text:
Hier finden Sie aktuelle Wirtschafts- und Finanznews sowie nützliche Tipps aus den Bereichen Wirtschaft und Finanzen.
Dienstag, 12. Juni 2012
Sonntag, 10. Juni 2012
Punts & Clones: Fed up with Euro, Irish town cashes in old currency
Freitag, 8. Juni 2012
Das Länderrisiko der Fussballnationen: Wo drohen im Auslandsgeschäft die gröbsten Fouls?
Darmstadt, 8. Juni 2012: Zum Start der UEFA EURO 2012 am 8. Juni analysierte D&B die Länderrisiko-Ratings der 16 teilnehmenden Nationen. Am besten stehen Deutschland und Schweden da, denn eine Geschäftstätigkeit in diesen Ländern ist im internationalen Vergleich nur mit einem sehr geringen Risiko behaftet. Auch bei Frankreich, England, Niederlande und Dänemark besteht noch keine große Gefahr von Verlusten. Schon etwas kritischer sieht es mit Italien, Tschechien und Polen aus, wo Geschäftsrisiken nur kontrolliert eingegangen werden sollten. Irland, Spanien und Portugal sind noch riskanter für wirtschaftliche Auslandsaktivitäten, und wer in Russland, der Ukraine und in Griechenland Geschäfte machen will, sollte große Vorsicht walten lassen.
"Um im Ausland keine Verluste zu machen, sollten Unternehmen nicht nur die Bonität der einzelnen Geschäftspartner kennen, sondern auch die landesspezifischen politischen, finanz- und volkswirtschaftlichen Rahmenbedingungen", erläutert Thomas Dold, Geschäftsführer bei D&B Deutschland. "Nur so können Unternehmen gerade angesichts der aktuellen Unwägbarkeiten ihr Risiko umfassend abschätzen und absichern."
Karte: Länderrisiken Teilnehmernationen UEFA EURO 2012
Austragungsorte: Danzig, Posen, Warschau, Breslau (Polen); Lemberg, Kiew, Charkiw, Donezk (Ukraine)
Rangliste: UEFO EURO 2012 Teilnehmernationen nach Länderrisiko-Rating
Wozu Länderrisiko-Ratings?
Um Verluste zu vermeiden, sollten Unternehmen im Inlandgeschäft ihre konkreten Geschäftspartner auf deren Bonität und Vertrauenswürdigkeit prüfen. Im Auslandsgeschäft sind jedoch neben der Bonität der einzelnen Geschäftspartner auch politische, finanz- und volkswirtschaftliche Informationen wie auch Details zu den Handelsbedingungen und Geschäftsrisiken zu analysieren, um die Märkte und Risiken bewerten zu können.
Die Länderrisiko-Reports von D&B beinhalten:
• Den D&B Länderrisiko-Indikator inklusive Prognose und Trends.
• Angaben über landesübliche Handels- und Zahlungsbedingungen, Zahlungsverzögerungen sowie relevante rechtliche Rahmenbedingungen.
• Politische und demografische Eckdaten sowie Entwicklungs-Historie, Gegenwart und Prognosen über einen Fünf-Jahres-Zeitraum.
• Eine Risikoübersicht gemäß den neuesten politischen und wirtschaftlichen Entwicklungen sowie die kurz- bis mittelfristigen Risiken, Trends und Potenziale eines Landes.
D&B veröffentlicht die wöchentlich aufdatierten Länderrisiken in verschiedenen Publikationen, welche sich durch die Informationstiefe unterscheiden.
Die D&B-Länderratings im Überblick:
DB1: Niedrigster Grad an Unsicherheit hinsichtlich zu erwartender Export- & Investitionserträge und Auslandsschulden sowie Eigenkapitalausstattung ("equity servicing").
DB2: Niedriger Grad an Unsicherheit hinsichtlich zu erwartender Erträge. Jedoch können landesweite Faktoren zu späterer Zeit eine höhere Unbeständigkeit der zu erwartenden Erträge verursachen.
DB3: Genug Unsicherheit gegenüber zu erwartender Erträge, die eine Überwachung des Länderrisikos anraten. Kunden sollten ihre eigene Risikobelastung aktiv managen.
DB4: Bedeutende Unsicherheit hinsichtlich zu erwartender Erträge. Risikoaversen Kunden wird geraten, sich gegen potentielle Ausfälle zu schützen.
DB5: Erhebliche Unsicherheit hinsichtlich zu erwartenden Erträge. Unternehmen wird geraten, ihre Belastung zu begrenzen und/oder nur ertragshohe Transaktionen zu fokussieren.
DB6: Erwartete Erträge unterliegen einem hohen Grad der Unbeständigkeit. Ein sehr hoher, erwarteter Ertrag ist nötig, um das zusätzliche Risiko oder die Kosten der Absicherung eines solchen Risikos zu kompensieren.
DB7: Es ist fast unmöglich, Erträge präzise vorherzusagen. Die wirtschaftliche Infrastruktur ist de facto zusammengebrochen.
D&B – über 170 Jahre im Zeichen der Transparenz
Dun & Bradstreet (D&B) wurde 1841 in New York als "Mercantile Agency" gegründet und feierte 2011 170-jähriges Bestehen. Als Weltmarktführer für Wirtschaftsinformationen und Firmenbewertungen verfügt der Dienstleistungskonzern über die größte Erfahrung und Kompetenz am Markt. Zusammen mit den bonitätsgeprüften, qualitativ hochwertigen Daten aus über 200 Ländern ist das die Basis für anhaltendes Kundenvertrauen.
Über D&B Deutschland
D&B Deutschland (früher Dun & Bradstreet) ist ein Unternehmen der Bisnode Gruppe und gehört zum weltweiten D&B Netzwerk, dem Weltmarktführer für Wirtschaftsinformationen und Firmenbewertungen. Unternehmen aus allen Branchen nutzen die Daten und Lösungen von D&B Deutschland zur Bonitätsprüfung, bei der Kundengewinnung und im strategischen Einkauf.
Basis dafür ist die D&B Datenbank mit Informationen über 4,7 Millionen deutsche und mehr als 200 Millionen Unternehmen weltweit. In die Bonitätsbewertung der Firmen fließt auch deren Zahlungsverhalten ein. Dazu wertet D&B allein in Deutschland jährlich mehr als 700 Millionen Rechnungsinformationen aus.
Die Zuordnung aller Informationen zu den Unternehmen ist durch die von D&B eingeführte D-U-N-S® Nummer eindeutig. Die D-U-N-S® Nummer wird unter anderem vom Verband der Automobilindustrie (VDA), vom Verband der Chemischen Industrie (VCI), von der Europäischen Kommission und von der International Organization for Standardization (ISO) als Standard empfohlen und eingesetzt.
Mehr Informationen unter:
Donnerstag, 7. Juni 2012
Rösler vereinbart engere Zusammenarbeit mit Saudi-Arabien - FDP -
Mittwoch, 6. Juni 2012
EUROPA: Bank recovery and resolution proposal: Frequently Asked Questions
Brussels, 6 June 2012
Bank recovery and resolution proposal: Frequently Asked Questions
1. Why is the Commission proposing a framework for bank recovery and resolution?
The financial crisis has seen a number of large banks bailed out with public funds because they were considered "too big to fail". The level of state support has been unprecedented1. While this may have been necessary to prevent widespread disruption to the markets, it is clearly undesirable for public funds to be used in this way at the expense of other public objectives. In future, the financial system must be more stable so that government bail-outs are not needed.
The high profile banking failures which have occurred during the crisis (Fortis, Lehman Brothers, Icelandic banks, Anglo Irish Bank, Dexia) have revealed serious shortcomings in the existing tools available to authorities for tackling bank failures. They have also demonstrated that supporting banks which are too big to fail with squeezed public finances is becoming increasingly unsustainable.
2. Why is this framework needed?
A clear and comprehensive bank resolution regime is crucial for ensuring long term financial stability and for reducing the potential public cost of possible future financial crises. 'Resolution' means the restructuring of an institution in order to ensure the continuity of its essential functions, preserve financial stability and restore the viability of all or part of that institution.
The EU crisis management framework provides both more comprehensive and effective arrangements to deal with failing banks at national level, as well as complete arrangements to tackle cross-border banking failures.
Effective resolution will also address moral hazard as it will function as a strong element of discipline for the markets. Resolution is thus a vital complement to other work streams designed to make the financial system sounder, i.e. making banks stronger with higher levels of and better quality capital, greater protection of depositors, safer and more transparent market structures and practices, and better supervision.
3. What is the relationship between today's proposal and the Commission's announcement of 30 May 2012 on moving towards a banking union?
The two work-streams are complementary. Today's proposal is a necessary first step to improve efficiency and cohesion in ensuring that failing banks in the EU single market can be resolved in a way which preserves financial stability and minimises costs for taxpayers. It completes the roadmap of financial sector reforms launched since 2009.
The reflection towards a more integrated banking union signalled by the Commission on 30 May is an essential subsequent step. It will look into key measures which need to be taken to ensure closer integration.
With today's proposal on banking resolution, the Commission is completing the roadmap for financial sector reforms launched in 2009. A more integrated banking union is the logical next step.
Such a banking union will rest on the following 4 pillars:
4. Why are normal insolvency proceedings unsuitable for banks?
Banks perform critical functions which are essential for economic activity to take place. They collect funds (deposits and other forms of debt) from private persons and businesses. They provide loans for households and businesses allowing savings to be allocated for investment. They also manage payment systems that are crucial for various sectors of the economy and society.
Banks operate on the basis of trust. If confidence in them is lost, depositors and other creditors may withdraw their funds. As well as depriving their customers of access to the socially valuable banking functions above, the failure of a large bank may undermine confidence in other banks, affect their finances and create instability across the financial system as a whole. This can rapidly erode the value and viability of other banks, thereby reducing the likelihood of a recovery.
Insolvency procedures may take years, with the objective of maximising the value of assets of the failed firm in the interest of creditors. In contrast, the primary objective of bank resolution is to maintain financial stability and minimise losses for society, and in particular taxpayers, while ensuring similar results to those of normal insolvency proceedings in terms of allocation of losses to shareholders and creditors.
Resolution thus protects certain critical stakeholders and functions (such as depositors and payment systems) and maintains them as operational, while other parts, which are not considered key to financial stability, may be allowed to fail in the normal way. In order to avoid moral hazard and the use of taxpayers' money to support failing banks, shareholders and debt holders need to know that they will bear an appropriate share of the losses in the event of a failure and to attribute a suitable price to this risk. Bank resolution also ensures that decisions are taken rapidly in order to avoid contagion.
5. Why didn't the EU have this framework in place before the crisis? Why is action at EU level needed?
Until the crisis, many felt that crisis management was best dealt with at national level (especially if there was a risk that there would be budgetary implications and in view of the close connection of crisis measures with national insolvency regimes). Measures in place and taken during the crisis varied greatly between Member States.
However, the crisis has strengthened the case for action at EU level, since it clearly demonstrated that the absence of arrangements at European level could result in diverging national solutions, which might be less effective in resolving the situation and ultimately prove more costly for national taxpayers. Furthermore, the crisis highlighted the fact that there were no mechanisms in place to deal with failing banks that operate in more than one Member State and that greater EU financial integration and inter-connection between institutions needs to be matched by a common framework of intervention powers and rules. The alternative is fragmentation and inefficiency in EU banking and financial services, something which would harm the single market and would impair its advantages for consumers, investors and businesses.
6. How does the draft proposal relate to work undertaken at international level?
The Commission's initiative follows international developments in this area. In November 2008, G20 leaders called for a "review of resolution regimes and bankruptcy laws in light of recent experience to ensure that they permit an orderly wind-down of large complex cross-border institutions"2.
At the G20 Pittsburgh summit3 (September 2009), they committed to act together to "...create more powerful tools to hold large global firms to account for the risks they take" and, more specifically, to "develop resolution tools and frameworks for the effective resolution of financial groups to help mitigate the disruption of financial institution failures and reduce moral hazard in the future."
In Seoul (November 2010) the G20 endorsed the Financial Stability Board (FSB) Report on "Reducing the moral hazard posed by systemically important financial institutions"4 which recommended that "all jurisdictions should undertake the necessary legal reforms to ensure that they have in place a resolution regime which would make feasible the resolution of any financial institution without taxpayer exposure to loss from solvency support while protecting vital economic functions through mechanisms which make it possible for shareholders and unsecured and uninsured creditors to absorb losses in their order of seniority".
Most recently, in Cannes (November 2011), the G20 endorsed5 the FSB's core recommendations for effective resolution ("Key Attributes of Effective Resolution Regimes for Financial Institutions"6) which jurisdictions should implement to achieve these outcomes.
7. Is the EU the first jurisdiction that is proposing a crisis management framework for the banking sector? What are other countries doing on crisis management?
Numerous countries around the world are working on various aspects of crisis management, largely depending on the nature and scale of recent developments in their banking systems.
The recent work of the Financial Stability Board (FSB) provides guidance on the "Key Attributes of Effective Resolution Regimes for Financial Institutions"7, agreed by the authorities of all major financial centres. The proposed EU approach is fully in line with the FSB recommendations, including a number of elements where the specificities and divergences in Europe's markets and regulatory structures require particular solutions (e.g. resolution colleges, role of the European Banking Authority).
8. What are the main differences between what the EU is proposing and the US approach?
In the US, the Dodd-Frank Act8 has established a resolution framework for systemic financial institutions. The US approach intends to address systemic banks by taking failing institutions into receivership by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), under which their business will be transferred to a new entity or wound down.
The EU framework would also allow authorities to put banks into an orderly resolution in which their essential services could be preserved, for example via a sale to a third party or the creation of a bridge bank, while the failed institution itself would ultimately be wound down. However, in cases where an institution could be restored to financial viability and this would better serve the maintenance of critical functions and the public interest, the Commission also proposes equipping authorities with the power to write down some of its liabilities (bail-in) and allow the bank to remain in business. This would include dilution of shareholders, changes to management, haircutting of creditors and other restructuring so as to ensure that the surviving entity was viable. All resolution operations would also need to adhere to EU state aid rules.
9. What are the key elements of today's proposal?
The proposal lays out a comprehensive set of measures which aim to ensure that:
The framework takes into account the global nature of several banks. It provides for strong coordination between national authorities under the leadership of the group resolution authority in order to ensure that resolution tools are applied to a cross-border group in a coherent manner across different jurisdictions.
Key elements
10. What will the role of the European Banking Authority (EBA) be?
The EBA will play a strong coordination role both during the prevention and early intervention stages (in particular in resolution planning) as well as in facilitating the taking of joint decisions with respect to cross-border firms undergoing resolution. The proposals vest the EBA with clear and decisive powers in areas where harmonisation and consistency in rules and practices is key, while avoiding any duplication in the tasks of national authorities responsible for day-to-day oversight.
11. What are the objectives of resolution and the conditions to trigger it?
Resolution would have to: 1) safeguard the continuity of essential banking operations, 2) protect depositors, client assets and public funds, 3) minimise risks to financial stability, and 4) avoid the unnecessary destruction of value.
A bank would become subject to resolution when:
Entry into resolution will thus always occur at a point close to insolvency. Authorities nonetheless need to have a degree of discretion to ensure that they can intervene before it is too late for resolution to meet its objectives.
12. What resolution tools will be needed?
With a view to the aforementioned objectives, resolution authorities should be able to employ clear-cut measures to resolve the situation of the bank when it meets the three conditions for resolution mentioned above.
The choice of tools will depend on the specific circumstances of each case and build on options laid out in the resolution plan prepared for the bank. They should consist of powers to:
(i) effect private sector acquisitions (parts of the bank can be sold to one or more purchasers without the consent of shareholders);
(ii) transfer business to a temporary structure (such as a "bridge bank") to preserve essential banking functions or facilitate continuous access to deposits;
(iii) separate clean and toxic assets between "good" and "bad" banks through a partial transfer of assets and liabilities; and/or
(iv) bail in creditors (mechanism to cancel or reduce the liabilities of a failing bank, or to convert debt to equity, as a means of restoring the institution's capital position).
These tools would allow an institution to be restructured as a going concern or wound down in an orderly manner without recourse to public funds and minimising destruction of value.
13. What kinds of financial institutions would be covered by the EU regime?
The framework covers deposit-taking banks and some investment firms (e.g. institutions like Lehman Brothers), because this is where action is needed most urgently.
However, the Commission will, in forthcoming work, consider whether and how the framework could be extended to other classes of financial institutions such as market infrastructures, the failure of which are capable of having a systemic effect.
14. How will the regime apply to the failure of a cross-border group?
The first step is to equip national authorities with a set of harmonised tools and to establish a robust framework for information sharing, consultation and cooperation between them. Resolution colleges built around existing supervisory colleges will be at the centre of this.
In order to better deal with large and more complex cross-border groups, the group resolution authority (the authority in the Member State in which the consolidating supervisor under EU banking rules is situated) would play a leading role in approving a recovery plan and designing a resolution plan for the whole group. The resolution plans could allow for intervention both at the level of the parent or holding or of the subsidiaries, depending on the nature of the group. Coordination would be ensured through resolution colleges and binding mediation by the EBA. The plans will not dictate how the group operates internally (separated subsidiaries, integrated liquidity and risk management, etc.) but would ensure that the legal structure does not constitute an obstacle to resolvability. The EBA would also coordinate any joint decisions by national authorities at the stage of early intervention.
Groups may also enter into arrangements, approved by regulators and shareholders, of financial support between constituent entities for restoring the group's financial health efficiently (see below).
The exercise of any resolution powers in relation to various entities of the group would thus be prepared in advance and take place as far as possible in a coordinated and consistent manner.
15. How would financial support within groups work?
The proposals allow entities in a group to enter agreements to provide help to other parts of the group (parent company or subsidiary) if it faces difficulties. This provision works both ways so a parent company can help the subsidiary and the subsidiary can help the parent company.
Such help is subject to approval by the supervisor of each subsidiary/parent company which is asked to help and by the shareholders of each entity. It must aim to restore or ensure the viability of the group as a whole, must not damage the solvency of any entity providing support, and must not cause a breach of regulatory capital requirements.
It might be in the interest of a subsidiary to help the group because the overall group will be stronger and continue for example to be able to provide services to the subsidiary. But this cannot be done against the subsidiary's will.
16. How will the cost of bank resolution be financed?
In order to be effective the resolution tools require a certain amount of funding. For example, if the authorities create a bridge bank, it will need capital or short term loans to be able to operate.
These costs should be borne by the banking sector rather than taxpayers.
This is why every Member State will have to set up financing arrangements funded with contributions from banks and investment firms in proportion to their liabilities and risk profile.
Banks will contribute in relation to their share of specific liabilities of the total size of the national financial sector so that those who contribute most would potentially benefit most in case they enter resolution.
Each national fund will finance the resolution of the entities established on its own territory. For cross-border groups, various relevant national arrangements will be required to contribute to a financing plan pre-determined between the competent resolution authorities.
The national financing arrangements should be sufficiently financed ex-ante. To that end contributions will be raised from banks at least annually in order to reach a target funding level of at least 1% of covered deposits over a 10-year transitional period9 (likely to end in 2023 or 2024, depending on the date of entry into force of this proposed Directive).
If the ex-ante funds are insufficient to deal with the resolution of an institution, further contributions will be raised (ex post).
In case of need, national financing schemes will also be able to borrow from one another. Other schemes will be obliged to provide support unless they consider that such lending would leave them without sufficient funds to deal with any imminent resolution action in their own national market. In any event, no national fund could be asked to lend more than half of their fund's value.
For an optimal use of resources, the resolution Directive takes advantage of the funding already available in the 27 Deposit Guarantee Schemes (DGS). When an institution has to be resolved, the DGS will have to make a contribution equivalent to the burden they already assume in normal insolvency procedures (i.e. to protect each retail depositor up to EUR 100 000), while the new resolution funds meet the other financing needs required by the resolution. This reflects the burden which DGS currently already assume in order to avoid retail depositors from losing money in the event a bank goes bankrupt.
Member States will also have the option, instead of creating separate resolution funds, to merge the DGS and the resolution financing arrangement. If Member States decide to have a single fund for both functions, the "DGS-resolution fund" will have to respect all the conditions for resolution funds, notably in terms of funding and responsibilities. In the event that the DGS has to meet several claims at the same time, a priority rule is introduced so that depositors are protected before other claims can be honoured.
17. What purpose should resolution funds serve?
It is very important to ensure clear objectives for resolution funds, namely to serve the objectives of resolution outlined above. In particular it needs to be clear that the purpose is to facilitate an orderly restructuring or failure of an insolvent bank, not to bail it out or confer an unfair competitive advantage. This is very important in order to combat the moral hazard that might arise with the creation of a large fund. Consequently, resolution funds could only be used, for example, to provide loans to a bridge institution, to purchase specific assets of an institution under resolution, or to guarantee certain assets or liabilities of the institution under resolution.
18. Should there be a single European resolution fund?
Yes. However for now, setting up a single pan-EU fund would be difficult. Ideally a pan-EU resolution authority would manage its disbursal but the absence of a single European banking supervisor and insolvency regime make this unworkable at this stage. Nonetheless, the importance of obtaining adequate financing for resolution should not be compromised by the difficulties associated with reaching agreement on a single EU authority to determine how and when the money should be used.
As indicated above, in this proposal the Commission therefore proposes the setting up of funds at national level which would interact and lend to one another when necessary, notably in the case of cross-border groups, to constitute a European system of resolution funds. Banks would contribute in relation to their share of specific liabilities of the total size of the national financial sector so that those who contribute most, would potentially benefit most in case they enter resolution. Furthermore, the closer integration of supervisory and resolution arrangements for cross-border institutions will be explored further in the context of the reflection on moving towards a banking union (see question 3 above).
19. What is the proposal to write down creditors ('bail in') and how would it work?
The mechanism would stabilise a failing institution so that it can continue to provide essential services, without the need for bail-out by public funds. Recapitalisation through the write-down of liabilities and/or their conversion to equity would allow the institution to continue as a going concern, avoid the disruption to the financial system that would be caused by stopping or interrupting its critical services, and give the authorities time to reorganise it or wind down parts of its business in an orderly manner – an 'open bank resolution'. In the process, shareholders should be severely diluted or wiped out, and culpable management should be replaced.
Open bank bail-in would be helpful in cases where other resolution tools may not deliver the best outcome as regards financial stability (e.g. banks where it may not be possible to find a private sector acquirer and transfer of systemically important functions to a bridge bank may be complex or destabilising).
In a 'closed bank resolution' the bank would be split in two, a good bank or bridge bank and a bad bank. The good bank-bridge bank is a newly created legal entity which continues to operate, while the old bad bank is liquidated. Bank creditors that are not systemic can either be left with the old bank and participate in the liquidation or be transferred to the new bank either reducing their claims or converting them into equity.
20. What instruments would bail-in apply to and in what order?
Bail-in would potentially apply to any liabilities of the institution not backed by assets or collateral, and not to deposits protected by a deposit guarantee scheme, short-term (e.g. inter-bank) lending, client assets, or liabilities such as salaries, pensions, or taxes. Member States can also choose to exclude other liabilities on a case-by-case basis if necessary to ensure the continuity of critical services.
The write down would follow the ordinary allocation of losses and ranking in insolvency. Equity should absorb losses in full before any debt claim is subject to write-down. After shares and other similar instruments, it would first, if necessary, impose losses evenly on holders of subordinated debt and then evenly on senior debt-holders.
The Deposit Guarantee Scheme (but not covered depositors who would remain unaffected) to which the institution is affiliated would rank alongside other unsecured creditors and be liable to assume losses, up to the amount of covered deposits, for the amount that it would have had to bear if the bank had been wound up under normal insolvency proceedings.
21. Are you proposing to require institutions to maintain a minimum level of liabilities that is subject to write down?
If debt write-down is to be a credible resolution tool, it is necessary to ensure that there are sufficient 'in-scope' liabilities when a resolution authority determines that an institution meets the conditions for resolution and that writing down the debt of an institution would be in line with the objectives of resolution. In other words, sufficient bail-in capacity should be provided for in all cases when the insolvency of a distressed institution would be detrimental for financial stability and taxpayers.
By definition, this will only be likely in the case of systemic institutions. Still, depending on their risk profile, complexity, size, interconnectedness etc., all banks should maintain (subject to on-going verification by supervisors), a percentage of their liabilities in the form of shares, contingent capital and other liabilities not explicitly excluded from bail-in. In this context, institutions could issue specific subordinated debt instruments which would absorb losses after regulatory capital but before any senior debt. The Commission would specify criteria to ensure similar banks are subject to the same standards.
The crisis has shown that a level of loss-absorbing capacity (own funds, subordinated debt and senior liabilities) at 10% of total liabilities (exclusive of regulatory capital) could broadly represent a threshold at which most recent bank failures could have been resolved with bail-in, and one which is largely consistent with the composition of banks' liabilities today. This is indicative however, and is not a proposed legal requirement.
22. Would the bail-in tool apply immediately to all outstanding debt or only after a transitional period?
The proposal states that the tool should apply as of 1 January 2018 to all outstanding and newly issued debt. This provides the relevant institutions and resolution authorities with a period of time (additional to the entry into force of the rest of the framework) during which to ensure required levels of eligible liabilities.
23. How much would bail-in cost banks, and ultimately the real economy?
The costs should be moderate, and by far outweighed by the expected macro-economic benefits associated with a far-reduced likelihood of systemic financial crises and economic disruption. The average increase in funding costs for banks is expected to be around 5-15 basis points. Subtracted from the expected benefit in terms of GDP of a lower probability of systemic crises, this translates into a net yearly benefit of 0.34-0.62% of EU GDP.
This is set out in the impact assessment accompanying this proposal. This assessment is based on the fact that: (i) bail-in would be better for creditors than normal insolvency, (ii) it would principally apply only to cross-border and other systemic institutions, (iii) these could satisfy the minimum requirement with new subordinated debt instruments if cheaper for them, and (iv) that there would be a sufficient degree of ex-ante funding for supporting the costs of resolution (whether via the Deposit Guarantee Scheme or a separate Resolution Fund).
24. How does the Commission propose to strengthen cross-border supervision and resolution in the future?
Regulations, no matter how good, cannot overcome poor supervision. The EU has already taken steps to strengthen supervision, notably with the creation of the three European Supervisory Authorities and the European System Risk Board (MEMO/10/434). This proposal strengthens banking oversight further by introducing a common framework for preventing and managing crises affecting the financial viability of all types of banks. As a rule, it establishes a high degree of cooperation and consistency as regards the preventive measures and resolution actions foreseen in relation to cross border banks and other systemically relevant institutions. This lays the foundations for a more integrated EU-level treatment of these entities.
However, especially for cross-border institutions, there is a need to go further to ensure successful resolution. As stated in the European Commission's Communication of 20 October 201010, "in principle, an integrated framework for resolution of cross border entities by a single European body would deliver a rapid, decisive and equitable resolution process for European financial groups, and better reflect the pan EU nature of banking markets." However, this is currently difficult to pursue within the existing Treaties, and would be hampered by the lack of a common insolvency regime and single supervisory authority.
25. What is the purpose of appointing a special manger and wouldn't this appointment lead to loss of confidence in and consequent runs on the firm in question?
As part of the early intervention measures, the special manager could be appointed by the authorities to replace or assist the management of a troubled institution for a one-year period, renewable in case the problems persist. Under the close oversight of the banking supervisor, his/her primary function would be to restore the financial situation and the sound management of the bank. To this end, the special manager would have all the powers of the managers of the company, and could take decisions to, for example, implement any part of the recovery plan, recapitalise the institution, or reorganise its ownership or business structure, including by selling off parts to other healthy banks.
This tool already exists in some Member States, and has been used successfully in the past. It has been proven to create confidence (e.g. there have been no depositor runs in Italy on the appointment of a special manager).
Its inclusion in the EU framework should enhance the tools available to supervisors to prevent failure. National supervisors will have discretion as to which tools to apply. If a supervisor has legitimate concerns that the use of this tool would, in the circumstances, undermine confidence or financial stability, it would not be required to use it.
26. Resolution measures may interfere with the rights of shareholders and creditors. How does the Commission propose to deal with this?
The new EU resolution framework incorporates adequate safeguards to protect the interests of stakeholders affected by resolution measures. Appropriate safeguards include notably the principle that no creditor should be worse off under resolution than it would have been had the bank been wound up under the applicable insolvency law.
Rights of shareholders need also to be recognised by appropriate mechanisms for judicial redress and compensation. However, a balance needs to be struck between protecting the legitimate interests of shareholders and enabling resolution authorities to intervene quickly and decisively to restructure a failing institution or group to minimise contagion and ensure the stability of the banking system in the affected Member States. Therefore, remedies for wrongful decisions should be limited to compensation for damages suffered and not affect any administrative acts and/or transactions concluded as part of the resolution.
27. Would "living wills" help authorities to manage a cross-border banking crisis?
'Living wills' in the shape of ex-ante plans for handling a bank in crisis will be an important part of resolution planning. They will help authorities to better understand group structures, intra-group dependencies, and separate critical functions, and will mitigate the risk that banks are either too big or too complex to fail. They will ensure that in the event of a crisis, authorities will have all the necessary information for rapid decision-making and intervention. In addition, they should help groups to streamline their operations and foster more integrated approaches to risk management.
28. How does the EU framework square with the resolution regime adopted in some Member States?
Some Member States already have in place or have recently introduced mechanisms at national level to resolve failing banks (e.g. the UK, Germany, Denmark, Ireland, Greece, Portugal, the Netherlands, France, Italy). These regimes pursue the same objectives and are generally compatible with the Commission proposal.
In any event, the Commission proposes a minimum harmonised set of tools and powers, so that Member States would be able to introduce additional tools at national level (such as taking a bank into temporary State ownership) to deal with crises, as long as they are compatible with the state aid rules provided for at EU level.
29. How does the EU Framework square with the EU State Aid rules?
Although the EU proposal aims to minimise losses for society, in particular to avoid as far as possible the use of taxpayers' money, the framework does not prohibit the use of public funds to finance bank resolution. The granting of rescue aid in systemic crises is governed by the EU framework for State Aid11. The proposal on bank resolution will not prejudice these rules. They will continue to apply in the context of a bank resolution, if a form of financing that is supplied qualifies as State aid according to the existing rules.
30. How does this proposal relate to the Capital Requirements Directive IV (CRD IV) proposal tabled in summer 2011?
The two proposals complement each other. The CRD IV proposal (IP/11/915) strengthens the prudential requirements and supervision related to banks and investment firms. Today's proposal contains measures on how to address a banking crisis at an early stage and, if the crisis develops further, how to resolve a failing bank in an orderly manner without damaging the financial system and by extension, the real economy.
While the CRD IV proposal reduces the probability of banks failing, the current proposal reduces the impact of such failures and will therefore work as a backstop for bank failures. It contains legislative provisions related to preparatory measures, early intervention measures and resolution powers and tools.
31. What link is there between resolution and deposit guarantee schemes (DGS)?
Despite the different scope and purpose of deposit guarantee schemes (IP/10/918), which guarantee deposits up to a certain amount, and resolution, there are a number of synergies. For example, when a resolution framework that stops contagion is in place, the DGS fund would only finance a few banks (pay out depositors) that would potentially default. In contrast, when no resolution measures are available and contagion spreads through the financial system, the amount of money that the DGS needs to pay out in a Member State is considerably higher.
In countries where the interbank market (lending between banks) is more developed the synergies between the two are higher (as contagion risk is higher). In addition if DGS finances resolution measures (e.g. deposits transferred to a healthy bank), its payment obligation would mostly likely be smaller than the payout of all eligible deposits if the bank is liquidated.
Currently, in several Member States (e.g. Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Germany, Spain, France, Italy, Lithuania, Poland, Portugal, Romania, United Kingdom) DGS have varying powers beyond the mere payout of depositors such as liquidity support, restructuring support or a liquidation role. DGS would be used to finance such measures if it is less costly than paying out depositors.
32. If we had had this proposal already in place, would this have saved banks like Dexia, Lehman Brothers, or BayernLB?
When banks like Fortis, Icelandic banks, Lehman Brothers, Anglo Irish Bank, Dexia, CajaSur, HBOS, RBS, Lloyds, BNP, Société Générale or BayernLB were hit by the financial crisis, they faced potential collapse and posed a threat to their national financial systems, and threats to the economy. These banks were rescued by public money or supported by state guarantees.
In the case of the Icelandic banks, the absence of early intervention prevented an early and less costly resolution, while the lack of adequate cooperation between relevant authorities resulted in banks' assets being ring-fenced. The country's deposit guarantee scheme was not adequately financed, and could not sustain pay-outs for insured depositors.
In the case of Fortis, for example, the absence of burden-sharing arrangements between parts of the group located in different countries ultimately resulted in the group being split along national lines.
The chaotic way in which Lehman Brothers was placed into bankruptcy led to a significant loss of value for unsecured creditors and caused uncertainties about the location and return of client assets. This case reveals a clear failure of cooperation and information-sharing at a critical moment: insolvency. This case illustrates how difficult it can be to ring-fence assets in practice.
The lack of effective resolution tools in the case of the Anglo-Irish and Icelandic banks shows how the problems of one bank can drag the whole country into recession. The losses incurred by banks, like Dexia for example, could have been covered by bailing in shareholders and creditors along the lines of today's proposal, rather than employing public funds.
At the time that banks like Fortis, Lehman Brothers, Dexia, etc. were rescued by the taxpayer, state support was the only prompt and credible solution that was available. However, what we now see is that bailed-out banks – "zombie banks" – do not lend. The framework proposed today would not only provide the tools and the financial means to act decisively, but it will also empower an independent authority (the resolution authority) to resolve any bank in difficulties. This authority will indeed be obliged to act in those circumstances.
All of these cases illustrate the fact that there were no effective tools in place to monitor and deal with problems at an early stage, nor were there effective solutions to be applied once problems materialised. The measures in today's proposal could limit the spill-over effect of bank crises on the country and its economy. Today's proposal addresses all of these shortcomings. Had these powers and tools been available to the relevant authorities in the recent cases of banks that were bailed out with public money, we would have seen more cooperation and preventive actions in cross-border banking groups. Today's proposal means that governments would have to examine the use of resolution tools other than a simple bail-out using taxpayer's money.
The case of Bradford & Bingley illustrates such an alternative. When in 2008 the FSA determined that the bank no longer met threshold conditions, UK authorities took Bradford & Bingley into temporary public ownership. Thanks to extensive prior contingency planning, the UK was able over the space of a single weekend to auction off Bradford & Bingley's retail deposits, branches and associated systems. The Bradford & Bingley branches opened for business as usual on Monday morning with no interruption in service.
Another example is Denmark's Amagerbanken. Early in 2011, the Danish authorities demonstrated both their willingness and capacity to use the recently created bank resolution framework, imposing a 41% write-down of senior debt and unguaranteed deposits, and in so doing sent a strong signal that they may do so again in the future. Until this time the Danish authorities had supported the unguaranteed depositors and senior creditors of failing banks via blanket guarantees, guarantees on debt issuance by the banks, and hybrid capital injections.
33. Is there a link to the plan for the recapitalisation of banks?12
There is no direct link. The steps announced regarding recapitalisation are immediate measures to address capital shortfalls in the EU banking sector, whereas the present proposal is for a comprehensive and permanent framework for bank recovery and resolution, regardless of prevailing market conditions. However, there are overlaps, notably as regards how banks should recapitalise, e.g. by bailing in creditors.
34. What is the link between this proposal and the work of the High-level Expert Group on structural aspects of the EU banking sector?13
The two are complementary. The High-level group will determine whether, in addition to ongoing regulatory reforms such as today's proposal on bank recovery and resolution, structural reforms of EU banks would strengthen financial stability and improve efficiency and consumer protection. Recovery and resolution may entail changes to the structure of individual banks on a case-by-case basis, but the mandate of the High-level group is to examine whether specific reforms ought to be carried out across the board.
Key Numbers
Two online public consultations were run between 2009 and 2011. In addition an informal discussion document was published in March 2012. Together, over 250 responses were received to the two online consultations and to the discussion document14. A public hearing was organised on 19 March 2010.
Crisis-related losses incurred by European banks between 2007 and 2010: almost €1 trillion or 8% of EU GDP (IMF). EU GDP contraction in 2009 due to the economic recession induced by the financial crisis: 6% (Eurostat). Approved state aid measures including guarantees between October 2008 and October 2011: €4.5 trillion or 37% of EU GDP (Commission). State aid measures effectively used including state guarantees between 2008 and 2010: €1.6 trillion or 13% of EU GDP (Commission), of which €409 billion of asset relief and recapitalisation aid.
Examples of companies where inadequate management of liquidity risk largely contributed to their failure: Northern Rock (UK), HBOS (UK), Bradford and Bingley (UK), Bear Sterns (US), Lehman Brothers (US)
Examples of companies whose (mostly hybrid) capital instruments did not live up to the expectations as regards their loss absorption, permanence and flexibility of payments capacity (which had to be reinforced through Commission state aid decisions): RBS (UK), Bradford and Bingley (UK), KBC Group (BE), Bayern LB (DE), Commerzbank (DE), Lloyds (UK), Allied Irish Banks (IR), Bank of Ireland (IR), Cajasur (ES)
The European Commission has analysed the costs and benefits of the proposal in the accompanying impact assessment.
The costs of the framework are taken to derive notably from the potential increase in the funding cost of banks due to the removal of the implicit state support and from the costs of setting up resolution funds. Such increases in banks' costs might have negative effects for GDP. On the other hand, the improved stability of the financial sector, and reduced likelihood of systemic crises and risks for taxpayers' money to recapitalise failing banks, would have a positive effect on GDP.
The proposal seeks to design an approach which is both efficient and effective. In other words, new costs for banks should be minimal while the framework should work in a variety of crises of different magnitude (losses by EU banks during the recent crisis from 2008 to 2010 are taken as a key reference point).
The efficiency and effectiveness of the proposed framework is to be seen in the context of a joint calibration of Basel III rules, funding available under Deposit Guarantee Schemes (DGS) and the bail-in tool. The new capital requirements under the Basel III accord (which reduces the probability of bank failures) are expected to generate net benefits equal to 0.14 % of the EU's GDP annually. The necessary funding of DGS or specific resolution funds are expected to bring positive net benefits equal to 0.2-0.3 % of the EU's GDP annually. The bail-in tool could produce economic net benefits equal to 0.3-0.6 % of the EU's GDP annually. Overall, these measures are expected to generate a cumulative net benefit equal to 0.7-1.0 % of the EU's GDP annually.
Table 1. Cumulative impact of Basel III, RF/DGS and Debt Write Down tool (bail-in) (costs and benefits as % of annual GDP.)
The costs (in terms GDP, investment, volume of loans, etc.) are estimated through a simple methodology also used by the Bank of England, and validated by the estimations of a dynamic general equilibrium macroeconomic model (QUEST III) that has been extended to incorporate financial intermediation by the banking sector.
The benefits are estimated using the SYMBOL model, developed by the European Commission. This model allows estimating the aggregated losses deriving from bank defaults, explicitly linking Basel capital requirements to the other key tools of the banking safety net (i.e. DGS). Macroeconomic benefits are calculated by multiplying the reduction in the probability of a systemic banking crisis (due to improved regulation) times its total (avoided) costs.
1 :
According to the IMF estimates, crisis-related losses incurred by European banks between 2007 and 2010 are close to €1 trillion or 8% of the EU GDP. Between October 2008 and October 2011, the Commission approved €4.5 trillion (equivalent to 37% of EU GDP) of state aid measures to financial institutions.
9 :
1% represents around €80 billion for the Union and €65 billion for the Euro area (as of March 2012, based on data from the European Commission, the European Central Bank and Bankscope).
10 :
11 :
The State aid rules established in response to the financial crisis are available at
12 :
Communication "A roadmap for stability and growth" :
14 :
All documents (apart from submissions to the informal discussion document) are available at
Abonnieren Posts (Atom)


text:
Archiving Solutions
Powerful VNA plus sustainable archiving
To make correct diagnoses, clinicians need the whole picture: unrestricted access to all radiological and patient health data. Enterprise Archiving is a simple, efficient, and cost-saving solution that facilitates integration, data consolidation, and sharing between systems and stakeholders.
It allows patient-centered data management of all DICOM files, images, documents, and examination results. The solution enables easy and intuitive handling of data from different sources and allows storing all needed data patient-centrally in one archive.
Patient-centric storage
The central hub for clinical results, the Enterprise Archiving solution provides a holistic overview of the information available on a patient, and seamlessly integrates with your EMR. The centralized availability of data simplifies viewing, supports sound decisions, and increases efficiency.
Single point of integration
The Enterprise Archiving solution supports major standards – including DICOM, HL7, IHE, XDS – and facilitates integration, consolidation, and exchange between systems and stakeholders. Multiple connectivity options make it scalable to future needs – at reduced migration costs.
Cost-saving data management
With a lean single-archive strategy, the Enterprise Archiving solution becomes the backbone of your entire institution. Designed for growth – from multi-departmental, to enterprise, to regional set-ups – it enables cost control for data storage via image lifecycle management.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Published September 2011.
In January 2010, Sarah Grigg from Creative Partnerships got in touch with NRICH to invite us to join her in a project that sounded right up our street. Sarah explained that she had read an article in the Guardian The Science of Fun; why is Maths still an uncool subject? (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/may/31/maths.science) which describes the 'Gathering for Gardner' event, a conference held every two years in honour of Martin Gardner, attended by experts in mathematics, puzzles and magic. The article's author, Alex Bellos, comments:
Maths is generally not considered fun. At school, maths is unloved, and the prejudice against it continues throughout adulthood. Whereas to hate literature is to be deemed uncultured, it is cool to hate maths and fine to throw one's hands in the air when asked to do a simple sum.
The article inspired Sarah to want to set up a project to investigate enhancing the mathematical learning experiences of primary-aged children through creativity and she felt that NRICH could help. She explains:
"I felt that whilst there were lots of initiatives promoting creative approaches to teaching Literacy, Maths was being left on the sidelines. Historically, it has not been thought of as a creative, fun subject. I imagined what it would have been like to have a magician or a puzzle enthusiast teach my Maths lessons - how exciting would that have been."
This was the catalyst for an idea to implement creative interventions in Maths lessons, whilst still offering real learning in line with curriculum requirements. The difference being we wanted to change pupils' perceptions of the subject with a view to increasing their engagement.
Sarah continues, "To increase the credibility of the idea I realised we needed some specialist expertise so it was important to have the right people on board. We needed to consider it a research project and it offered a great opportunity for some 'before and after' case studies."
Getting Started
In late March 2010, I met Sarah and the maths subject leaders from three Bristol primary schools: Angela Berger from Air Balloon Hill, Clare Broad from Bridge Learning Campus and Maggie Smithson from Sefton Park. Dr Nick Clough from the University of the West of England (UWE) was also involved which meant we would have support from an educational research perspective, giving us advice on appropriate questions to ask and helping us to collect and analyse data. And so the Maths and Creativity Learning Group was formed.
We discussed the issues that the teachers faced in the classroom, their aspirations for the pupils and how we might approach the project. From this first session we identified the following enquiry question:
How does a more creative approach impact upon the mathematical skills of higher-attaining children?
We decided that a focus group of around fifteen high-achieving children would be selected in each school comprising Year 5 at Sefton Park, Years 4/5 at Bridge Learning Campus and Year 5 at Air Balloon Hill. The reason for choosing high-attaining children was that there was a feeling they were not being stretched or offered the same support as pupils at the other end of the scale. It was also felt that if this project was successful it would be easier to disseminate the learning with the whole staff team and eventually the 'harder to reach' children. We planned to try to capture a 'picture' of the pupils as learners of mathematics straight away through individual interviews, then to offer a number of creative interventions, then to interview the children again.
Creative Partnerships could guarantee funding up until summer 2011 so we would be able to work with the same groups of children for just over an academic year in total. The creative interventions for the pupils would be in the form of three one-off sessions with three different creative practitioners. However, we also felt a complementary strand was needed which would offer professional development for all staff in the three schools. One of the main aims of this CPD would be to encourage more creative approaches to mathematics in everyday classroom practice, and this is where NRICH came in.
Project Overview
Below is a timeline, which summarises the main phases of the project:
March 2010
Meeting 1: planning, identifying main aims
April/May 2010
Interviews with focus children
May 2010
Meeting 2: each school self-assessing against main aims, discussing possible practitioners
June 2010
Twilight CPD 1 run by NRICH attended by three maths subject leaders and Nick Clough (UWE)
July 2010
Intervention 1: Bordeaux Quay Cookery School
Reflection with children
July 2010
Twilight CPD 2 run by NRICH attended by three maths subject leaders and Nick Clough (UWE)
July 2010
Meeting 3: identifying next steps in school
October 2010
Meeting 4: planning peer learning sessions
November 2010
Intervention 2: Representatives from the British Origami Society
Reflection with children
December 2010/January 2011
Peer learning sessions
January/February 2011
Twilight CPD session run by NRICH at each school attended by all members of staff
January 2011
Meeting 5: planning next intervention
March 2011
Intervention 3: Mike Clarke, children's magician
Reflection with children
March/April 2011
Children plan and lead magic sessions for others in school, then reflect on their experiences
April 2011
Meeting 6: reflecting on interventions and peer learning, each school self-assessing against main aims again
May 2011
Meeting 7: evaluating the process to date, discussing dissemination, planning new research question and future CPD
June 2011
Meeting 8: finalising next steps in terms of new research question, new group of children and follow-up CPD
Project Details
Having formed a research question, we identified six aims against which we hoped to assess progress over the course of the project. These were to:
We imagined a scale from 1 to 10 for each aim, where 1 meant that the aim was a long way from being achieved and 10 meant it had been achieved completely. Each subject leader judged where they felt their group of children was on the scale at the start of the project and we recorded this snapshot on a wheel:
The inner blue circle represents a score of 10 so it can be seen from the above image that none of the schools felt they had achieved 10 with respect to any of the aims (in fact the highest score recorded above is 8). Of course the three schools were coming from different starting points, but it is interesting to note that all of them assessed themselves as lacking extensive opportunities for children to explore ideas in mathematics.
Initial Interviews with the Children
Following on from our first meeting, each maths subject leader individually interviewed the focus group children. We had three set questions that were asked. Here are representative extracts from the responses at the outset of this piece of work:
1. How well are you doing in maths?
Quite well - I was selected for St Werburghs. I get good comments in my book.
Pretty well ... teacher told mum my levels.
... quite well ... don't know how well I am doing
Well: I think I'm in the highest group and I can do it ... I get higher challenges
2. When and where do you use your maths skills?
Mathletics at home. Homework. School, obviously
... obviously school, at home practice times tables very day
In maths obviously ... doing homework ... cooking ... on the computer (to play and to work)
Comes in useful when you don't expect it ... swimming events 400m is 16 lengths because of 4 x 4.
In school maths lessons, on the computer.
At home: mathletics, mum has to count money to pay bills.
3. How do you feel about maths?
Confident ... don't feel like I can't do something
Quite fun ... does depend on what you are doing, some things are not that interesting ...
Its not my top subject ... one of my favourites. If I get stuck I get annoyed
Pretty confident
When its exciting I enjoy it, like the school trip to do with maths that was really fun. Designing the classroom, that was fun. Not really exciting carrying on doing the same thing, don't really like doing text book work.
What surprised us was that the majority of pupils gave examples of using mathematical skills in maths lessons but few mentioned any wider application apart from the odd comment about shopping and computer-based mathematical programmes. This led us to the realisation that the children had little real-world context for using their mathematical skills, so this helped us identify our goal in terms of the 'Meaningful' aim: "All maths has a reason". This became an integral part of the brief when we commissioned the creative practitioners.
We also asked these same questions at the end of the project to gauge any noticeable differences. For the results of this and examples of what the children said, see below.
Continuing Professional Development (CPD)
As stated above, we recognised that while we hoped the intervention sessions would help the children experience mathematics in a way that they may not have done before, these were one-off events. Therefore, we were keen to show that our aims could also be addressed in the context of everyday teaching. To this end, I ran a series of twilight CPD sessions, the first two of which were attended by the three maths subject leaders and Dr Nick Clough from UWE. In the first, we had a go at the activity Magic Vs and used this experience as a context in which to discuss rich mathematical tasks. We talked about ways in which we as teachers can question and prompt children to encourage them to think mathematically, and how we can create a supportive climate in our maths lessons.
In the second session, the three subject leaders reported back on their experiences of trying out at least one rich task with a group of children. For example, at Bridge Learning Campus, they had tried the Magic Vs activity. Learners were engaged and enthusiastic, and had persevered with the task. Some commented that it was tricky but they still enjoyed it. Clare suggested that the open-endedness of the task had motivated the pupils to have a go as they knew it wasn't just about one right answer. We then had a go at two more activities altogether - Nice and Nasty, and Light the Lights Again. These provoked discussions about the benefit of mathematical games and the immediate feedback offered by interactivities on the website. We also touched on the idea of using these tasks as assessment opportunities.
The third CPD session took place separately in each school by which time, two of the three interventions had taken place. The maths subject leaders were concerned that the majority of teachers in their schools were not really aware of the project and even if they did know about it, perceived it as not necessarily applicable to their own classes. So this third session took on a similar form to the first session, though this time it included all teaching staff. In each case, we played Strike It Out and, when time allowed, Sort the Street, and we used these as a vehicle to discuss rich tasks, questioning and classroom atmosphere. We wanted all colleagues to feel empowered to take risks themselves and to understand ways in which activities like these allow children to be creative mathematically.
Creative Interventions
Each creative intervention had a clear brief with target numeracy skills identified by the teachers so that the creative practitioner could build these in to their lesson plan. In addition we asked that each session addressed the following objectives;
The first intervention took place in July 2010 led by Bordeaux Quay Cookery School, working with the project group of children at their respective schools. Each group of children had a half-day session, which involved having a party for friends therefore adapting a recipe for a different number of people and calculating time frames. Where possible, the sessions were attended by a researcher from UWE who filmed each one, providing us with a valuable record to which we could refer later. It was noted that the quality of mathematical discussion was very high (how do you halve an egg?) and the children readily engaged in the challenge. The need to produce the correct answers in order to create and consume their final, edible product led to some very high quality mathematical collaboration. Here are the links to the edited film clips:
Air Balloon:
Sefton Park:
(Unfortunately the researcher was unable to attend Bridge Learning Campus' session to film it.)
The second intervention, led by a member of the British Origami Society, took place during the autumn term of 2010. Learners were challenged to create trapeziums, equilateral triangles, stars, cubes ... all using just sheets of paper, giving them the chance to explore mathematics in a very practical way. Again, the conversations amongst the children revealed just how much mathematics they were using - for example knowledge of angles, properties of shapes - and a whole range of skills were required, such as co-operation and perseverance. The edited films from the sessions can be viewed on YouTube:
Air Balloon:
Bridge Learning Campus:
Sefton Park:
The third and final intervention took place in spring 2011 and was led by Mike Clarke, a children's magician. Prior to Mike's session, I spoke to him on the phone as we were keen that the tricks should involve mathematics that the children would be able to unpick - we did not want the maths to be mysterious. The idea was that the children would be able to re-create at least one of the tricks for an audience back at school. This time, learners were applying knowledge of probability, logic, pattern and ratio as well as finding themselves working together and developing explanations. It was interesting to note the way, in one school, a group of girls worked extremely carefully to find the exact measurements needed for the rope trick, with a group of boys much more likely to dive in and approximate, in order to get onto the practical aspect of carrying out the trick. Here are links to the films taken at each school:
Air Balloon:
Bridge Learning Campus:
Sefton Park:
Immediately after each intervention, the children were given time to reflect on the session and to comment on how they felt it had gone. This was followed up with a further session a week or so later that used the film from that school to aid the children in their reflection on the learning that took place.
Peer-Led Sessions
In addition to the three creative interventions, we had discussed how to develop the aims of the project with the children in their own settings and we identified some clear goals under each aim. At the third meeting, we considered these in turn and the teachers identified 'small step' activities, which could be followed up at school:
Goal: To ensure that all Maths has a reason. Step: Find a room and find a time and brainstorm with children.
Goal: To have enthusiastic independent learners investigating every possibility confidently. Step: Suggest activity for class teacher to use and step back.
Goal: To achieve 4+ average point score (APS) progress over one year. Step: Obtain current data and discuss with class teacher.
Goal: To enable high-quality thinking around past/present/future use of knowledge and skills. Step: Provide post-it notes for children to feed back on.
Goal: To encourage listening, discussing, explaining - building on it and sharing it. Step: Plan a ten-minute session, specifically to give opportunity for children to talk.
Risk Taking
Goal: To have confident mathematicians actively experimenting within a supportive environment. Step: Explore alternatives to 'Why?'.
We also thought it would be valuable for the focus children to plan and lead activities for other children in their school. This took two forms but in each case the subject leader worked with the group to plan and prepare, see our jotted thoughts below:
In the first peer-led session, the group decided on a topic they wanted to teach and each focus child was paired up with a learner from another class. Initially, the children had a planning session with the maths subject leader, where they discussed:
They then had a 'practice' session where one partner was the teacher and one the learner before teaching 'for real'. A reflection session followed. At Sefton Park the Year 6s partnered up to work with a small group of year 2s. They chose to facilitate a session developing pentominoes, exploring all the possible shapes that could be made from five squares, then providing a context linked to the topic work being done at the time. The older children were initially very nervous about being in the teaching role, especially concerned about discipline issues and whether they would be listened to, but afterwards commented on how impressed they had been by the level of engagement, and particularly the ability shown by the younger children.
The second peer-led session focused on magic and the focus children performed one or more magic tricks which Mike had shared with them. At one school, this happened very spontaneously, with children sharing the card tricks within the next few days, which demonstrates the high levels of enthusiasm generated.
Final Interviews with the Children
In July 2011, the children were interviewed again, using the same questions as at the start of the project. Here are some representative extracts from the children's comments:
1. How well are you doing in maths?
Very well, I think in the parents meeting they said I was doing well. I'm doing better than before, I wouldn't have been doing as well if I hadn't done the project - I enjoy doing it and I sort of needed it.
I think I'm doing quite well: today when we did the mental maths test I got my highest score yet, I got 19! I'm aiming for 20. I can't wait to get the results of the non-calculator paper, I like to know the scores.
I think I'm doing quite well. Every time we do a test my scores keep improving, I got 91 then 95 then 97.
Sometimes its easy, too easy and sometimes its hard and its frustrating but I like to have a challenge and make your mind and in the end finally getting it and finally understanding it. The only problem with a challenge is you have to stop and you don't have a chance to finish it. You want to get the answer and you play around with it all night.
2. When and where do you use your maths skills?
I use them at home, when I go shopping. I do it with my granddad, he gets the Daily Mail - there's questions, beginner, intermediate, advanced and we go through them. I enjoy that. Shopping - when there's offers. I was going to buy a necklace and it was 25% off and I worked it out - I could afford it.
When I went to Greece lots of places tend to overcharge or bring you things you don't want - always check the change and the receipt to make sure everything on the receipt adds up!
Homework and I guess using money: it doesn't seem like maths just because its not too much of a bother, you can just do it quickly. Different types of maths, I guess because we do them in school. Cookery: when you're doing cooking you get to know how much you need, you don't need to use the weighing scales, you can estimate.
You could use it for what time a programme's on TV. To check a sell-by date: sometimes I do that, especially if it's meat my mum makes me! For paying for stuff: sometimes my mum makes me go to the corner shop and get her bread and milk and stuff. She always checks the change in case I buy sweets - I've done it once or twice!
3. How do you feel about maths?
Well this is a difficult one: everyone said I was good but I didn't really feel it until I did the project. Because it was different kinds of maths: teaching the year 2s, cooking, the man who came on Fridays: I like that sort of maths because it was different. When we did the work with the professor normally in class the maths was times some, divide some but this was the history of maths, the changes it had made, why people wanted it, not just a pen and paper activity.
It's my favourite subject because I think, not being big headed but it's like one of the high subjects I can achieve-- its where I do most well. I find it quite fun too, yes I think it's linked.
I feel challenged yes: you can choose your level. I usually start in the middle and go through to the highest: you feel the urge to get it!
I think it's quite fun and I enjoy mixing it with other subjects too. I liked it when we did maths and cooking, I liked all of them, like the magic and maths and the music and maths.
I really like it because I'm pretty good at it and I enjoy doing it. I liked all the bits in maths but I especially liked origami. I'm really looking forward to the SATs paper.
I quite enjoy it because there's lots of different maths and lots of different activities. Some activities can be really good. In year 5 we did an investigation: the classroom was completely empty and we had £1000 and we had to choose what to get for the classroom. We worked in groups. Sometimes I like group activities, sometimes I like to work on my own.
OK It's fun sometimes. Fun: I like it when it's a challenge and it's a bit harder and you have to think about it. I prefer maths when you're doing it and not listening as much. I prefer to make stuff but writing's still better than listening. Discussing it with friends it good.
We noticed how much more expansive the replies were and how the children were now able to give many examples of where they used their maths skills outside the classroom. We have good recorded examples of dialogue during the interventions and reflections with the pupils. This allows us to observe how the learning is happening.
Returning to the Aims
Each maths subject leader assessed where they thought their group of children was in relation to the 1-10 scale for each aim. The charts below show the assessment in April 2010 (red) compared with April 2011 (blue):
These are subjective judgments based on the teachers' perceptions of where the children were at each respective snapshot in time. The graphs show improvement across each of the key areas identified as the aims. Each of the goals was considered in turn, e.g. Reflectiveness Goal: To enable high quality thinking around past/present/future use of knowledge and skills. Then we asked the question "On a scale of 1 - 10, (10 being they have fulfilled the goal) where do you feel this group of children score at this moment in time?". We encouraged an environment where it was acceptable for scores to go down, stay the same, or go up. As mentioned above, the snapshots were recorded in April 2010 (red) and again in April 2011 (blue).
Our enquiry question for this work was:
How does a more creative approach impact upon the mathematical skills of higher-attaining children?
The children's comments above which were recorded at the end of the project offer some evidence for the progress made. The learning group felt that the children had a greater understanding of situations in which they used their mathematical skills, particularly outside of the school environment. One outcome is therefore a broadening of context and understanding for these skills. Another outcome is the response to how they feel about maths. Less written work and more practical activities in the lessons proved popular with many pupils.
Below is a table of anonymised data from one of the schools that took part showing the APS progress of the children involved. Whilst the teachers believed that this level of attainment was expected from the outset, it was also felt that the work of this project had much to offer future pupils, as members of staff have begun to consider new ways of approaching maths lessons, namely creating more interactive lessons with fewer written work sheets.
One of the interesting outcomes for the particular group recorded below arose almost by accident. Additional pupils were included who were not originally identified as high achievers in order to create a more representative and diverse research sample. These individuals surprised their teacher by exceeding their expected targets. This leads us to believe that there is some importance in demonstrating high aspirations; i.e. if the pupil believes that the teacher believes s/he can do well, then in turn s/he begins to believe in their own ability to do well. This in turn leads to higher than expected attainment. See the table below:
Attainment data on focus Maths group (March 2010-March 2011)
March 10
March 11
APS progress
Girl (BME)
Boy (EAL)
Girl (BME)
Boy (who left before magic input)
Average progress = 4.1 APS
It was also agreed that following the CPD sessions the wider staff team felt more confident to teach mathematics and make use of the resources provided by NRICH via the website. This was particularly the case for the staff that previously expressed a lack of confidence with teaching numeracy.
Another outcome is the perceived increased enjoyment of the subject both from pupils and staff. This may link with increased confidence and understanding, allowing both teachers and children to relax more with the subject and be more creative in their approach. It was key for pupils to feel that there were many ways to reach a solution and it was important that they felt safe to explore different ways of problem solving. We wanted to provide an environment that removed "the fear of getting it wrong". The NRICH CPD helped with this.
Implications and Next Steps
We are now in the fortunate position of being able to build on what we have done thus far. The group is very keen to continue the CPD element of the project and Angela, Maggie and Clare (in conjunction with their colleagues back at school) requested that the next phase offers opportunities to:
We have also identified a new research question:
How do we draw on real-life experiences to develop activities that engage children in thinking mathematically whilst achieving identified targets?
We feel that this question addresses a real concern for some teachers, namely that approaching mathematics more creatively can only come at the expense of 'covering the curriculum'. The focus group of children in each school will this time comprise those who appear to be 'stuck', in that although they achieved Level 2 at the end of KS1, they are not on course for a Level 4 at the end of KS2. The same questions will be used in pre- and post-intervention interviews. We deliberately moved away from higher-attaining pupils for this second phase as we believe that any positive findings might carry greater weight with teachers if the children are not already achieving highly.
Closing Remarks
So far, this has been an exciting and, I believe, innovative project, which has the potential to go from strength to strength. Enormous thanks must go to Maggie Smithson, Clare Broad and Angela Berger who have amazed me with their commitment to, and ceaseless enthusiasm for, mathematics education, and wanting the best for the children they teach. In addition, it is not an exaggeration to say that without Sarah Grigg's dedication to the project and her drive to move it forward, none of the above would have taken place.


text:
The Gramps wiki database is currently being backed up. Please check back in a couple of hours.
Welcome to the Gramps Developers Portal! This area is for people interested in helping with the development of the Gramps program.
Gramps is programmed in the Python language.
If you are an adventurous user, have some technical experience, or have a programming background, you might like to try Getting started with Gramps master.
You might want to start with obtaining the source code or have a look at Getting started with Gramps development. Once you have the code, writing a report or a quick report is a great way to learn to navigate through the codebase; see also Addons development. After getting familiar with Gramps, you might want to help work on a proposal, or make a proposal yourself you want to spend time on. Both can be done at the Proposals Portal, in collaboration with the bug/feature tracker.
Developer Resources
- Bug triage
- Debugging Gramps
- Developer policies
- Getting started with Gramps development
- Addons development
- Gramps-devel mailing list
- Official committing policies
- Process for creating a Gramps source package
- Project License
- Programming guidelines
- Git tutorial - used for Gramps and addons development. (for Gramps 4.2 and newer)
- Subversion (SVN) tutorial - used for addons development (for Gramps 4.1 and older)
- Translation tutorial
- UI style guidelines
- Using database API
- Signals and Callbacks
- Using the bug tracker
- What to do for a new Gramps release
- Python 3 String I/O
- Python.org
- Python, Gtk3 tutorial
- Gramps Code Documentation and simple UML (svg).


text:
Cheats & Guides
Divine Divinity Cheats For PC
-Steal- anything you want
There is a simple method of which you may use to steal anything in the game with ease, regardless of whether there are NPC around or not.
All you have to do is follow the preceeding steps:
#1 Get a container of any type (ie. barrel, chest..etc)
#2 Open the container
#3 Drag and drop the item you wish to steal INTO the container
#4 Leave the immediate area or get out of sight of NPCs before you take the item into your main inventory.
There you go, perfect means to get whatever you want at no cost or punishment!
Contributed by: istorm
-Teleportation- glitches
Playing around with the pyramid teleportation objects can have dire results. On interesting trick you can do is get near the edge of the world map, the area where everything is black fog beyond the trees. Drag one of the teleporation pyramids out and toss it OVER the trees. If you do so correctly, you will be able to teleport to it from your other pyramid. *note* this can get you pretty stuck, but it also opens a whole new door of exploration and ease of transportation. Give it a shot!
Contributed by: istorm
Keep Slasher Glitch
In a quest you get from an Orc in the Aleroth catacombs you are asked to retrieve an axe called Slasher. You will find slasher deeper in the catacombs.When you find it, instead of going to the Orc with it, put it in a chest/barrel back in Aleroth. Then go to the Orc and say that you have found Slasher. You will give it to him even though you don't have it in your inventory. He will kill an Orc to test it and go back to the Orc camp. Now you can go back to your chest/barrel and get the axe. Then you will have the Axe and completed the quest. If you want you can sell it, or keep it untill you are strong enough to use it.
Contributed by: DarkTyphoon
Super Item Duplication
Ok this is the ultimate way to duplicate any items practically everywhere.Steps:- Find a container (any kind), open it, and put the item inside
And best of all, it works on ALL versions!
- From the container, drag the item over your inventory window
but don't release it (keep mouse pressed)
- Pause the game (space) then release the item in inventory
(you will hear a dropping noise)
- Press escape key to go at main menu, and right after resume to you game
- Unpause...and voila! Item(s) duplicated!
Contributed by: NicTheWhite
Walkthroughs & FAQs
|File Size
|General FAQs
|FAQ/Walkthrough by JaggedJim
|General FAQs
|FAQ/Walkthrough by SMetzler
|General FAQs
|FAQ/Walkthrough by kmagicka
|In-Depth FAQs
|Character Guide by Matt P
|In-Depth FAQs
|Food Effects FAQ by Zyrxil
|In-Depth FAQs
|Quest Walkthrough by Wolfy
|In-Depth FAQs
|Special Armor/Holy Artifacts FAQ by Lexa


text:
Finally--a viral video the non-obsessive can enjoy.
A new clip promoting Ridley Scott's "Alien" prequel, "Prometheus," as hit the tubes, and it features Guy Pearce as Peter Weyland (of the corporation Weyland-Yutani, which sent the original probe into space in "Alien" and which planned to harvest alien specimens in "Aliens") giving a TED talk in the year 2023. The whole things got a sinister, Gordon Gekko-esque vibe to it, as he discusses his vision for changing the world, a plan that includes androids indistinguishable from humans.
They've gone as far as creating a fake TED website, and predictably, the humorless nerds and fanboys are out in full effect, dissecting how the speech goes against the ethos of TED (though it was done entirely with TED's blessing), how this character doesn't jibe with the Weyland family tree as laid out in "Alien vs. Predator," how silly it is to think that people will still attend speeches en masse 12 years from now... Yawn.
U.S. & World
The fact is, the clip does a great job of introducing us to a character from the film in a way that gives us a sense of his motivations and morality in a way that might stop a feature film cold, but that works great on the web. But there's even an easter egg or two if you really want to dig into it.
The fake TED page even includes a short bio of Weyland:
Peter Weyland has been a magnet for controversy since he announced his intent to build the first convincingly humanoid robotic system by the end of the decade.
Whether challenging the ethical boundaries of medicine with nanotechnology or going toe to toe with the Vatican itself on the issue of gene-therapy sterilization, Sir Peter prides himself on his motto, "If we can, we must." After a three year media blackout, Weyland has finally emerged to reveal where he's heading next. Wherever that may be, we will most certainly want to follow.
Pearce has said his part in "Prometheus" is very small. If this is it, he pretty much crushed it.
"Prometheus," starring Charlize Theron, Michael Fassbender and Noomi Rapace, opens June 8.


text:
Low-fat moussaka
Nutrition and extra info
- Healthy
Nutrition: per serving
- kcal289
- fat8g
- saturates3g
- carbs31g
- sugars12g
- fibre5g
- protein26g
- salt1g
- 200g frozen sliced peppers
Also known as capsicums, bell peppers, sweet peppers or by their colours, for example red and…
- 3 garlic cloves, crushed
- 200g extra-lean minced beef
- 100g red lentils
- 2 tsp dried oregano, plus extra for sprinkling
Closely related to marjoram, of which it is the wild equivalent, oregano has a coarser, more…
- 500ml carton passata
- 1 aubergine, sliced into 1½ cm rounds
Although it's technically a fruit (a berry, to be exact), the aubergine is used as a…
- 4 tomatoes, sliced into 1cm rounds
A member of the nightshade family (along with aubergines, peppers and chillies), tomatoes are in…
- 2 tsp olive oil
Olive oilol-iv oyl
Probably the most widely-used oil in cooking, olive oil is pressed from fresh olives. It's…
- 25g parmesan, finely grated
Parmesan is a straw-coloured hard cheese with a natural yellow rind and rich, fruity flavour. It…
- 170g pot 0% fat Greek yogurt
- freshly grated nutmeg
One of the most useful of spices for both sweet and savoury…
Cook the peppers gently in a large non-stick pan for about 5 mins – the water from them should stop them sticking. Add the garlic and cook for 1 min more, then add the beef, breaking up with a fork, and cook until brown. Tip in the lentils, half the oregano, the passata and a splash of water. Simmer for 15-20 mins until the lentils are tender, adding more water if you need to.
Meanwhile, heat the grill to Medium. Arrange the aubergine and tomato slices on a non-stick baking tray and brush with the oil. Sprinkle with the remaining oregano and some seasoning, then grill for 1-2 mins each side until lightly charred – you may need to do this in batches.
Mix half the Parmesan with the yogurt and some seasoning. Divide the beef mixture between 4 small ovenproof dishes and top with the sliced aubergine and tomato. Spoon over the yogurt topping and sprinkle with the extra oregano, Parmesan and nutmeg. Grill for 3-4 mins until bubbling. Serve with a salad, if you like.


text:
Who We Are
What We Provide
What's It All About?
Ad Design
Previous Post
Next Post
If you enjoyed this article please consider sharing it!
Comments are closed.
Design Portfolio
Logo Design
Poster Design
Folders / Catalog Design
Miscellaneous Design
Ad Design
Direct Mail Design
Web Site Design
Brochure Design
CPD Advertising & Design
Premier Graphic Designer Corona
Website Design
Give your website a facelift!
Check out our premium websites
Get Found Online
How does your website rank? We can make you #1...Guaranteed!
Need a Printer?
We offer affordable printing partners and custom printing options.
CPD Advertising & Design - Marketing and Graphic Communications
Graphic Designer Corona


text:
Janet Jackson is topping her latest greatest-hits collection with a new single.
The greatest-hits collection, called "Number Ones," includes 33 classic Jackson hits and her newest song, "Make Me." The two-disc album will be released Nov. 17.
VIEW THE PHOTOS: In Memoriam: The Stars We Lost During Summer 2009
"Number Ones" spans the pop star's career, from her 1986 debut, "Control," to last year's "Discipline." Jackson's last greatest hits album was released in 1995.
The 43-year-old singer is working on an autobiography and a new studio album set for release next year.
Related Content from AccessHollywood.com:
VIEW THE PHOTOS: Janet Jackson
PLAY IT NOW: Tyler Perry's 'I Can Do Bad All By Myself,' NYC Premiere (September 8, 2009)
PLAY IT NOW: Access Extended: Janet Jackson's Sexy Lingerie Line
MORE ACCESS ON THESE TOPICS: Janet Jackson - Pop - TV One - Music