Settling for efficiency : a framework for the European securities transactions industry

Despite a lot of re-structuring and many innovations in recent years, the securities transaction industry in the European Union is still a highly inefficient and inconsistently configured system for cross-border transactions. This paper analyzes the functions performed, the institutions involved and the parameters concerned that shape market and ownership structure in the industry. Of particular interest are microeconomic incentives of the main players that can be in contradiction to social welfare. We develop a framework and analyze three consistent systems for the securities transaction industry in the EU that offer superior efficiency than the current, inefficient arrangement. Some policy advice is given to select the 'best' system for the Single European Financial Market

Opportunities for greater Lincolnshire's supply chains: summary report

A study of the key sector supply chains across Lincolnshire and the barriers and opportunities for growth

Post-market infrastructures and financial stability.

Post-market infrastructures execute critical functions — clearing and delivery versus payment — for the performance of trades in financial assets. This makes them potential vectors for destabilisation of the financial system in the event of malfunctions. Their impact on systemic risk warrants the supervisory and oversight authorities' concern for analysing the various risks that such infrastructures may incur and the efforts to establish a comprehensive set of recommendations for mitigating these risks. This objective has now been achieved with the publication of the CPSS/IOSCO recommendations in November 2001. These recommendations are intended to be universal in scope. In addition to setting adequate standards, the relevant authorities, and central banks in particular, have extended the scope of their responsibility in the field of maintaining financial stability by including the oversight of post-market infrastructures. The statutes of the Banque de France have recently been amended in such terms. Securities clearing and settlement infrastructures are changing rapidly both in Europe, where consolidation and sweeping rationalisation are taking place, and on the wider international scene. Users expect greater functional integration of infrastructures, which should contribute to the expansion of low-cost cross-border transactions and greater efficiency in securities processing. These changes have prompted the relevant authorities to co-operate more closely in the regulation, prudential supervision and oversight of the cross-border infrastructures being developed in Europe. With the development of pan-European infrastructures in the Paris financial markets, the Banque de France has played a very active role in enhancing co-ordinated oversight in conjunction with the other relevant national authorities.

Efficient systems for the securities transaction industry : a framework for the European Union

This paper provides a framework for the securities transaction industry in the EU to understand the functions performed, the institutions involved and the parameters concerned that shape market and ownership structure. Of particular interest are microeconomic incentives of the industry players that can be in contradiction to social welfare. We evaluate the three functions and the strategic parameters - the boundary decision, the communication standard employed and the governance implemented - along the lines of three efficiency concepts. By structuring the main factors that influence these concepts and by describing the underlying trade-offs among them, we provide insight into a highly complex industry. Applying our framework, the paper describes and analyzes three consistent systems for the securities transaction industry. We point out that one of the systems, denoted as 'contestable monopolies', demonstrates a superior overall efficiency while it might be the most sensitive in terms of configuration accuracy and thus difficult to achieve and sustain

Opportunities for greater Lincolnshire's supply chains: full report

A study of the key sector supply chains across Greater Lincolnshire, and identification of barriers and opportuniteis for growth

The Future of Emotional Harm

Why should tort law treat claims for emotional harm as a second-class citizen? Judicial skepticism about these claims is long entrenched, justified by an amalgam of perceived problems ranging from proof difficulties for causation and the need to constrain fraudulent claims, to the ubiquity of the injury, and a concern about open-ended liability. To address this jumble of justifications, the law has developed a series of duty limitations to curb the claims and preclude them from reaching the jury for individualized analysis. The limited duty approach to emotional harm is maintained by the latest iteration of the Restatement (Third) of Torts. This Article argues that many of the justifications for curtailing this tort have been discredited by scientific developments. In particular, the rapid advances in neuroscience give greater insight into the changes that occur in the brain from emotional harm. Limited duty tests should no longer be used as proxies for validity or justified by the presumed untrustworthiness of the claim. Instead, validity evidence for emotional harm claims—like evidence of physical harm—should be entrusted to juries. This approach will reassert the jury’s role as the traditional factfinder, promote corrective justice and deterrence values, and lead to greater equity for negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) claimants. The traditional limitations on tort recovery, including the rules of evidence and causation, are more than adequate to avoid opening the floodgates to emotional distress claims