![Risk.net](https://www.risk.net/sites/default/files/styles/print_logo/public/2018-09/print-logo.png?itok=1TpHrpuP)
CESR charts course for supervisory convergence on EU securities
CESR has released a paper on the proposed evolution of EU securities supervision
BRUSSELS – The Committee of European Securities Regulators (CESR) has published a new paper charting its vision for the evolution of European Union securities supervision.
CESR says it is pursuing an increasingly co-ordinated and convergent course for EU securities regulation – implementing Level 3 of the Lamfalussy process – and highlights the tools it has developed to help national regulators work together.
CESR divides Level 3 activities into three categories.
The first comprises tools for co-operation between supervisors to foster a common culture. In particular, CESR says this refers to operational co-operation, training supervisors, staff exchanges, database creation, and sharing arrangements for IT data.
The second defines common regulatory approaches through elaboration of standards, recommendations, guidelines and practical answers to daily application issues, mostly through the Financial Services Action Plan (FSAP) directives and relying on voluntary peer pressure rather than legally binding regulation.
The third represents conflict handling and peer pressure tools. CESR’s Review Panel has conducted mapping and reviews to chart obstacles ahead that might require mediation.
Key obstacles to Level 3 convergence are what CESR calls “legitimate national discretions”, meaning national level legislation that still can still override CESR supervision.
To counter this potential supervisory friction, CESR has called for stronger team spirit –stressing the detrimental effects of competition and the need for EU-level solidarity.
The paper emphasises the importance of equality in the powers of supervisors across the EU to aid this process, calling for concentration on monitoring through the EU’s Markets in Financial Instruments Directive and Transparency Directive.
When Level 3 implementation conflicts arise – leading to legal risk – CESR suggests the abolition of the national prerequisites and an increased recognition of CESR’s role – including urgent budget increases and powers to place sanctions on non-compliant members through the Review Panel.
The paper also addresses bilateral negotiations on securities agreements between EU member states and non-members, and the potential these have to negatively affect CESR’s Level 3 efforts. It also suggests an increase in transatlantic contact, with CESR conducting EU-level financial services regulatory dialogue, including technical talks, for example, with the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).
Only users who have a paid subscription or are part of a corporate subscription are able to print or copy content.
To access these options, along with all other subscription benefits, please contact info@risk.net or view our subscription options here: http://subscriptions.risk.net/subscribe
You are currently unable to print this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
You are currently unable to copy this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. Printing this content is for the sole use of the Authorised User (named subscriber), as outlined in our terms and conditions - https://www.infopro-insight.com/terms-conditions/insight-subscriptions/
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. Copying this content is for the sole use of the Authorised User (named subscriber), as outlined in our terms and conditions - https://www.infopro-insight.com/terms-conditions/insight-subscriptions/
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
More on Regulation
EU banks hedge net interest income to pass new IRRBB test
Would-be outliers look to cut sensitivity of cashflows to rate moves, but at what cost?
Banks cry foul over shock decision from Basel Committee
Asset and liability management professionals question severity of criteria in revised IRRBB tests
Fresh EU push for single securities supervisor to compete with US
But MEP expresses ‘concern’ EU nations will stall revival of capital markets union
Discord deepens over fund-linked trades in FRTB
More banks use punitive approach to capital treatment under new trading book regime, irking regulators
AI, quantum computing and tokenisation set to transform finance – Menon
But significant barriers remain preventing the technologies from unlocking their full potential
Could the SEC revive the private fund adviser rule?
Industry experts deem a second life for the reviled rule unlikely
Vendors lack silver bullet for FRTB’s fund-linked issue
EU and UK legislators tried to ease capital charge by leaning on vendors, but problems persist
Does Basel’s internal loss multiplier add up?
As US agencies mull capital reforms, one regulator questions past losses as an indicator of future op risk