Search results

The Committee of European Securities Regulators (CESR) has an important role in the fourlevel Lamfalussy process for regulatory reform. At present, CESR produces at level 3 administrative guidelines, interpretative recommendations, common standards, peer reviews and comparisons of regulatory practice to improve consistent application and enforcement of EU legislation. These activities can be divided into three categories: (i) coordinated implementation of EU law, (ii) regulatory convergence and (iii) supervisory convergence. Within each of these categories additional activities of CESR should be developed further while also recognising the role of other key players such as the member states and the European Commission. With regard to the coordinated implementation, it is considered useful to keep alive the network of CESR experts who prepared CESR’s level 2 advice to the European Commission to fulfil a permanent advisory role. Furthermore, harmonised rulemaking powers for national securities regulators would facilitate further coordinated work at level 3 with respect to regulatory convergence. In this respect, it may be worthwhile for the Commission to take the initiative, where and when appropriate, to endorse common approaches of CESR members as a proper manner for applying EU law. Supervisory convergence could be enhanced by undertaking joint investigations by CESR members and setting up information databases on enforcement activities. In addition, the Monitoring Group encouraged CESR to set up an internal system of mediation for solving conflicts between national securities regulators.

The Lamfalussy process was implemented from early 2001, following the report of the Committee of Wise Men on the Regulation of European Securities Markets, chaired by Alexandre Lamfalussy. Four years on, this paper concludes that, while it is too early to assess progress in areas such as implementation and enforcement (Levels 3 and 4 of the Lamfalussy process), significant progress has been made in implementing the proposals contained in the original Lamfalussy Report. Preparation of EU legislation affecting securities markets is now more transparent, with better involvement of external stakeholders and enhanced political cooperation between all the institutions (Commission, Council and European Parliament). This has resulted in an improvement in the quality of legislation and an acceleration of the legislative process. The use of implementing measures will make it easier and faster to adapt Community legislation in the future. The process is also encouraging regulatory and supervisory convergence. Nevertheless, this paper suggests further improvements that could be made in areas such as consultation, including better involvement of consumers; timetables for transposing measures into national law; focusing more on general rules and principles in framework legislation (Level 1) and avoiding over‐prescription in implementing measures (Level 2); achieving more consistent implementation across member states (Level 3); further strengthening political accountability; and strengthening efforts to foster greater understanding of the Lamfalussy process.

To describe the 5th May 2006 ECOFIN conclusions on supervisory convergence and explain why they represent a new departure for European financial services work.

The article outlines the 6th 2006 ECOFIN conclusions relating to supervisory convergence. It then reviews EU developments relating to supervisory convergence from the 2001 Lamfalussy Process onwards as context for the conclusions. Finally, in the light of the review and the description of the conclusions it draws some conclusions about the likely implications for further developments in the EU in relation to EU supervisory convergence.

The principal findings are that supervisory convergence is likely to increase due to enhanced political backing with member state finance ministries and regulators taking a leading role.

As this is the first paper on the ECOFIN conclusions there is considerable scope for ongoing research to establish the extent to which the predictions in the paper prove to be justified by future developments.

The ECOFIN conclusions represent a departure from EU financial services work focused on a legislative programme, the Financial Services Action Plan, to a programme focusing on improving cross‐border relationships between supervisors. This has important implications for the key European actors and gives a strong role to national finance ministries and supervisors. The practical implications will be enhanced cooperation between national supervisors on a cross‐border basis. The paper argues for strong financial services industry involvement in this.

The value of the paper is twofold – Its primary value is as the first academic analysis of the ECOFIN conclusions and as a predictor of their likely influence on EU institutional balance in the financial services area. Secondly it is a useful review of the main developments with regard to EU supervisory convergence over the five years 2001‐2006 – something which, to be the best of my knowledge, has not previously been carried out in the academic literature.

The purpose of this paper is to report and review the legislative and regulatory responses to the global financial crisis (GFC) from within the United Kingdom (UK).

The paper observes aspects of the effect of the GFC within the UK, using economic statistics and institutional case studies. It summarises the laws that the European Union (EU) and the UK have produced in the wake of the crisis and recommends approaches to be taken from this point.

The regulators are putting in place a comprehensive, integrated framework, much of which is sensible in its content. However, this structure will be insufficient to re-establish the effective operation of the financial sector, unless firms comply with the rules and a “relationship culture” is developed.

It is not yet clear how the Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) and the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) will perform and coordinate.

The paper presents a comprehensive review of relevant EU and UK legislation, thereby bringing readers up to date with the situation in the UK.

This chapter aims the research whether the application of European Directive, Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID), had any significant effects on the European Capital Markets and the progress of the European Integration. This new regulation specifies the tasks and responsibilities of the supervisory authorities of the Member State of origin and the host Member State, in order to enhance the certainty of effectiveness of cross-border transactions supervision and to reduce the risk of imposing unnecessary legal reforms from the host Member State on investment firms which perform cross-border transactions. It has been concluded, among others, that the aligning of the national regulatory approaches to a common European regulatory system is quite necessary. It is finally concluded that MiFID will contribute to reduce problems at country level as the previous experience of the Investment Services Directive, where the European investments and economies of Member States were based mainly on the level of ‘country’ and not of the ‘sector’. An effective capital entrepreneurship market is a strategically important element in the development of new and innovative businesses, encouraging entrepreneurship, increasing the productivity and maintaining high economic growth rates in Europe. Currently, European venture capital market is much less effective than that of the US market, for example. Therefore, in this area, should be specified the priorities that will lead to new initiatives.

The purpose of this paper is to explain a recently adopted Ordinance (the “Reform Act”) and amendments to the General Regulation of the Autorité des Marchés Financiers (AMF) intended to improve the competitiveness of the French financial market and to harmonize the French regulatory definition of a public offering with the European Union definition under the Prospectus Directive.

The paper explains requirements of the European Union Prospectus Directive, related provisions of the French Reform Act, and certain clarifications provided by the Committee of European Securities Regulators (CESR); discusses the scope of the private placement exemption in France, including definitions of “qualified investors” and a “restricted group of investors”; explains the role of financial intermediaries and how their marketing activities must be structured to avoid losing the benefits of the private placement exemption; interprets loosely defined AMF policies on the resale of securities under the private placement exemption; details exemptions for investment service providers providing asset management for third parties and for “local” offerings; and explains limitations on the private placement exemption posed by the French public offering rules.

France has recently amended its public offering regime to further harmonize it with the Prospectus Directive and make the French financial market more attractive to foreign issuers. Additional amendments to the EU Prospectus Directive are expected, which will result in further changes to French private placement regulation.

The paper provides practical guidance from experienced corporate and securities lawyers.

The purpose of this paper is to answer a specific research question: How have EU and US regulators translated the idea of central clearing into law?

A meticulous legal research is carried out. First, the pre‐crisis regulatory regime for credit default swap (CDS) is reviewed, from a securities law angle as well as from a comparative Euro‐American perspective. Next, the regulatory processes leading to the adoption of the central clearing regulations are discussed. Thereafter, a material comparative analysis is made of the provisions related to central clearing in the EU and US regulatory initiatives. Finally, the paper is concluded with an evaluation of both legislations in the light of all previous analyses.

The research first shows that central clearing regulations rely on a series of presumptions, both concerning the gravity of counterparty risk threats and the necessity of central clearing. Additionally, the EU and US clearing regulations are similar with regard to the broad innovations they introduce, i.e. the mandatory central clearing of a variety of over‐the‐counter derivatives and counterparty risk management requirements for central clearing institutions and for non‐cleared swaps. However, the specific content of the provisions often differs. Furthermore, both legislations are limited to enouncing broad principles. This is also the case for the crucial provisions related to counterparty risk management. Therefore, these provisions in se do not guarantee the proper regulation of counterparty risk management practices. Consequently, much is to be expected from the implementing measures adopted by regulatory institutions.

The paper provides an overview of those provisions in the European and US regulations that specifically concern central clearing for CDS. It is one of the first papers which does this in a very well‐structured and clearly written manner. Also it is one of the first to provide a clear comparison between the provisions in the EU and the US regulations.

European securities exchanges including futures and options markets as well as cash equity exchanges are liquid, efficient and competitive, while making the most of technology’s vast possibilities. On the road to the integrated European securities market, they face different legislative and non‐legislative barriers. The EU legislative framework must be designed in such a way as to be able to catch up with competitive and technological developments. Strong and modernised EU financial legislation should be beneficial not only for the securities markets but more importantly for the EU economy as a whole. An efficient and integrated securities market is vital in the process of raising the level of competitiveness, the efficient allocation of capital, mobilising savings and disciplining management. Many European countries need to overhaul their pensions systems, since ageing populations become a rising burden on state finances. Thus, most EU member states are likely to stimulate the creation of partially equity‐based private pension provision. This paper tries to position the current role of the securities exchanges. It also touches upon the legislative environment and technological developments they employ that help them continue to remain competitive on the global scene. In conclusion the author states that the EU legislators as well as the securities exchanges themselves have to make great efforts in order to achieve the best possible level of service for their clients.

This paper aims to explore the potential for disclosure recommendations given by authoritative supervisory bodies to reduce information asymmetry between the management and shareholders.

There is only meagre existing evidence concerning firms' responses to disclosure recommendations. This paper uses descriptive statistics and OLS regression analysis to test if firms behave more similarly to voluntary or to mandatory disclosure when they follow the Committee of European Securities Regulators disclosure recommendation for International Financial Reporting Standards transition. Second, it analyses the determinants of and incentives for recommended transition disclosure.

Recommended disclosure is documented to have more mandatory characteristics than purely voluntary disclosure. Moreover, the certain disclosure incentives for managers and corporate governance factors prove to have an impact on recommended disclosure. Firm size, growth prospects, and independent board members associate positively with recommended disclosure whereas there is a negative relationship between financial leverage and recommended disclosure.

The paper does not provide evidence on the cost differences between disclosure laws and authoritative disclosure recommendations. This could be examined by future research.

Authoritative disclosure recommendations reduce information asymmetry. In some cases they may be a faster and more cost‐efficient way to achieve disclosure enhancements than regulation.

This paper is the first to explore the efficiency of authoritative disclosure recommendations in situations where urgent disclosure improvements are needed. The results have implications for regulatory bodies evaluating different strategies to reduce asymmetric information in these situations.