Search

The call for a Capital Markets Union has been a useful device to raise awareness about the need for more integration in Europe's capital markets. Despite years of harmonising regulation and a single currency, Europe’s capital markets remain fragmented. This Policy Brief calls for targeted measures to overcome fragmentation, through enhanced enforcement, strengthening of the European supervisory authorities, enhanced disclosure and comparability of financial information and the mobilisation savings in EU-wide investment funds.

With publication of the results of its Comprehensive Assessment at the end of October 2014, the European Central Bank has set the standard for its new mandate as supervisor. But this was only the beginning. The heavy work started in early November, with the day-to-day supervision of the 120 most significant banks in the eurozone under the Single Supervisory Mechanism. The centralisation of the supervision in the eurozone will pose a number of challenges for the ECB in the coming months and years ahead. This report analyses these challenges in detail, drawing on the discussions and presentations in the CEPS Task Force on ECB Banking Supervision, and reinforced by extensive research undertaken by the rapporteur. José María Roldán, Presidente, Asociación Española de Banca, served as Chairman of the Task Force.

In his assessment of the EU proposal on banking structural reform, unveiled on January 29th, Karel Lannoo observes that the Commission must perform a delicate balancing act between preserving the single market and at the same time accommodating existing EU measures covering resolution and trading activities.

In the months leading up to his nomination as President of the European Commission by the European Council in June 2014 through to his approval by the European Parliament in mid-July and finally his approval at a second special summit in August, CEPS’ researchers have closely followed the travails of JeanClaude Juncker. We have also carefully studied his fundamental restructuring of the College in re-grouping commissioners around seven project teams, each headed by a vice-president. In our view, these changes promise to improve internal coordination, policy-making and transparency of rule-making and hopefully will reduce the personalisation of portfolios. This Special Report brings together under a single cover a series of 14 separate commentaries prepared by senior CEPS researchers, offering their assessment of these profound changes underway and their policy advice to the new commissioners from the perspective of their field of specialisation.

Given the size of the financial markets on both sides of the Atlantic and the symmetry in the follow-up of the G-20 standards, Karel Lannoo argues in this Policy Brief that the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) provides a good opportunity to put in place a more institutionalised framework. He finds that both blocs have reacted in similar ways to the financial crisis in strengthening their regulatory and supervisory frameworks and incorporating the G-20 recommendations into federal law. He also notes that consumer protection has been reinforced, certainly in the US, with the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. And on the EU side, the Single Supervisory Mechanism (SSM) will radically change banking supervision. In his view, inclusion of financial services could also be an opportunity to strengthen prudential rules and consumer protection provisions on both sides. Rather than leading to a reduction of consumer protection, as had been feared in the post-crisis environment, it could lead to an examination, exchange and recognition of best practices in regulation and enforcement. Finally, he concludes that inclusion of financial services would make it part of the permanent regulatory dialogue that will be established as a result of a successful TTIP.

This CEPS Policy Brief reviews key aspects of the new financial paradigm in a transatlantic perspective, focusing on the general approach in EU and US legislation in response to the financial crisis and the G-20 commitments and specifically as regards the extraterritorial implications. Following discussion of the institutional setting, conclusions are offered on what these changes mean in the context of the recently proposed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. In comparing the EU and the US efforts in re-engineering their regulatory regimes in response to the financial crisis, the paper finds, with the notable exception of the banking union, serious grounds for concern that the outcome may be an even more fragmented European financial market, access to which for third-country institutions is highly problematic.

After more than a decade of indecision, the EU is finally now set to implement a consistent regulatory architecture for clearing and settlement. Following the agreement on a European market infrastructure Regulation (EMIR), the European Commission has proposed harmonised rules for centralised settlement depositaries (CSDs), while the European Central Bank is moving forward with its plans for a central eurozone settlement engine. This paper analyses three components of the new post-trade infrastructure measures: 1) the regulatory framework for and supervision of central counterparties under the new EMIR legislation, 2) the authorisation requirements of trade repositories and 3) the draft CSD Regulation and the progress with the ECB’s Target 2 Securities project. It then discusses the impact of the new rules, and argues that, analogous to the unexpected impact of MiFID on trading infrastructures, a similar EMIR revolution may be on its way.

Fresh prospects are opening for asset managers as Europe seeks to reduce its historical reliance on banking and to promote capital markets. But following the financial crisis, the industry faces a dual challenge: regaining investors’ trust and coping with the post-crisis regulatory reform. Much rides on its ability to make investment funds deliver better results to its investors. Distribution remains the major stumbling block, but action is also needed to promote the contribution of asset management to the real economy and to preserve financial stability. In response to these challenges, CEPS and ECMI formed a Task Force composed of market participants, international experts, regulators and academics who met regularly throughout 2011 to closely examine the workings of the asset management industry and its role in the EU economy. This report draws the link between asset management and several key issues: financial stability, product integrity, investor protection and the real economy. It evaluates the discussions on product integrity in UCITS and ‘shadow banking’, as well as the many legislative proposals that are currently under consideration – including implementation of the alternative investment fund managers Directive (AIFMD), the review of the markets in financial instruments Directive (MiFID II) and packaged retail investment products (PRIPS). In an effort to make these complex issues comprehensible to a broad group of readers, the report combines clear language and straightforward introductions with detailed analysis and technical illustrations.

Despite having singled out credit rating agencies (CRAs) early on in the financial crisis as needing more regulation, policy-makers in the EU seem not to be reassured by the measures that have been adopted in the meantime, and want to go further. This paper starts with an overview of the credit rating industry today. The second section analyses the use of credit ratings and shows how the authorities have created a captive or artificial market for CRAs. Section 3 reviews the new EU CRA regulation and its possible impact, and the final section compares proposals for regulatory reform.

The European asset management industry is feeling squeezed from all sides, as a result of growing prudential, product and conduct regulation. A new Directive, UCITS IV, has only just been enacted, and already new challenges are emerging in the regulation of hedge and venture capital funds, the review of the regulatory regime for depositaries (or financial custodians) and amendments to the MiFID Directive. In addition, a new European supervisory framework is in the making, which implies much stricter controls on enforcement. These changes are taking place in the context of one of the largest declines suffered by the industry in the last two decades, from which many fund managers have not yet recovered. This paper first briefly reviews recent developments in the EU asset management industry, followed by a discussion of the regulatory framework for asset management and the challenges ahead. Its focuses primarily on the UCITS and emerging non-UCITS investment fund regime, and its interaction with the MiFID regime covering investment services.

In their assessment of the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID), adopted in April 2004 and implemented at Member State level by the end of 2007, Karel Lannoo and Diego Valiante find that the legislation has been remarkably successful in terms of improving market structure and efficiency. In their view, the upcoming MiFID review should therefore take a ‘light touch’, clarifying some definitions and extending the transparency regime to non-equity markets. They argue that easier and cheaper access to consolidated data solutions will also allow end-users to fully participate in the changes brought about by MiFID, ultimately restoring investors’ trust and pushing more liquidity in equity markets. The start of ESMA then should allow for better enforcement of the conduct of business rules.

Since 2003, the EU and the US have conducted a vibrant regulatory dialogue on financial regulation, but domestic priorities seem to have taken precedence in response to the financial crisis. This ECMI Policy Brief compares the institutional and regulatory changes occurring on both sides of the Atlantic. On the institutional side, it compares macro- and micro-prudential reforms. On the regulatory side, it compares four key areas: bank capital requirements, reform of the OTC derivative markets, and the regulation of credit ratings agencies and hedge funds. It concludes with some implications for the regulatory dialogue.

In March, the European Commission released its Europe 2020 strategy proposal, which strives for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth and greater policy coordination between the EU and national governments. While the document was greeted with scepticism in some quarters, others believe it lays out the path to continued European prosperity and social cohesion. This Forum examines the strengths and weaknesses of the strategy.

Following the wanton downing of a civilian aircraft by Russian-backed separatists in Ukraine and Israel's ground offensive in Gaza, Karel Lannoo takes the EU to task for reverting to its usual ostrich-like behaviour in the face of threats to the security and stability of the entire continent. With the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, he argues that the European Union, as representative of its 28 member states, should be capable of acting far more forcefully in both of these conflicts than its individual member states, but regrettably the EU has so far remained on the sidelines.

Based on his speech to the European Parliament on July 15th, following his election as President of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker has clearly opted for 'more Union' during his five-year term, offering up an ambitious agenda that raises a host of expectations. In this CEPS Commentary, Karel Lannoo outlines the most salient items on Juncker's agenda, focusing on the most laudable and those that will pose the greatest challenges.