Towards a Principled Approach for Bailouts of COVID-Distressed Critical/Systemic Firms

IF 0.6 3区 社会学 Q2 LAW
Horst Eidenmueller, Javier Paz Valbuena
{"title":"Towards a Principled Approach for Bailouts of COVID-Distressed Critical/Systemic Firms","authors":"Horst Eidenmueller, Javier Paz Valbuena","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3795942","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this essay, we propose a principled approach for government bailouts of critical/systemic firms who find themselves in COVID-19-induced financial distress. We also demonstrate why bankruptcy is the wrong tool to address the problems of these types of firms. \n \nThe current pandemic threatens lives and livelihoods across the world. A key difference compared to previous market shocks is that lockdowns and related measures have, in certain instances, made it impossible for businesses to conduct their operations. This has resulted in a very specific type of distress, one that bankruptcy is not in the best position to address effectively. If there are no revenues, the design of bankruptcy laws makes them an inadequate tool – and the sheer volume of companies going through the process may put severe stress on the system. The difficulties that the vast majority of companies are encountering may be better solved using different tools: bailouts, bail-ins or a combination thereof, deployed by the government in wide-ranging statutory schemes. \n \nHowever, these schemes may not adequately address the issues of all companies; and the preservation of some of them – those that we refer to as critical/systemic – may be of such significant value to society that more intense assistance from the government is justified. We engage with the characteristics of firms that should be considered critical/systemic and the principles that should guide ad hoc rescues of those companies by the government. Firms are critical/systemic if their failure imposes significant negative externalities on the economy (or, conversely, their preservation generates significant positive externalities) or if they provide the public with an “infrastructure” not otherwise provided by the private sector. If firms are critical/systemic, the government should have the ability to bail them out, going beyond applicable statutory schemes and ensuring that the relevant externalities are considered when deciding whether to keep these companies as going concerns. Bankruptcy is a private process. It is not designed to vindicate such public considerations. \n \nGovernment bailouts, however, should be governed by principles, as any government intervention in the economy, and its associated efficiency and distributional effects must be considered with care. The guiding principles that we propose and elaborate on are (i) proportionality, (ii) efficiency, (iii) equity and (iv) transparency. The application of these principles should ensure that, if the government takes ownership of a private firm through an ad hoc bailout, this is a tool of last resort, and not more than temporary – and that the pre-distress investors properly contribute to the necessary measures.","PeriodicalId":44862,"journal":{"name":"American Bankruptcy Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Bankruptcy Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3795942","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

In this essay, we propose a principled approach for government bailouts of critical/systemic firms who find themselves in COVID-19-induced financial distress. We also demonstrate why bankruptcy is the wrong tool to address the problems of these types of firms. The current pandemic threatens lives and livelihoods across the world. A key difference compared to previous market shocks is that lockdowns and related measures have, in certain instances, made it impossible for businesses to conduct their operations. This has resulted in a very specific type of distress, one that bankruptcy is not in the best position to address effectively. If there are no revenues, the design of bankruptcy laws makes them an inadequate tool – and the sheer volume of companies going through the process may put severe stress on the system. The difficulties that the vast majority of companies are encountering may be better solved using different tools: bailouts, bail-ins or a combination thereof, deployed by the government in wide-ranging statutory schemes. However, these schemes may not adequately address the issues of all companies; and the preservation of some of them – those that we refer to as critical/systemic – may be of such significant value to society that more intense assistance from the government is justified. We engage with the characteristics of firms that should be considered critical/systemic and the principles that should guide ad hoc rescues of those companies by the government. Firms are critical/systemic if their failure imposes significant negative externalities on the economy (or, conversely, their preservation generates significant positive externalities) or if they provide the public with an “infrastructure” not otherwise provided by the private sector. If firms are critical/systemic, the government should have the ability to bail them out, going beyond applicable statutory schemes and ensuring that the relevant externalities are considered when deciding whether to keep these companies as going concerns. Bankruptcy is a private process. It is not designed to vindicate such public considerations. Government bailouts, however, should be governed by principles, as any government intervention in the economy, and its associated efficiency and distributional effects must be considered with care. The guiding principles that we propose and elaborate on are (i) proportionality, (ii) efficiency, (iii) equity and (iv) transparency. The application of these principles should ensure that, if the government takes ownership of a private firm through an ad hoc bailout, this is a tool of last resort, and not more than temporary – and that the pre-distress investors properly contribute to the necessary measures.
对受covid - 19困扰的关键/系统性公司采取有原则的救助方法
在本文中,我们提出了一种原则性的方法,用于政府救助陷入covid -19引发的财务困境的关键/系统性公司。我们还证明了为什么破产是解决这类公司问题的错误工具。当前的大流行威胁着全世界的生命和生计。与以往的市场冲击相比,一个关键的区别是,在某些情况下,封锁和相关措施使企业无法开展业务。这导致了一种非常特殊的困境,破产并不是有效解决这种困境的最佳方式。如果没有收入,破产法的设计就会使它们成为一个不充分的工具——而经历这一过程的公司数量之多,可能会给这一体系带来严重压力。绝大多数企业目前面临的困难,或许可以通过不同的工具得到更好的解决:政府在广泛的法定计划中部署的纾困、内部纾困或两者结合。然而,这些计划可能无法充分解决所有公司的问题;而保护其中的一些——我们称之为关键的/系统性的——可能对社会具有如此重大的价值,以至于政府提供更多的援助是合理的。我们研究了那些应该被视为关键/系统性的公司的特征,以及应该指导政府对这些公司进行特别救助的原则。如果企业的失败对经济造成重大的负外部性(或者相反,它们的保存产生重大的正外部性),或者如果它们为公众提供了私营部门无法提供的“基础设施”,那么企业就是关键的/系统的。如果公司是关键的/系统性的,政府应该有能力救助他们,超越适用的法定计划,并确保在决定是否让这些公司继续经营时考虑相关的外部影响。破产是一个私人过程。它的设计并不是为了证明这种公众考虑是正确的。然而,政府救助应该有原则,因为任何政府对经济的干预,以及与之相关的效率和分配效应都必须仔细考虑。我们提出并详细阐述的指导原则是(i)相称性、(ii)效率、(iii)公平和(iv)透明度。这些原则的应用应确保,如果政府通过特别救助获得一家私人公司的所有权,这是最后的手段,而且不只是暂时的,而且危机前的投资者应适当地为必要的措施做出贡献。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
4
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信