Editor's letter
The fact that anything useful ever comes out of the European Union is impressive, given its lumbering bureaucracy designed to accommodate so many differing views from so many different countries. Europe is split, whichever way you look at it. In northern Europe, the assumption is that laws are broadly intended, to the extent that once something is made illegal then associated practices are also banned
The prevailing common sense in the north would have it that you should look into the intent behind the law and then apply the logic across the board.
In southern Europe they do things differently, and regulations are treated more literally. Unless a specific practice is excluded, banned or forbidden, then new laws will not affect practices left unnamed. As a result, and in order to recognise these and other historic differences, the EU has generally bent over backwards to respect this by leaving the final implementation of its legislation to national governments.
This is where the EU is at in its deliberations over structured products, all of which came to light on July 15 in Brussels, where the gamut of bodies representing the various facets of Europe's retail investment product industry came together to discuss common practices.
With such a naturally diverse selection of views, it was no surprise when the Open Hearing on Retail Investment Products (RIP) ended with a host of politically inspired declarations of respect for national laws and practices. All very reasonable, you might think, until it was pointed out by one speaker that we have been here before with retail investment products. The end result of those lengthy consultations was the flagship legislation contained in the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (Mifid).
It would be a pity - not to mention ridiculously time-consuming and expensive - to return to old battles that were fought when that impressive piece of legislation was carved out and formalised. But judging by the outrageous misunderstanding and pure ignorance of Mifid shown by some very prominent speakers at the open hearing, the RIP acronym applied to the investment industry might prove more useful than expected for future headlines.
- richard.jory@incisivemedia.com; +44 (0)20 7484 9802.
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