EU Level Banking and Supervisory Structures to the Financial Crisis (Coursework Sample)
Benefits from the EU's banking and supervisory frameworks are becoming apparent, and another banking crisis is not predicted for the near future. That being said, the European Union's banking and supervisory mechanisms have proven to be sufficient in the face of the financial crisis. The union is working toward the goal of preventing the recurrence of the debt crisis by implementing new policies. The economies of the European Union are implementing new government structures to improve the coordination of budgetary and economic policy. The European Commission will keep a careful eye on how the new plans are being implemented and how well certain economies are doing (Sharma, 2014).
source..
EU Level Banking and Supervisory Structures to the Financial Crisis
EU-Level Banking and Supervisory Structures to the Financial Crisis
By
Discussion
European economies felt the effects of the global financial crisis of 2007-2009 from 2007-2009. The crisis had its origins in the United States. U.S. bank profits dropped as a result of the financial crisis caused by the default on subprime mortgages. Since large European lending institutions had mostly adopted similar business structures before to the financial crisis, economies in the European Union were hit particularly hard (Burke, 2016). Since then, a number of nations and auditing organizations have demanded that the European Union reevaluate its approach to supervising and regulating financial institutions in the region. The suggested policies address the banks' liquidity, capital, and corporate structure. All of these methods, and how effective they are, are discussed in this paper. It also examines how well the European Union's banking and supervisory structures handled the debt crisis (Habermas & Cronin, 2012).
To combat the economic downturn, the European Union (EU) increased its commitment to policy coordination and alignment. This was made possible by the European Union's Parliament and Council enacting the "Six-pack," a package of laws based on economic governance. Stability, Growth, and Pact (SGP) were strengthened by this package, particularly in the area of fiscal policy (Govaere, Lennon, Elsuwege, Adam, & Maresceau, 2013). As of May 2013, a new set of laws known as "the two-pack" had taken effect. The two-principal pack's goals were (1) to improve budgetary system coordination via an overview of deadlines for fiscal operations in the eurozone, and (2) to strengthen financial and economic surveillance in the eeurozone by increasing monitoring of member states with severe financial instability (Olsson, 2009).
Since the pre-crisis framework failed to address the debt crisis in a timely manner, the financial crisis served as a stark indicator of a significant shortcoming in the financial services sector. The European Union established new authorities to oversee financial institutions in order to prevent further financial failures from occurring. The European Banking Authority (EBA), the Systematic Risk Board for Macro-prudential Supervision (SRBMS), and the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA) were among these institutions (Wymeersch, Hopt, & Ferrarini, 2012). To further improve the efficacy of monetary measures, the council also pushed for consolidation of financial institutions. Additional essential foundations have been approved by the Union, such as the Capital Standards Directive (CRD), which establishes stricter reasonable requirements for financial institutions (Jackson, 2010).
Benefits from the EU's banking and supervisory frameworks are becoming apparent, and another banking crisis is not predicted for the near future. That being said, the European Union's banking and supervisory mechanisms have proven to be sufficient in the face of the financial crisis. The union is working toward the goal of preventing the recurrence of the debt crisis by implementing new policies. The economies of the European Union are implementing new government structures to improve the coordination of budgetary and economic policy. The European Commission will keep a careful eye on how the new plans are being implemented and how well certain economies are doing (Sharma, 2014).
References
Burke, J. (2016). Weathering the Storm, Volume Two: The Financial Crisis and the EU Response(1st Ed.). New York: Business Expert Press.Govaere, I., Lannon, E., Elsuwege, P., Adam, S., & Maresceau, M. (2013). The European Unionin the world (1st Ed.). Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.Habermas, J. & Cronin, C. (2012). The crisis of the European Union (1st Ed.). Cambridge, UK:Polity.Jackson, J. (2010). Financial Crisis: Impact on and Response by the European Union (1st Ed.).Diane Publishing.Olsson, S. (2009). Crisis management in the European Union (1st Ed.). Berlin: Springer.Sharma. (2014). Global Financial Contagion: Building a Resilient World Economy after theSubprime Crisis (1st Ed.). Cambridge University Press.Wymeersch, E., Hopt, K., & Ferrarini, G. (2012). Financial Regulation and Supervision: A postcrisis analysis (1st ed.). OUP Oxford
Numerical calculations
* Net Present Value at 10%
Year
Project X
PV at 10%
Project Y
PV at 10%
Cost
0
-70,000
-70,000
-70,000
-70,000
Cash Inflows
1
10,000
9,091
50,000
45454.55
2
20,000
16,529
40,000
36363.64
3
30,000
22,539
20,000
18181.82
4
45,000
30,736
10,000
9090.91
5
60,000
37,255
10,000
9090.91
NPV at 10%
46,150
48,182
* Profitability index
Profitability Index = (NPV + Initial investment) ÷ Initial Investment
Project X
Project Y
Initial Investment
70,000
70,000
NPV
46,150
48,182
Total
116,150
118,182
Profitability Index
1.659
1.688
Internal Rate of Return of the two projects.
Cost
Year
Project X
PVIF at 25%
PV at 25%
PVIF at 30%
PV at 30%
Cash Inflows
0
-70,000
1.0000
-70,000
1.0000
-70,000
1
10,000
0.8000
8,000
0.7692
7,692
2
20,000
0.6400
12,800
0.5917
11,834
3
30,000
0.5120
15,360
0.4552
13,655
4
45,000
0.4096
18,432
0.3501
15,756
5
60,000
0.3277
19,661
0.2693
16,160
NPV at 10%
4,253
-4,903
IRR = 25% + [(4253 * (30-25)/(4253-(-4903)]= 27.32%Therefore IRR for Project X is 27.32 percent.
Project Y
Year
Cashflow
Year
PVIF AT 35%
PV at 35%
PVIF
PV at 40%
Cost
-70,000
0
1
-70,000
1
-70000
Cash Inflows
50,000
1
0.7407
37,037
0.7143
35714.29
40,000
2
0.5487
21,948
0.5102
20408.16
20,000
3
0.4064
8,129
0.3644
7288.63
10,000
4
0.3011
3,011
0.2603
2603.082
10,000
5
0.2230
2,230
0.1859
1859.344
NPV at 10%
Other Topics:
- Housing Price ForecastingDescription: Housing Market Prediction, A new study shows where home prices are likely to fall in 2023....5 pages/≈1375 words| 4 Sources | APA | Literature & Language | Coursework |
- 4P's of MarketingDescription: 4P's of marketing mix are product, price, place, and promotion, which are the four main elements that businesses use to market and sell their products or services. Understanding these four components and how they interact is essential for creating an effective marketing strategy. ...2 pages/≈550 words| 1 Source | APA | Literature & Language | Coursework |
- NursingDescription: Nursing Literature & Language Coursework...1 page/≈275 words| 3 Sources | APA | Literature & Language | Coursework |