Suchergebnisse

We document that the percentage of all U.S. assets that are "safe" has remained stable at about 33 percent since 1952. This stable ratio is a rare example of calm in a rapidly changing financial world. Over the same time period, the ratio of U.S. assets to GDP has increased by a factor of 2.5, and the main supplier of safe financial debt has shifted from commercial banks to the "shadow banking system." We analyze this pattern of stylized facts and offer some tentative conclusions about the composition of the safe-asset share and its role within the overall economy.

The right of common partial property is characterized by the fact that the multiplicity of the ownership of one particular object causes a legal relationship between the co-owners of themselves in respect to the various rights and obligations of each other in relation to the third parties. In relation to an object that is considered as joint ownership, appropriate implementation of the rights and obligations of each co-owner allows maximal usage of the item and its beneficial properties. The main criteria for the implementation of joint ownership of a property are the mutual agreement between the co-owners. While using its right, the co-owner also has a right to dispose of his share within the specificity of the form of the common partial ownership and the interests of other co-owners, the legislator established a mandatory procedure for the right of disposal of the co-owner. Article 4.79 of the Civil Code defines the right of priority of the co-owner in opposition to third parties. This co-owners right gives him the opportunity to acquire the share that the other co-owner intends to sell before third parties. Despite the fact that the aforementioned rule clearly regulates the procedure how the co-owner is obliged to inform the other co-owners in order to sell their shares, in common practices occur the cases where the co-owners and third parties intentionally violate the imperative procedural requirements of the sale of the part. The co-owners pre-emptive right also raises different views on its scope during asset realization procedures, and in some situations even raises uncertainties whether the limitation of disposal of the co-owners share of the joint ownership in all cases is proportionally, and maybe there are the situations where the procedure under review disproportionately burdens the co-owners.

The right of common partial property is characterized by the fact that the multiplicity of the ownership of one particular object causes a legal relationship between the co-owners of themselves in respect to the various rights and obligations of each other in relation to the third parties. In relation to an object that is considered as joint ownership, appropriate implementation of the rights and obligations of each co-owner allows maximal usage of the item and its beneficial properties. The main criteria for the implementation of joint ownership of a property are the mutual agreement between the co-owners. While using its right, the co-owner also has a right to dispose of his share within the specificity of the form of the common partial ownership and the interests of other co-owners, the legislator established a mandatory procedure for the right of disposal of the co-owner. Article 4.79 of the Civil Code defines the right of priority of the co-owner in opposition to third parties. This co-owners right gives him the opportunity to acquire the share that the other co-owner intends to sell before third parties. Despite the fact that the aforementioned rule clearly regulates the procedure how the co-owner is obliged to inform the other co-owners in order to sell their shares, in common practices occur the cases where the co-owners and third parties intentionally violate the imperative procedural requirements of the sale of the part. The co-owners pre-emptive right also raises different views on its scope during asset realization procedures, and in some situations even raises uncertainties whether the limitation of disposal of the co-owners share of the joint ownership in all cases is proportionally, and maybe there are the situations where the procedure under review disproportionately burdens the co-owners.

The right of common partial property is characterized by the fact that the multiplicity of the ownership of one particular object causes a legal relationship between the co-owners of themselves in respect to the various rights and obligations of each other in relation to the third parties. In relation to an object that is considered as joint ownership, appropriate implementation of the rights and obligations of each co-owner allows maximal usage of the item and its beneficial properties. The main criteria for the implementation of joint ownership of a property are the mutual agreement between the co-owners. While using its right, the co-owner also has a right to dispose of his share within the specificity of the form of the common partial ownership and the interests of other co-owners, the legislator established a mandatory procedure for the right of disposal of the co-owner. Article 4.79 of the Civil Code defines the right of priority of the co-owner in opposition to third parties. This co-owners right gives him the opportunity to acquire the share that the other co-owner intends to sell before third parties. Despite the fact that the aforementioned rule clearly regulates the procedure how the co-owner is obliged to inform the other co-owners in order to sell their shares, in common practices occur the cases where the co-owners and third parties intentionally violate the imperative procedural requirements of the sale of the part. The co-owners pre-emptive right also raises different views on its scope during asset realization procedures, and in some situations even raises uncertainties whether the limitation of disposal of the co-owners share of the joint ownership in all cases is proportionally, and maybe there are the situations where the procedure under review disproportionately burdens the co-owners.

The right of common partial property is characterized by the fact that the multiplicity of the ownership of one particular object causes a legal relationship between the co-owners of themselves in respect to the various rights and obligations of each other in relation to the third parties. In relation to an object that is considered as joint ownership, appropriate implementation of the rights and obligations of each co-owner allows maximal usage of the item and its beneficial properties. The main criteria for the implementation of joint ownership of a property are the mutual agreement between the co-owners. While using its right, the co-owner also has a right to dispose of his share within the specificity of the form of the common partial ownership and the interests of other co-owners, the legislator established a mandatory procedure for the right of disposal of the co-owner. Article 4.79 of the Civil Code defines the right of priority of the co-owner in opposition to third parties. This co-owners right gives him the opportunity to acquire the share that the other co-owner intends to sell before third parties. Despite the fact that the aforementioned rule clearly regulates the procedure how the co-owner is obliged to inform the other co-owners in order to sell their shares, in common practices occur the cases where the co-owners and third parties intentionally violate the imperative procedural requirements of the sale of the part. The co-owners pre-emptive right also raises different views on its scope during asset realization procedures, and in some situations even raises uncertainties whether the limitation of disposal of the co-owners share of the joint ownership in all cases is proportionally, and maybe there are the situations where the procedure under review disproportionately burdens the co-owners.

The main purpose of this paper is to examine the roles of economic and political factors in explaining the foreign ownership share of a country's banking assets. In particular, our study includes new market-openness and regulation variables. The General Agreement on Trade in Services is an important element that affects financial sector regulation of every current and potential World Trade Organization member country, and opening financial markets is an important goal of this agreement. We find that the market openness index developed by Barth et al. (2010) bears a statistically significant relation to foreign ownership, as expected, and that regulation, rule of law, and profit opportunities are also important determinants of foreign ownership of bank assets.

The Belarusian authorities have taken steps to limit Russian businesses from buying up too many local companies.