Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-09-01-Speech-1-087"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030901.6.1-087"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President. The rapporteur quite rightly stated in his report that the changes made in past years have all been in the right direction. Our committee has clearly said, as I would also like to do, that Basel II is right to aim to make banks more stable, and that aim of Basel II is a very laudable one in view of what we know about the costs associated with bank crises. The fact is that risk sensitive loan pricing is a key requirement for a stable financial system.
Basel II still needs to be discussed. The debate has already lasted more than four years and I must say that it is positive that, in particular under the first pillar, the risk weighting function has been lowered and made significantly shallower. This avoids possible problems relating to access to credit, above all for SMEs. Furthermore, it is also positive that the appeal of shorter loan periods has lessened. From a European perspective, it is also certainly important that there should be no discrimination against tangible collateral. It must be dealt with in the same way as financial collateral.
We should, however, finally realise, that Basel II will have an impact, not only on small and medium-sized banks, but also on SMEs. The extremely varied funding framework in the EU, which is nonetheless indispensable for business, must be kept. An increase in capital demands for loans secured by the economy’s promotional bodies and self-help institutions that are not covered by risk considerations must be excluded.
A few further questions: I believe that it should be justified why only ten banks in the USA have to use Basel II and a further ten institutions use Basel II on a voluntary basis, whilst in Europe all credit institutions must implement the models. It is quite right that small European banks are not in direct competition with US institutions excluded from the Basel obligations, but instead with these institutions’ corporate customers. This could potentially mean that, in terms of competition, European businesses would be put at a disadvantage on the world market. I think that this needs to be clarified and I also count on the opinion sought by the Commission discussing this point, and in sufficient time for it to give rise to some amendments.
I would also like to emphasise that it is very important that the crucial points that have been brought up by Charles Goodhart’s research group from the London School of Economics should also be clarified, in particular those referring to the procyclicality of Basel II, to which reference has already been made. I would like to formally give my support to Mr Radwan in his reasoning that Parliament should tackle in good time the problems of SMEs and their employees, that we should continue to do so, and that above all we should also ensure that Parliament’s voice continues to carry weight and will be heard at the end."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples