Economic Loan Loss Provision and Expected Loss

The intention of a loan loss provision is the anticipation of the loan's expected losses by adjusting the book value of the loan. Furthermore, this loan loss provision has to be compared to the expected loss according to Basel II and, in the case of a difference, liable equity has to be adjusted. This however assumes that the loan loss provision and the expected loss are based on a similar economic rationale, which is only valid conditionally in current loan loss provisioning methods according to IFRS. Therefore, differences between loan loss provisions and expected losses should only result from different approaches regarding the parameter estimation within each model and not due to different assumptions regarding the outcome of the model. The provisioning and accounting model developed in this paper overcomes the before-mentioned shortcomings and is consistent with an economic rationale of expected losses. Additionally, this model is based on a close-to-market valuation of the loan that is in favor of the basic idea of IFRS. Suggestions for changes in current accounting and capital requirement rules are provided.

The Levy Runs Dry: A Legal and Economic Analysis of EU Private Copying Levies

This article provides a legal and economic analysis of private copying levies in the EU, against the background of the Copyright Directive (2001/29), a number of recent rulings by the European Court of Justice and the recommendations presented by mediator Vitorino earlier this year. It concludes that notwithstanding these rulings and recommendations, there remains a lack of concordance on the relevance of contractual stipulations and digital rights management technologies (DRM) for setting levies, and the concept of harm. While Mr Vitorino and AG Sharpston (in the Opinion preceding VG Wort v. Kyocera) use different lines of reasoning to argue that levies raised on authorised copies would lead to double payment, the Court of Justice’s decision in VG Wort v. Kyocera seems to conclude that such copies should nonetheless be levied. If levies are to provide fair compensation for harm resulting from acts of private copying, economic analysis suggests one should distinguish between various kinds of private copies and take account of the extent to which the value said copies have for consumers can be priced into the purchase. Given the availability of DRM (including technical protection measures), the possibility of such indirect appropriation leads to the conclusion that the harm from most kinds of private copies is de minimis and gives no cause for levies. The user value of copies from unauthorised sources (e.g. from torrent networks or cyber lockers), on the other hand, cannot be appropriated indirectly by rightholders. It is, however, an open question in references for preliminary rulings pending at the Court of Justice whether these copies are included in the scope of the private copying exception or limitation and can thus be levied for. If they are not, as currently happens in several EU Member States, legal and economic analysis leads to the conclusion that the scope of private copying acts giving rise to harm susceptible of justifying levies is gradually diminishing.