![Risk.net](https://www.risk.net/sites/default/files/styles/print_logo/public/2018-09/print-logo.png?itok=1TpHrpuP)
Cesr speaks out on rating agency regulation
Cesr has sent a critical reply to the European Commission’s proposal for credit rating agency regulation
PARIS – The Committee of European Banking Regulators (Cesr) has released a critical reply to the European Commission’s draft proposal for the regulation of credit rating agencies.
The paper maintains Cesr’s May 2008 report to the European Commission is still the best solution for the challenges facing the ratings industry. That paper was released in response to the issue of a code of conduct by industry body the International Organisation of Securities Commissions, and was broadly in support of industry self-regulation.
The European Commission’s proposed regulation comes after internal market commissioner Charlie McCreevy said rating agencies required formal regulation, having previously described Iosco dismissively as a “toothless wonder”.
Cesr also criticises the limited scope of the regulation, highlighting that investors might be exposed to ratings produced by unregistered rating agencies and that provisions could be made whereby only securities backed by registered ratings could be sold within the European Union.
Cesr instead recommends the regulation be in the form of high-level principles, to be further detailed in Level 2 implementing measures, inferring that the current proposal is already too prescriptive.
A copy of Cesr’s response can be downloaded from the following link.
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.
As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (point 2.4), printing is limited to a single copy.
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. As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (clause 2.4), an Authorised User may only make one copy of the materials for their own personal use. You must also comply with the restrictions in clause 2.5.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
More on Regulation
Honey, I shrunk the Fed. (Not a sci-fi fantasy)
Promoting the discount window may be the Fed’s key to shrinking its $7trn balance sheet, says Bill Nelson
Insurance double-hatters like Apollo can expect more scrutiny
Regulators are homing in on conflicts of interests at private-equity-owned insurers
The boy who cried ‘outlier’: false alarms could dog EBA test
Analysis reveals banks deemed outliers by net income test are profitable post-shock, so how useful is the test?
Modernising compliance functions with regtech
Regtech addresses the complexities of regulatory requirements, offering innovative tools to modernise compliance functions, streamline processes and enhance efficiency. This article explores its role in compliance and reporting within the banking sector,…
For the Fed discount window, destigmatisation starts at home
US supervisors must change tack to encourage central bank liquidity utilisation, writes Bill Nelson
Study finds just 10 banks plan to apply for FRTB models
Research provides extra insight on reasons for decline in internal models
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