Search

In the midst of the market turbulence of recent years, policy rates have reached the zero lower bound, with central banks aggressively deploying their balance sheet with an array of ‘unconventional’ monetary policies to ensure the transmission of monetary policy impulses in disrupted financial markets, ultimately to set the conditions for economic recovery. Since March 9th, the European Central Bank (ECB) has also joined the club of central banks deploying the most feared monetary policy tool in its armoury. Unsterilised outright asset purchases (so-called ‘quantitative easing’, or QE) aim to re-establish control over the transmission of monetary policy impulse via policy rates by improving conditions for unsecured interbank market activity. This paper examines three dimensions of quantitative easing: i) the rationale behind the ECB’s new monetary policy stance, ii) the operational challenges of QE and iii) preliminary evidence on the effects of QE on markets.

The market for investment products, including both securities and investment funds, is fraught with difficulties for consumers in terms of the ease of comparing products, trust in suppliers and consumer satisfaction. A comprehensive approach to investor protection, developed around the lifecycle of a financial product, may offer the investor greater protection during an investment’s life span. This paper proposes a new approach to investor protection, building on a review of major market failures affecting the origination, distribution and sale of financial products and based on a review of the relevant scientific literature and country experiences. The application of a ‘know-your-product’ principle at origination, a narrower ‘default rule’ for best execution and an ex-ante distinction between advice and ‘information-only’ services are among the options discussed in this paper to enhance the investor protection framework over the lifecycle of a financial product.

Evidence shows that financial integration in the euro area is retrenching at a quicker pace than outside the union. Home bias persists: Governments compete on funding costs by supporting ‘their’ banks with massive state aids, which distorts the playing field and feeds the risk-aversion loop. This situation intensifies friction in credit markets, thus hampering the transmission of monetary policies and, potentially, economic growth. This paper discusses the theoretical foundations of a banking union in a common currency area and the legal and economic aspects of EU responses. As a result, two remedies are proposed to deal with moral hazard in a common currency area: a common (unlimited) financial backstop to a privately funded recapitalisation/resolution fund and a blanket prohibition on state aids.

As part of the European Union’s commitment to deliver greater access to finance for small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), EU policy-makers will have to deal with a fragmented market landscape and responses by individual member states to address failures. On the basis of some early evidence, this Commentary calls for a rethinking on the part of the EU of its definition of an SME, which currently does not take into account the internal market dimension. A more accurate definition, reflecting the internal market and the stages of evolution of a firm and its financing needs, would allow better benchmarking and a comparison of policy responses that often claim to address market failures in SME finance.

Takeovers are one-off events, altering control and strategy within an organisation. But the chances of becoming the target of a bid, even where remote, daily influence corporate decision-making. Takeover rules are therefore central to company law and the balance of power among managers, shareholders and stakeholders alike. This study analyses the corporate governance drivers underpinning takeover bid regulations and assesses the implementation of the EU Directive on takeover bids and compares it with the legal framework of nine other major jurisdictions, including the US. It finds that similar rules have different effects depending on company-level and country-level characteristics and considers the use of modular legislation and optional provisions to cater for them.

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.

As discussions around the revision of MiFID are heating up, this paper tries to set a new regulatory and institutional framework for multilateral and bilateral execution mechanisms of complex financial instruments, such as OTC derivatives and fixed income products. The author argues that the current MiFID framework is equipped to capture a great deal of multilateral derivatives and fixed income trading, but the Directive fails to provide a complete definition of bilateral execution mechanisms and has narrowed it to mainly own account trading (ex: systematic internalisers). A key proposal of this paper is to consider own account trading, agency trades (discretionary matching) and principal trading as pure bilateral execution services to be classified under a broader definition of systematic internaliser (with revised obligations), subject then to the application of conduct of business rules (e.g. conflicts of interests management procedures) and a best execution regime. MTF would then be adapted to explicitly state that multilateral systems are not just those bringing together multiple interests from third parties, but those systems bringing together interests through ‘non-discretionary’ services, vis-à-vis membership, admission of products to trading, and matching of interests. Finally, despite the claim that OTF and SEF would be equivalent categories, US and EU regulators are defining diverging regulations for these venues. There are at least four important areas in which the SEF definitions do not match the proposed EU rules for OTFs.

This report summarises the main results of a survey conducted by the European Capital Markets Institute (ECMI) during the period December 2009 - July 2010. The survey aims at investigating the actual implementation of the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID), two years after it came into force. A general finding of this survey is that MiFID rules have had a positive impact, in particular through a greater competitive environment that promoted most of all cuts in trading fees and massive investment in technologies and infrastructures. The impact of the Directive, however, remains highly controversial in terms of data quality and implementation costs.

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.

This paper analyses the economic and legal aspects related to practices such as tying, bundling and other potentially unfair commercial practices widely used in the financial services industry. Authors draw special attention to the European financial services market. Their law and economics approach aims at illustrating the rationales for applying both antitrust and consumer protection legislation to the practices subject to analysis in this paper and observed in the retail financial services market. The author explores the main findings of the legal and economic theory as regards the applicability of antitrust rules to the practices at hand, and the possibility to treat new commercial practices under antitrust law. The paper then illustrates the economics of tying, bundling and other unfair commercial practices from a consumer policy perspective, and reports some empirical data on switching costs and patterns of consumer behaviour in retail financial services and in other sectors of the economy. Cognitive biases that may cause irrational behaviours in judgement and decision-making processes of a retail consumer are widely assessed. Finally, the author proposes a new multi-stage test for the joint assessment of selling practices under competition and consumer policy.