THE COSTS OF RAISING EQUITY RATIO FOR BANKS Evidence from publicly listed banks operating in Finland

The solvency rate of banks differs from the other corporations. The equity rate of a bank is lower than it is in corporations of other field of business. However, functional banking industry has huge impact on the whole society. The equity rate of a bank needs to be higher because that makes the banking industry more stable as the probability of the banks going under will decrease. If a bank goes belly up, the government will be compensating the deposits since it has granted the bank’s depositors a deposit insurance. This means that the payment comes from the tax payers in the last resort. Economic conversation has long concentrated on the costs of raising equity ratio. It has been a common belief that raising equity ratio also increases the banks’ funding costs in the same phase and these costs will be redistributed to the banks customers as higher service charges. Regardless of the common belief, the actual reaction of the funding costs to the higher equity ratio has been studied only a little in Europe and no study has been constructed in Finland. Before it can be calculated whether the higher stability of the banking industry that is caused by the raise in equity levels compensates the extra costs in funding costs, it must be calculated how much the actual increase in the funding costs is. Currently the banking industry is controlled by complex and heavy regulation. To maintain such a complex system inflicts major costs in itself. This research leans on the Modigliani and Miller theory, which shows that the finance structure of a firm is irrelevant to their funding costs. In addition, this research follows the calculations of Miller, Yang ja Marcheggianon (2012) and Vale (2011) where they calculate the funding costs after the doubling of specific banks’ equity ratios. The Finnish banks studied in this research are Nordea and Danske Bank because they are the two largest banks operating in Finland and they both also have the right company form to able the calculations. To calculate the costs of halving their leverages this study used the Capital Asset Pricing Model. The halving of the leverage of Danske Bank raised its funding costs for 16—257 basis points depending on the method of assessment. For Nordea the increase in funding costs was 11—186 basis points when its leverage was halved. On the behalf of the results found in this study it can be said that the doubling of an equity ratio does not increase the funding costs of a bank one by one. Actually the increase is quite modest. More solvent banks would increase the stability of the banking industry enormously while the increase in funding costs is low. If the costs of bank regulation exceeds the increase in funding costs after the higher equity ratio, it can be thought that this is the better way of stabilizing the banking industry rather than heavy regulation.

THE COSTS OF RAISING EQUITY RATIO FOR BANKS Evidence from publicly listed banks operating in Finland

The solvency rate of banks differs from the other corporations. The equity rate of a bank is lower than it is in corporations of other field of business. However, functional banking industry has huge impact on the whole society. The equity rate of a bank needs to be higher because that makes the banking industry more stable as the probability of the banks going under will decrease. If a bank goes belly up, the government will be compensating the deposits since it has granted the bank’s depositors a deposit insurance. This means that the payment comes from the tax payers in the last resort. Economic conversation has long concentrated on the costs of raising equity ratio. It has been a common belief that raising equity ratio also increases the banks’ funding costs in the same phase and these costs will be redistributed to the banks customers as higher service charges. Regardless of the common belief, the actual reaction of the funding costs to the higher equity ratio has been studied only a little in Europe and no study has been constructed in Finland. Before it can be calculated whether the higher stability of the banking industry that is caused by the raise in equity levels compensates the extra costs in funding costs, it must be calculated how much the actual increase in the funding costs is. Currently the banking industry is controlled by complex and heavy regulation. To maintain such a complex system inflicts major costs in itself. This research leans on the Modigliani and Miller theory, which shows that the finance structure of a firm is irrelevant to their funding costs. In addition, this research follows the calculations of Miller, Yang ja Marcheggianon (2012) and Vale (2011) where they calculate the funding costs after the doubling of specific banks’ equity ratios. The Finnish banks studied in this research are Nordea and Danske Bank because they are the two largest banks operating in Finland and they both also have the right company form to able the calculations. To calculate the costs of halving their leverages this study used the Capital Asset Pricing Model. The halving of the leverage of Danske Bank raised its funding costs for 16—257 basis points depending on the method of assessment. For Nordea the increase in funding costs was 11—186 basis points when its leverage was halved. On the behalf of the results found in this study it can be said that the doubling of an equity ratio does not increase the funding costs of a bank one by one. Actually the increase is quite modest. More solvent banks would increase the stability of the banking industry enormously while the increase in funding costs is low. If the costs of bank regulation exceeds the increase in funding costs after the higher equity ratio, it can be thought that this is the better way of stabilizing the banking industry rather than heavy regulation.

Adaptability, Transformation and Complex Changes in Namibia and Tanzania: Resilience and Innovation System Development in Local Communities

This thesis is a research about the recent complex spatial changes in Namibia and Tanzania and local communities’ capacity to cope with, adapt to and transform the unpredictability engaged to these processes. I scrutinise the concept of resilience and its potential application to explaining the development of local communities in Southern Africa when facing various social, economic and environmental changes. My research is based on three distinct but overlapping research questions: what are the main spatial changes and their impact on the study areas in Namibia and Tanzania? What are the adaptation, transformation and resilience processes of the studied local communities in Namibia and Tanzania? How are innovation systems developed, and what is their impact on the resilience of the studied local communities in Namibia and Tanzania? I use four ethnographic case studies concerning environmental change, global tourism and innovation system development in Namibia and Tanzania, as well as mixed-methodological approaches, to study these issues. The results of my empirical investigation demonstrate that the spatial changes in the localities within Namibia and Tanzania are unique, loose assemblages, a result of the complex, multisided, relational and evolutional development of human and non-human elements that do not necessarily have linear causalities. Several changes co-exist and are interconnected though uncertain and unstructured and, together with the multiple stressors related to poverty, have made communities more vulnerable to different changes. The communities’ adaptation and transformation measures have been mostly reactive, based on contingency and post hoc learning. Despite various anticipation techniques, coping measures, adaptive learning and self-organisation processes occurring in the localities, the local communities are constrained by their uneven power relationships within the larger assemblages. Thus, communities’ own opportunities to increase their resilience are limited without changing the relations in these multiform entities. Therefore, larger cooperation models are needed, like an innovation system, based on the interactions of different actors to foster cooperation, which require collaboration among and input from a diverse set of stakeholders to combine different sources of knowledge, innovation and learning. Accordingly, both Namibia and Tanzania are developing an innovation system as their key policy to foster transformation towards knowledge-based societies. Finally, the development of an innovation system needs novel bottom-up approaches to increase the resilience of local communities and embed it into local communities. Therefore, innovation policies in Namibia have emphasised the role of indigenous knowledge, and Tanzania has established the Living Lab network.