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(1), pages 98-122.
    18. Zhu, Xiuli & Li, Xiaohui & Zhou, Kexin & Yu, Yuying, 2023. "The impact of annual reports transparency and comment letters on the cost of debt: Evidence for China," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).
    19. Child, Travers Barclay & Massoud, Nadia & Schabus, Mario & Zhou, Yifan, 2021. "Surprise election for Trump connections," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 140(2), pages 676-697.
    20. Correia, Maria M., 2014. "Political connections and SEC enforcement," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 241-262.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:zbw:safewh:82. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/csafede.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.