Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2012-10-25-Speech-4-354-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20121025.28.4-354-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
". − Mr President, good afternoon to you all, thank you for your kind words on the success and importance of the internal market week in Bucharest, as in the other capitals, where we led this debate throughout last week.
I offer sincere thanks to Mr Ferber, your rapporteur, for proposing to retain these points and I would also point out that the Commission continues to pursue this debate vigorously beyond the European Union, in international bodies, so that we can achieve a level regulatory playing field and demanding common standards.
Third point: commodity derivatives markets. These are not the same as other financial markets, since their smooth operation touches the daily life of all consumers and, as we know, in some developing countries, involves and concerns the food security of a large section of the population. It seems to me that commodity speculation and the effects that such speculation may have on the food security of a number of countries are totally unacceptable. I would like to express very clearly my support for your proposals, which seek to strengthen your regime on position limits, while at the same time retaining the possibility for commercial undertakings to use these markets when it is genuinely a matter of hedging risk.
Fourth point: introduction of a European regime for the provision of services by third-country firms. In that regard also, I am pleased that our proposal is supported by Parliament. I am convinced that this regime is the best means of ensuring effective regulation of international markets and avoiding any risk of regulatory arbitrage, as I said at the beginning of my speech. This is very important in the context of regulatory convergence at the level of both the G20 and the Financial Stability Board.
Honourable Members, this important debate gives me an opportunity to mention briefly two or three other areas where we should also remain highly demanding in regulatory terms. Firstly, pre-trading transparency. We must be firm and not risk, through specific provisions, allowing certain players to continue trading in an entirely opaque way. The transparency level should be the same, whatever the technology used and whatever the type of investor, retail or professional.
Second area of vigilance: investor protection. We want to, and must, move towards legislation that improves investment conditions by clarifying the role and financial interests of each party. For that reason, mere disclosure of the commissions received by intermediaries would not make it possible, in my view, to ensure the proper level of investor protection, nor, moreover, sufficient independence. I believe the proposal we made to prohibit receipt of commissions for independent advice and portfolio management guarantees more security and independence. These are the only ways to attract sound investors and sound investment. We must also maintain our demands regarding the range of instruments that may be considered non-complex. Making it too broad would amount to increasing the risk that investors would then be sold inappropriate products.
Final point: non-discriminatory access. I am convinced that it is necessary to create conditions for healthy competition in the area of post-trading in order to make financial markets into a genuine single market and prevent excessive concentration of risk within monopolistic market infrastructures.
Honourable Members, Mr Ferber, that is what I wanted to say very openly, in the context of our ongoing dialogue. I appreciated Mr Ferber’s proposals. I confirm to him that I am available, as are my teams, to continue to work and successfully conclude the major piece of legislation that MiFID represents as quickly as possible and on an ambitious, rigorous and demanding basis. It is for us together to find the right balance to attract investor confidence and I have faith in our joint action to reach that goal.
We are talking about a major subject, which, as you know
and as Mr Ferber just reminded us
is a centrepiece of our regulatory agenda. I often show Ministers and Heads of State this table on the 29 texts that drive the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs led by Mr Bowles, all MEPs, coordinators and shadow rapporteurs to whom I extend my thanks. This central theme to some extent mirrors, for the financial markets, what we are doing with Mr Karas on capitalisation and prudential measures for the banking sector, so that, for financial markets as a whole, we have transparency, responsibility and also security for investors and savers, leaving no room − such is our goal − for regulatory arbitrage within the single market or with regard to other G20 partners.
That is why I offer very sincere thanks to Mr Ferber for his commitment, sharing with him the goal
which he mentioned
of being in a position to begin trialogue discussions very soon.
We share the same goals for MiFID in a number of areas, and your report, Mr Ferber, strengthens and consolidates our own proposals.
Firstly, concerning market structure, the Commission and Parliament have as their goal that all forms of negotiation, whether multilateral or bilateral, should take place in an atmosphere of transparency. Parliament has elected to introduce a definition of the over-the-counter market, coupled with an obligation to trade on transparent execution venues in the case of small-scale transactions. I am prepared to explore this avenue; however, any removal of the Organised Trading Facility (OTF) category for the equity market must be analysed very carefully.
We must also carefully measure the effects of such amendments compared with our own proposal. If we limit multilateral trading solely to regulated markets and venues for multilateral trading facilities, that would amount to abandoning reform of the current situation, which has precisely the effect, on certain platforms, of allowing high-frequency traders to cross their orders with those of investors, without the latter having any say whatsoever. We must therefore think carefully before limiting the scope of OTFs in this way.
Second point: high-frequency trading. If, honourable Members, we want to encourage transactions to migrate to multilateral, transparent trading venues, then yes, we must better constrain high-frequency trading, which is, indeed, in its element on such venues. In that regard, also, I think I may say that we share the same goals.
In general terms, this text is the chance to start from scratch with rules on high-frequency trading; I am ready to acknowledge
as I have already said
that high-frequency trading has some usefulness in providing liquidity but it is also undeniably a source of systematic risk for the markets. In banking we have begun vigorous efforts to monitor and reduce this type of risk. We cannot and must not be any less ambitious with regard to markets.
That is why the Commission has proposed a set of specific rules to constrain these players and make them accountable. From now on, they will have to be authorised and supervised by the competent authorities. They will also have to undertake to provide the markets with liquidity."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples