Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-06-15-Speech-2-470"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20100615.28.2-470"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I am grateful to each and every one of you for the quality and the candour of your speeches. I shall not go back over the role of these agencies or the importance of the ratings that they issue; Mrs Comi gave a very good account of this just now.
I have not mentioned the status of that agency. Will it be a public agency, a private agency, a private-public partnership, or the interesting idea mentioned by Mr Klinz of a foundation? We are going to work on all these issues, too, over the coming weeks.
Many of you, including Mrs Bowles, Mr Chountis just now, and Mrs Podimata a moment ago, mentioned the recent downgrading of the Greek rating. I, as Commissioner, am not going to start commenting in detail on each rating issued by a given rating agency. It would take up a great deal of time, and that is not our role; we should not be overdramatic when it comes to the credibility of ratings that have been, or are, issued.
That does not stop me, or my colleague and friend, Mr Rehn, who addressed you this morning, from saying that I was surprised – and Mr Mölzer also expressed his surprise – at the timing of this latest rating of Greece by one of the agencies yesterday. Ladies and gentlemen, we are very aware – and we must say so to the outside – that, as Mr Klute mentioned, Greece is currently making a huge effort to stabilise its public finances and to restore strong, healthy growth.
The Commission has complete confidence in this process, which is not easy but which is necessary and which must succeed. It is also important to point out that Greece is not alone. It has the benefit of European solidarity – this solidarity was shown at the highest level by the Heads of State or Government, by the Commission, by the Central Bank and by the International Monetary Fund a few weeks ago, and it will continue to make itself felt and to prove itself.
The various ratings, and all the attention focused on them, the disputes, too, over the methodologies and the timings: all of that encourages me in our work of reforming the agencies, work that we have begun, as I indicated in our communication of 2 June, and I would point out that we will be tabling some legislative proposals on these issues at the latest by the end of the year or at the start of next year.
Finally, Mr Klute, you mentioned that, when we talk about all these issues, we are talking about more than just rating agencies. We must integrate this element, this tool that absolutely must be improved – more transparency, control, credibility and diversity – into an overarching structure that is one of intelligent regulation and effective supervision. These are the lessons from the crisis, which is not over, and we are going to learn from all these lessons. I reiterate, I repeat: not one actor, not one product, not one market, not one region must escape effective supervision and intelligent regulation.
It is this very agenda that was proposed by the Commission on 2 June, supported by the Council of Ministers in Luxembourg a few days ago, and supported too, I hope, and as President Barroso wants, by the European Council. Moreover, ladies and gentlemen, you can count on me and on us to make proposals to you, one by one, step by step, between now and the start of next year, on all the undertakings we have made, so that we may learn, at European level and in good cooperation with the other regions of the world and, in particular, with the United States, every single lesson from this crisis affecting citizens, consumers and businesses.
My second preliminary remark, to echo the comments made just now by Mr Papanikolaou and Mr Strejček, is that we must improve the way in which these agencies operate. There has to be transparency – I will come back to this – and these ratings have to be as conclusive and as objective as possible. We shall achieve this, we must achieve this, but it does not mean that undertakings, especially financial undertakings, will not have to be managed properly, will not have to have both internal and external supervision systems, and crisis management tools – this also forms part of the proposals drawn up by the Commission – and it does not mean, either, that States will not have to govern themselves properly, will not have to manage their public finances properly and will not have to control their spending.
I will now turn to credit rating agencies. We hope that the new proposed amendment to the regulation on these agencies will be adopted without delay so as to ensure their more effective monitoring by ESMA. She is no longer here, but, Mrs Le Pen, you should revise your information. Neither the Central Bank nor the Commission will supervise these agencies. We wanted more supervision and more transparency on the market, and it is only logical that the new independent authority, ESMA, should be the one to assume that role. As Mr Klinz put it so well, we need this transparency when we see what has been happening over the last few years.
However, as I said just now at the start of my speech, these proposals, together with the existing legislation – Mr Cutaş mentioned this legislation on credit rating agencies, which should be duly implemented between now and the end of the year, but which will only be fully applicable in December 2010 – do not address all of the issues.
Certain issues, for example, have not been thoroughly examined. Diversification, greater competition – Mrs Swinburne and Mr Scicluna referred to this need for a market of agencies that is not concentrated in the hands of a few people. Mr Giegold also spoke very clearly about the now widespread ‘issuer pays’ model: is it a healthy model? Is it sustainable? Mr Karas also raised this issue.
We must focus on this issue at the same time as evaluating the rules that appear in the new legislation, which is due to enter into force by December, since we have specifically targeted conflicts of interest in a bid to reduce them. Will this legislation be enough? We must, in any case, reflect on this issuer pays model mentioned by Mr Giegold.
The third issue that we must address as part of our new efforts is European and national laws. Is it not the case that these laws are, as I believe, too reliant on the credit ratings of credit rating agencies? Lastly, Mrs Băsescu just raised the issue of the particular methodology for sovereign risk: here too, we must carry out some detailed work.
I should like to thank Mr Sánchez Presedo for supporting a swift agreement on the supervision package. This is one of the key aspects, in fact, since we need ESMA to supervise these agencies, and to do other things besides.
Yes, we need a more structural response. That is why we are closely examining all the issues that I have just raised, and more specifically: independence, which Mrs Bowles was anxious to see, and I too want independence – by which I mean credibility – for these agencies; all the actors who are not performing well enough; the structures of the markets; and competition, including the idea – a legitimate one, in my view – of a European agency, in particular, for addressing the issue of sovereign risk, and perhaps other issues too."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples