European regulators attain broad power equivalency
CESR report claims minor divergence between national supervisors
The level of supervisory equivalence between financial regulators in different European states under the Prospectus and Market Abuse Directives is high although some discrepancies remain, a new report claims.
The paper, An evaluation of equivalence of supervisory powers in the EU under the Market Abuse Directive and the Prospectus Directive, from the Committee of European Securities Regulators (CESR) found that the general degree of equivalency between the powers given to competent authorities in member states was high – on average 93%.
Specifically, the overall picture is more satisfactory for the Prospectus Directive, which sets out the disclosure obligations for issuers of securities that are offered to the public in the EU, than for the Market Abuse Directive (MAD), which defines what behaviour is considered market abuse, such as insider dealing and market manipulation.
CESR’s findings were mixed on supervisors’ ability to issue practical rules, with less than 85% equivalence. Several authorities were found to lack the ability to issue practical rules to properly apply the Directives.
The cross-border supervisory co-operation powers have been significantly harmonised although again, some areas of improvement remain, particularly over the capacity to open an investigation solely on a request by a foreign authority.
Under the Prospectus Directive, weak points remain in supervisors’ capacity to disclose supervisory information to the public regarding registering qualified investors and the publication of summaries of prospectuses.
Similarly, under the MAD, with regard to the disclosure of measures or sanctions, authorities are generally well-equipped with supervisory, investigative and sanctioning powers to be imposed due to infringements.
The paper is the result of a mapping exercise CESR launched last year to assess the supervisory powers that had been given to CESR members following the entry into force of the Market Abuse and the Prospectus Directives. The purpose of the study was to assess whether the competent authorities benefit from equivalent supervisory powers.
The findings of these reports have been submitted by CESR to the Financial Services Committee. Similar exercises will be conducted by the Review Panel in relation to the Transparency Directive and the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive.
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
Barr defends easing of Basel III endgame proposal
Fed’s top regulator says he will stay and finish the package, is comfortable with capital impact
Bank of England to review UK clearing rules
Broader collateral set and greater margin transparency could be adopted from Emir 3.0, but not active accounts requirement
The wisdom of Oz? Why Australia is phasing out AT1s
Analysts think Australian banks will transition smoothly, but other countries unlikely to follow
EU trade repository matching disrupted by Emir overhaul
Some say problem affecting derivatives reporting has been resolved, but others find it persists
Barclays and HSBC opt for FRTB internal models
However, UK pair unlikely to chase approval in time for Basel III go-live in January 2026
Foreign banks want level playing field in US Basel III redraft
IHCs say capital charges for op risk and inter-affiliate trades out of line with US-based peers
CFTC’s Mersinger wants new rules for vertical silos
Republican commissioner shares Democrats’ concerns about combined FCMs and clearing houses
Adapting FRTB strategies across Apac markets
As Apac banks face FRTB deadlines, MSCI explores the insights from early adopters that can help them align with requirements