Dataset Information

Data on cross-border exposures of 61 largest European banks.

ABSTRACT: This article introduces a unique and hand-collected dataset on cross-border exposures of 61 European banks. Getting a complete overview of the cross-border positions of European banks is challenging, as there are no regular reporting standards for banks' foreign exposures split by country. Most studies therefore rely on data on banks' foreign subsidiaries. This however leads to a significant underestimation of banks' cross-border positions. We collect data from annual reports and other public sources for the period 2010-2017 in order to construct a dataset covering the complete cross-border exposures by banks. The dataset is valuable to academic researchers in finance and economics as well as central banks interested in financial globalization. The data are collected at the individual bank-level, and this provides opportunities for researchers aiming to analyse the impact of banks' strategic decisions [1]. Lastly, since the cross-border exposures are split by host country the data can be used in gravity models, since it provides a measure of connectedness between banks and/or countries.

SUBMITTER: Duijm P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7200766 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Data on cross-border exposures of 61 largest European banks.

Duijm Patty P Schoenmaker Dirk D

Data in brief 20200423

This article introduces a unique and hand-collected dataset on cross-border exposures of 61 European banks. Getting a complete overview of the cross-border positions of European banks is challenging, as there are no regular reporting standards for banks' foreign exposures split by country. Most studies therefore rely on data on banks' foreign subsidiaries. This however leads to a significant underestimation of banks' cross-border positions. We collect data from annual reports and other public so ...[more]

PMID: 32382619

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMobility of workers living in one country and working in a different country has increased in the European Union. Exposed to commuting factors, cross-border workers (CBWs) constitute a potential high-risk population. But the relationships between health and commuting abroad are under-documented. Our aims were to: (1) measure the prevalence of the perceived health status and the physical health outcomes (activity limitation, chronic diseases, disability and no leisure activities), (2) analyse their associations with commuting status as well as (3) with income and health index among CBWs.MethodsBased on the 'Enquête Emploi', the French cross-sectional survey segment of the European Labour Force Survey (EU LFS), the population was composed of 2,546,802 workers. Inclusion criteria for the samples were aged between 20 and 60 years and living in the French cross-border departments of Germany, Belgium, Switzerland and Luxembourg. The Health Index is an additional measure obtained with five health variables. A logistic model was used to estimate the odds ratios of each group of CBWs, taking non-cross border workers (NCBWs) as the reference group, controlling by demographic background and labour status variables.ResultsA sample of 22,828 observations (2456 CBWs vs. 20,372 NCBWs) was retained. The CBW status is negatively associated with chronic diseases and disability. A marginal improvement of the health index is correlated with a wage premium for both NCBWs and CBWs. Commuters to Luxembourg have the best health outcomes, whereas commuters to Germany the worst.ConclusionCBWs are healthier and have more income. Interpretations suggest (1) a healthy cross-border phenomenon steming from a social selection and a positive association between income and the health index is confirmed; (2) the existence of major health disparities among CBWs; and (3) the rejection of the spillover phenomenon assumption for CBWs. The newly founded European Labour Authority (ELA) should take into account health policies as a promising way to support the cross-border mobility within the European Union.

Project description:BackgroundThe European cross-border electronic prescription (CBeP) and cross-border electronic dispensing system was first implemented in January 2019 when it became possible to purchase medications from community pharmacies in Estonia using a Finnish ePrescription. In 2020, Estonian ePrescriptions became available to be dispensed in Finnish pharmacies. The CBeP is an important milestone in increasing access to medicines across the European Union, and it has been unstudied to date.ObjectiveThis study aimed to investigate Estonian and Finnish pharmacists' experiences of factors influencing access to, and dispensing of, CBePs.MethodsA web-based survey was conducted among Estonian and Finnish pharmacists between April and May 2021. The survey was distributed to all 664 community pharmacies (n=289, 43.5% in Estonia and n=375, 56.5% in Finland) where CBePs had been dispensed in 2020. The data were analyzed using frequencies and a chi-square test. Answers to open-ended questions were categorized using content analysis and then analyzed by frequency.ResultsIn total, 66.7% (84/126) of the responses from Estonia and 76.6% (154/201) of the responses from Finland were included in the study. The majority of Estonian (74/84, 88%) and Finnish (126/154, 81.8%) respondents agreed that CBePs have improved patients' access to medications. Problems with the availability of medications when dispensing CBePs were reported by 76% (64/84) of the Estonian respondents and 35.1% (54/154) of the Finnish respondents. In Estonia, the most commonly reported availability problem concerned the same active ingredient (49/84, 58%) of the medication not being available in the market, whereas in Finland, the most common issue was the unavailability of equivalent package size in the market (30/154, 19.5%). Encountering ambiguities or errors in the CBePs was reported by 61% (51/84) of the Estonian respondents and 42.8% (66/154) of the Finnish respondents. Mostly, the availability issues and ambiguities or errors were encountered rarely. The most commonly encountered ambiguities or errors were incorrect pharmaceutical form (23/84, 27%) in Estonia and incorrect total amount of medication (21/154, 13.6%) in Finland. Technical problems with using the CBeP system were reported by 57% (48/84) of the Estonian respondents and 40.2% (62/154) of the Finnish respondents. Most of the Estonian and Finnish respondents (53/84, 63%, and 133/154, 86.4%, respectively) had access to guidelines for dispensing CBePs. More than half of the Estonian (52/84, 62%) and Finnish (95/154, 61.7%) respondents felt that they had received sufficient training on dispensing CBePs.ConclusionsPharmacists in both Estonia and Finland agreed that CBePs improve access to medications. However, interfering factors, such as ambiguities or errors in CBePs and technical problems in the CBeP system, can reduce access to medications. The respondents had received sufficient training and were informed of the guidelines; however, they felt that the content of the guidelines could be improved.

Dataset Information

Data on cross-border exposures of 61 largest European banks.

Publications

Data on cross-border exposures of 61 largest European banks.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets