Die öffentlichen Förderbanken in Deutschland

In recent years, public development banks have increasingly become the focus of legal policy, whether in the wake of the financial crisis or, more recently, in the wake of the Corona crisis. The work subjects the public development banks, which have so far been discussed in the legal literature at best in relation to individual issues, to a detailed legal examination, taking into account the various organizational forms and legal foundations as well as the special "business model", which is characterized by the public mandate, the state protection as well as a state influence and control. Finally, the paper deals with the application of banking supervision law to public development banks, taking into account this special business model.

SHARIA COMPLIANCE RISK IN ISLAMIC BANK: DOES INDONESIA NEED TO ADOPT NEW SHARIA RISK RATING APPROACH ?

The purpose of this study is to find the most relevant practice of supervision to manage Sharia Compliance Risk in Indonesian Islamic Bank based on the existing literature. The standard doctrinal approach is used to analyse, examine and evaluate the practice of Islamic banking supervision in Indonesia and Islamic banking in Malaysia for comparative purposes. The results revealed that the prior study on Sharia risk rating is applicable to manage Sharia Compliance Risk in Islamic Banks and their factors meet the Basel, AAOOIFI, and IFSB standards. However, there is no assessment made on evaluating the quality of supervision by Sharia Supervisory Board (SSB) members. Thus the study suggested the inclusion of additional factors on the performance of SSB. For Islamic Banking in Indonesia, this sharia risk rating approach can be combined with applicable internal and external risk rating techniques, to provide the promising quality of service and ensure that the offering of various products and services complies with Sharia rules and principles

Implementation of Regulatory and Supervisory Policy Authority in the Establishment of Internal SOP Against Credit Fraud in Indonesian Banking

Banking is one of the drivers and centers of a country's economy. Based on the authority they have, it is not surprising that the risk held by banks is very high. Therefore, banking is one of the business sectors that have very strict supervision. This paper discusses how the implementation of regulatory policy authorities applicable in Indonesia related to the establishment of internal banking Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) in minimizing the potential for credit fraud and how internal and external supervisory authorities can become benchmarks in supporting the creation of anti-fraud policies, especially in credit fraud. There are two main factors that can create a potential credit fraud chain that leads to financial statement fraud: first, delays in updating regulatory policies; and second, ineffective and insensitive internal and external banking supervision. In addition, there needs to be a certain regulatory policy that deals with credit fraud, whether issued by the government, Bank Indonesia, OJK or internal Banking SOP itself.

Motivation and Framework

This chapter introduces the concept and a definition of the “formalization” of banking supervision that is examined in this book and outlines the aim and scope of the book. In addition to providing the reader with an overview of the history of banking supervision in eight developed countries (the US, Japan, Sweden, Germany, Switzerland, Belgium, France, and the UK), the book presents information regarding the formalization process itself. That process is assessed based on three criteria—bank regulation, supervisory authority, and supervisory activity. This approach is intended to provide more detail than a simple assessment based on banking acts that is common in financial regulation research. The aim of the analysis undertaken in this book is to identify why the history of banking supervision in various countries shares many similarities and yet also displays many differences. In Sect. 1.5, we provide an overview of the historiography of the formalization of banking supervision with a special emphasis on comparative and internationally oriented literature, while the growing body of literature on each of the national cases is discussed in subsequent chapters.

Drivers of the Formalization of Banking Supervision

In this chapter, the drivers of the formalization of banking supervision are examined from seven perspectives: (a) charter requirements, (b) banknote issuance, (c) liability rules, (d) ensuring the public’s trust, (e) financial crises, (f) economic control, and (g) financial globalization. Our analysis shows that formalization occurred in response to the shifting needs of the time/era and that the formalization process was basically incremental. Notably, financial crises, which are generally considered to be the primary drivers of major regulatory and supervisory reforms, did not always play a leading role in the formalization of banking supervision. It should also be noted that from a historical perspective, regulation and supervision were not “natural” responses to a dysfunctional banking system. Rather, the formalization of banking supervision was the product of complex political actions negotiated by relevant stakeholders with divergent interests in a specific social, political, and economic environment.

Switzerland: Formalizing Banking Supervision in the Aftermath of a Crisis, Better Late Than Never

This chapter deals with the formalization of banking supervision in Switzerland, which occurred throughout the twentieth century in a three-step process. First, between 1914 and 1931, the introduction of formal banking supervision, including a detailed Banking Act enforced by an authority, was discussed but was rejected under the influence of leading bankers. Second, in the aftermath of a severe banking crisis in 1931–1934, the resistance of bankers was undermined and a federal law on commercial banking, featuring the setting up of a new supervision agency, was adopted. Third, until the late 1970s, despite the existence of a legal code and a designated authority, the formalization was still incomplete, because the agency was lacking the formal capacity and resources to guarantee an effective enforcement of financial regulation. During that period (1930s–1970s), policymakers were unable to remove the flaws of the supervisory regime because of the strong preference of the main stakeholders (commercial banks, banking supervisors) for the existing system.

The United States: The First Formalization of Banking Supervision

This chapter examines the formalization of banking supervision in the United States (US), focusing on the federal level. During the “free banking era” from the late 1830s to 1864, several state governments created banking supervisory systems at the state level. Triggered by the fiscal needs of the Civil War, as well as the demand for a national currency, the US became the first country to introduce uniform nationwide banking supervision with the creation of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and the national banking system. The main purpose of the OCC was to ensure that the national banks did not violate the regulations related to the new currency, the US dollar. From a historical perspective, the rapid social and economic development of the US from the 1850s provided the background for this institutional change. Although the US case demonstrates that financial crises have not always driven the formalization of banking supervision, the crises of 1907 and the Great Depression served to further strengthen the formalization of banking supervision by prompting the introduction of multi-agency banking supervision in the US.

Japan: Formalization of Banking Supervision Including a Reversal

This chapter deals with the case of Japan, which experienced a reversal of the formalization of banking supervision. Additionally, this chapter outlines the on-site examination process and the main objectives of bank examinations. During the initial adoption of formal banking supervision, its main role was the “education” of bankers rather than proper prudential oversight. Formal banking supervision was suspended between 1893 and 1914 but was reintroduced in response to requests from both bankers and the government. This reversal reflected the development of the Japanese economy in the 1900s and 1910s, and thus the main driver of the formalization of banking supervision in Japan was not a financial crisis. The gradual development of the banking sector and better-educated bankers in the early twentieth century provided the background for the transformation of the supervisor’s role. The formalization process was completed with the enactment of the Banking Act of 1927 and the creation of the Bank Inspection Section within the Ministry of Finance in 1927.

Germany: Financial Crises and Formalization of Banking Supervision

In Germany, the banking supervision formalized as a consequence of the severe banking crises of the early 1930s, just as in many other countries on the European continent. The formalization process was initiated with the decisions to temporarily take over some of the large commercial banks that faced default in the banking crisis in 1931. Due to the extended loans and direct ownership stakes, the government established a board to look after its interests. The “temporary” measures were made permanent by the Nazi-government as one of several institutional and organizational means to have banks accommodate the economic policies of the regime. All three elements of banking supervision formalization (regulation, a supervisor, and supervision) were in place by the mid-1930s. However, given the very high level of control over the banks at the time, it is misleading to date the emergence of formal banking supervision to this time. During the occupation years, the banking supervision (in West-Germany) was organized at the state-level, similar to the US system. We date the full formalization after the Second World War when the German central government's control over the banking sector ended.