Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-11-10-Speech-3-132"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2010-11-10"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Alternative investment fund managers (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20101110.16.3-132"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2010-11-10-Speech-3-1332
lpv:speaker	lp:Wolf Klinz2
lpv:spokenAs	member; Conference of Committee Chairs (2009-10-15--2011-07-31)3 member; Delegation for relations with the countries of Southeast Asia and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3 member; ALDE (2009-07-14--2014-06-30)3 substitute; DEVE (2009-07-16--2011-10-25)3 unknown; Freie Demokratische Partei (2009-07-14--2014-06-30)3 member; ECON (2009-07-16--2012-01-18)3 vice-chair; Delegation for relations with Canada (2009-09-29--2014-06-30)3 chair; Special Committee on the Financial, Economic and Social Crisis (2009-10-15--2011-07-31)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, after lengthy rounds of negotiations, Parliament, the Council and the Commission have finally agreed on a joint text for regulating alternative investment fund managers. I welcome this, and I have to correct Mr Goebbels: We wished to send the original proposal back because we believed that the alternative investment funds were so different – hedge funds, private equity funds and property funds – that they each need to be regulated separately. Nevertheless, we now have a text that we can fully accept and support. The all-embracing approach that we found disturbing at first has been amended in respect of key elements. As a result, we no longer have a problem with it. The goal of the directive was to create greater transparency for the supervisory bodies but, above all, for the investors, in order to be able to identify systemic risks in due time and at an early stage and so to be able to deal with them accordingly. Personally, I am in favour of rules that all fund managers operating in the EU have to abide by. At the same time, however, I do not like the idea of us turning Europe into a fortress or even a prison or of European institutions seeking to invest not being able to do so outside Europe. We were therefore initially unable to support the proposal as presented in committee. The compromise that has now been found solves this problem. It promises to keep the markets open. Another reason for our initial rejection was the regulations relating to the area of private equity, which would, in fact, have led to distortions of competition in this area. The requirements for private equity, as they were initially formulated, would have placed even listed companies under a definite disadvantage. The compromise that we now have before us eliminates this shortcoming and it prevents asset stripping, which is something that we expressly welcome. Overall, therefore, we are very pleased with the proposal. It creates clear framework conditions and rules for alternative investment fund managers. It will ensure greater transparency for identifying systemic risks. It will therefore ensure greater stability. It will strengthen the internal market because it introduces the EU passport, which, following a transitional period, will also be introduced for managers outside Europe. It will ensure clear, undistorted competition. Finally, it will establish a clear, new task for the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA). To conclude, I would like to thank not only my fellow Members but, above all, the Belgian Presidency, which has brought this matter to a successful conclusion with its untiring efforts."@en1
lpv:videoURI	<go to Events_and_structure europarl>2

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph