Publication database

This note proposes a new set-up for the fund backing the Single Resolution Mechanism (SRM). The proposed fund is a Multi-Tier Resolution Fund (MTRF), restricting the joint and several supranational liability to a limited range of losses, bounded by national liability at the upper and the lower end. The layers are, in ascending order: a national fund (first losses), a European fund (second losses), the national budget (third losses), the ESM (fourth losses, as a backup for sovereigns). The system works like a reinsurance scheme, providing clear limits to European-level joint liability, and therefore confining moral hazard. At the same time, it allows for some degree of risk sharing, which is important for financial stability if shocks to the financial system are exogenous (e.g., of a supranational macroeconomic nature). The text has four parts. Section A describes the operation of the Multi-Tier Resolution Fund, assuming the fund capital to be fully paid-in (“Steady State“). Section B deals with the build-up phase of the fund capital (“Build up“). Section C discusses how the proposal deals with the apparent incentive conflicts. The final Section D summarizes open questions which need further thought (“Open Questions“).

This paper summarizes the findings from a series of interviews between October 2012 & February 2013 with people at New Zealand companies that were founded in order to commercialize an innovation internationally. The interviews focused on the steps the companies had taken to commercialize their innovation on the international market and the issues they had faced in the process.

This paper analyzes attempts to build user ideation communities aimed at inviting users to submit ideas and suggestions for future organizational actions. While earlier work has elaborated on the advantages of communities once they are created, our findings show that the ‘average’ organization struggles to build a vibrant community: most simply wither or die. We develop an argument about the importance of committing resources in the forms of (1) employees who submit suggestions to the community and (2) accepting suggestions from people in the community, and particularly suggestions from newcomers. Our findings suggest that creating communities often requires significant attention from the organizations seeking to develop them. However, our results are contingent upon the stage of the community, where we see different effects depending on whether the community has a history of accumulating suggestions or not. Our work has implications for scholars of open innovation by highlighting the importance of considering the innumerable failures, showing how focusing on communities that have reached a certain size can lead to misleading conclusions and specifying some conditions that explain why some are more successful than others.

With permission of the Academy of Management