Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-12-14-Speech-2-515"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20101214.37.2-515"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in a few weeks’ time, we will have a new supervisory structure in Europe, which has been shaped to a considerable extent by the European Parliament. Among these three new supervisory authorities will be one that is responsible for markets and securities: the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA).
ESMA will have the last word in connection with the registration and oversight of credit rating agencies and be responsible for ensuring that the credit rating agencies actually comply with the new regulations. If it so wishes, ESMA can delegate this cross-border responsibility to national supervisory authorities if these supervisory authorities are small and only operate nationally.
This proposal is therefore nothing more than an adaptation of the regulation of April 2009 to the new circumstances, but it strengthens the role of ESMA. It gives the new supervisory authority more powers and – something that is completely new – it gives ESMA the power to punish non-application of the regulation. I very much welcome this, because I believe that strengthening the position of a new supervisory authority of European mould will genuinely increase its credibility on the market.
I just have one point of criticism. When drawing up the regulation in April 2009, we took a political decision with regard to how we should deal with ratings from third countries in Europe. We said at that time that they can be used in Europe if they either comply with the equivalence procedure or are supported by a credit rating agency that is registered and approved in Europe, the so-called endorsement procedure.
The Commission has now changed this at level 2 and said that endorsement will no longer be possible. Therefore, only the equivalence procedure actually applies. I consider this – as it was undertaken unilaterally – to be an undemocratic way of going about things, and I believe that we should stick to the decision that we made at the time in April 2009.
As the Commissioner also mentioned, there are still a lot of outstanding issues where credit rating agencies are concerned, namely, the lack of competition, insufficient transparency, the business model as to whether the issuer or the investor should pay, which need to be looked at critically. There are questions with regard to the payment system and also with regard to excessive dependency, because in reality, it is the case that, as a result of regulatory provisions, many ratings agencies have become de facto regulatory certification authorities. I am taking this up in the own-initiative report, and I am pleased that the Commission is going to table a legislative proposal on this matter in the next year."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples