Bank of Finland Research Discussion Papers (1988- )


The Bank of Finland Discussion Paper series publishes academic research by economists in the Research Unit and the Bank more broadly, as well as by visiting scholars. The topics are relevant from the point of view of the Bank's strategic aims and contribute to the Bank's research focus on the interplay between and stability of the financial markets and the macroeconomy. Not all Discussion Papers for the years 1989–1994 are available electronically.

Recent Submissions

  • König-Kersting, Christian; Trautmann, Stefan T.; Vlahu, Razvan (2020)
    Bank of Finland Research Discussion Papers 14/2020
    We study the impact of disclosure about bank fundamentals on depositors’ behavior in the presence (and absence) of economic linkages between financial institutions. Using a controlled laboratory environment, we identify under which conditions disclosure is conducive to bank stability. We find that bank deposits are sensitive to perceived bank performance. While banks with strong fundamentals benefit from more precise disclosure, an opposing effect is present for solvent banks with weaker fundamentals. Depositors take information about economic linkages into account and correctly identify when disclosure about one institution conveys meaningful information for others. Our findings highlight both the costs and benefits of bank transparency and suggest that disclosure is not always stability enhancing.
  • Angelini, Giovanni; Caggiano, Giovanni; Castelnuovo, Efrem; Fanelli, Luca (2020)
    Bank of Finland Research Discussion Papers 13/2020
    How large are government spending and tax multipliers? The fiscal proxy-SVAR literature provides heterogeneous estimates, depending on which proxies - fiscal or non-fiscal - are used to identify fiscal shocks. We reconcile the existing estimates via flexible vector autoregressive model that allows to achieve identification in presence of a number of structural shocks larger than that of the available instruments. Our two main findings are the following. First, the estimate of the tax multiplier is sensitive to the assumption of orthogonality between total factor productivity (non-fiscal proxy) and tax shocks. If this correlation is assumed to be zero, the tax multiplier is found to be around one. If such correlation is nonzero, as supported by our empirical evidence, we find a tax multiplier three times as large. Second, we find the spending multiplier to be robustly larger than one across different models that feature different sets of instruments. Our results are robust to the joint employment of different fiscal and non-fiscal instruments.
  • Paloviita, Maritta; Haavio, Markus; Jalasjoki, Pirkka; Kilponen, Juha; Vänni, Ilona (2020)
    Bank of Finland Research Discussion Papers 12/2020
    We measure the tone (sentiment) of the ECB’s Governing Council regarding economic outlook at the time of each monetary policy meeting and use this information together with the Eurosystem/ECB staff macroeconomic projections to directly estimate the Governing Council’s loss function. Our results support earlier, more indirect findings, based on reaction function estimations, that the ECB has been either more averse to inflation above 2% ceiling or that the de facto inflation aim has been considerably below 2%. Our results suggest further that an inflation aim of 2% combined with asymmetry is a plausible specification of the ECB’s preferences.
  • Caggiano, Giovanni; Castelnuovo, Efrem; Kima, Richard (2020)
    Bank of Finland Research Discussion Papers 11/2020
    We estimate a three-variate VAR using proxies of global financial uncertainty, the global financial cycle, and world industrial production to simulate the effects of the jump in financial uncertainty observed in correspondence of the Covid-19 outbreak. We predict the cumulative loss in world output one year after the uncertainty shock due to Covid-19 to be about 14%.
  • Ambrocio, Gene; Hasan, Iftekhar; Jokivuolle, Esa; Ristolainen, Kim (2020)
    Bank of Finland Research Discussion Papers 10/2020
    We survey 149 leading academic researchers on bank capital regulation. The median (average) respondent prefers a 10% (15%) minimum non-risk-weighted equity-to-assets ratio, which is considerably higher than the current requirement. North Americans prefer a significantly higher equity-to-assets ratio than Europeans. We find substantial support for the new forms of regulation introduced in Basel III, such as liquidity requirements. Views are most dispersed regarding the use of hybrid assets and bail-inable debt in capital regulation. 70% of experts would support an additional market-based capital requirement. When investigating factors driving capital requirement preferences, we find that the typical expert believes a five percentage points increase in capital requirements would “probably decrease” both the likelihood and social cost of a crisis with “minimal to no change” to loan volumes and economic activity. The best predictor of capital requirement preference is how strongly an expert believes that higher capital requirements would increase the cost of bank lending.