[ParlTrack]

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 7

(7) The credit rating market shows that, traditionally, credit rating agencies and rated entities enter into long-lasting relationships. This raises the threat of familiarity, as the credit rating agency may become too sympathetic to the desires of the rated entity. In those circumstances, the impartiality of credit rating agencies over time could become questionable. Indeed, credit rating agencies mandated and paid by a corporate issuer are incentivised to issue overly favourable ratings on that rated entity or its debt instruments in order to maintain the business relationship with such issuer. Issuers are also subject to incentives that favour long-lasting relationships, such as the lock-in effect: an issuer may refrain from changing credit rating agency as this may raise concerns of investors regarding the issuer's creditworthiness. This problem was already identified in Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009, which required credit rating agencies to apply a rotation mechanism providing for gradual changes in analytical teams and credit rating committees so that the independence of the rating analysts and persons approving credit ratings would not be compromised. The success of those rules, however, was highly dependant on a behavioural solution internal to the credit rating agency: the actual independence and professionalism of the employees of the credit rating agency vis- à-vis the commercial interests of the credit rating agency itself. These rules were not designed to provide sufficient guarantee towards third parties that the conflicts of interest arising from the long-lasting relationship would effectively be mitigated or avoided. It therefore appears necessary to provide for a structural response having a higher impact on third parties. This could be achieved effectively by limiting the period during which a credit rating agency can continuously provide credit ratings on the same issuer or its debt instruments. Setting out a maximum duration of the business relationship between the issuer which is rated or which issued the rated debt instruments and the credit rating agency should remove the incentive for issuing favourable ratings on that issuer. Additionally, requiring the rotation of credit rating agencies as a normal and regular market practice should also effectively address the lock-in effect, where an issuer refrains from changing credit rating agency as this would raise concerns of investors regarding the issuer's creditworthiness. Finally, the rotation of credit rating agencies should have positive effects on the rating market as it would facilitate new market entries and offer existing credit rating agencies the opportunity to extend their business to new areas.deleted

2012/04/17
Committee: ECON

Philippe DE BACKER

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8

(8) Regular rotation of credit rating agencies issuing credit ratings on an issuer or its debt instruments should bring more diversity to the evaluation of the creditworthiness of the issuer that selects and pays that credit rating agency. Multiple and different views, perspectives and methodologies applied by credit rating agencies should produce more diverse credit ratings and ultimately improve the assessment of the creditworthiness of the issuers. For this diversity to play a role and to avoid complacency of both issuers and credit rating agencies, the maximum duration of the business relationship between the credit rating agency and the issuer paying must be restricted to a level guaranteeing regular fresh looks at the creditworthiness of issuers. Therefore, a time period of three years would seem appropriate, also considering the need to provide certain continuity within the credit ratings. The risk of conflict of interest increases in situations where the credit rating agency frequently issues credit ratings on debt instruments of the same issuer within a short period of time. In those cases, the maximum duration of the business relationship should be shorter to guarantee similar results. Hence, the business relationship should stop after a credit rating has rated ten debt instruments of the same issuer. However, in order to avoid imposing a disproportionate burden on issuers and credit rating agencies, no requirement to change credit rating agency within the first 12 months of the business relationship should be imposed. Where an issuer mandates more than one credit rating agency, either because as an issuer of structured finance instruments he is obliged to do so, or on a voluntary basis, it should be sufficient that the strict rotation periods only apply to one of the credit rating agencies. However, also in this case, the business relationship between the issuer and the additional credit rating agencies should not exceed a period of six years.deleted

2012/04/17
Committee: ECON

Philippe DE BACKER

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9

(9) The rule requiring rotation of credit rating agencies needs to be enforced in a credible manner to be meaningful. The rotation rule would not achieve its objectives if the outgoing credit rating agency were allowed to provide rating services to the same issuer again within a too short period of time. Therefore, it is important to provide for an appropriate period within which such credit rating agency may not be mandated by the same issuer to provide rating services. That period should be sufficiently long to allow the incoming credit rating agency to effectively provide its rating services to the issuer, to ensure that the issuer is truly exposed to a new scrutiny under a different approach and to guarantee that the credit ratings issued by the new credit rating agency provide enough continuity. That period should allow that an issuer cannot rely on comfortable arrangements with only two credit rating agencies that would replace each other on a continuous basis, as this could lead to maintaining the familiarity threat. Hence, the period during which the outgoing credit rating agency should not provide rating services to the issuer should generally be set at four years.deleted

2012/04/17
Committee: ECON

Philippe DE BACKER

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 10

(10) The change of credit rating agency inevitably increases the risk that knowledge about the rated entity acquired by the outgoing rating agency is lost. As a result, the incoming credit rating agency would have to make considerable efforts to acquire the knowledge necessary to carry out its work. However, a smooth transition should be ensured by establishing a requirement on the outgoing credit rating agency to transfer relevant information on the rated entity or instruments to the incoming credit rating agency.deleted

2012/04/17
Committee: ECON

Philippe DE BACKER

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11

(11) Requiring issuers to regularly change the credit rating agency they mandate to issue credit ratings is proportionate to the objective pursued. This requirement only applies to certain regulated institutions (registered credit rating agencies) which provide a service affecting the public interest (credit ratings that can be used for regulatory purposes) under certain conditions (issuer-pays model). The privilege of having its services recognised as playing an important role in the regulation of the financial services market and being approved to carry out this function, entails the need to respect certain obligations in order to guarantee independence and the perception of independence in all circumstances. A credit rating agency which is prevented from providing credit rating services to a particular issuer would still be allowed to provide credit ratings to other issuers. In a market context where the rotation rule applies to all players, business opportunities will arise since all issuers would need to change credit rating agency. Moreover, credit rating agencies may always issue unsolicited credit ratings on the same issuer, capitalising on their experience. Unsolicited ratings are not constrained by the issuer-pays model and therefore are less affected by potential conflicts of interests. For issuers, the maximum duration of the business relationship with a credit rating agency or the rule on the employment of more than one credit rating agency also represents a restriction on their freedom to conduct their own business. However, this restriction is necessary on public- interest grounds considering the interference of the issuer-pays model with the necessary independence of credit rating agencies to guarantee independent credit ratings that can be used by investors for regulatory purposes. At the same time, these restrictions do not go beyond what is necessary and should rather be seen as an element increasing the issuer's creditworthiness towards other parties, and ultimately the market.deleted

2012/04/17
Committee: ECON

Philippe DE BACKER

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 12

(12) One of the specificities of sovereign ratings is that the issuer-pays model generally does not apply. Instead, the majority of ratings are produced as unsolicited ratings, providing the basis for both solicited and unsolicited ratings of the financial institutions of the country concerned. It is therefore not necessary to require the rotation of credit rating agencies issuing sovereign ratings.deleted

2012/04/17
Committee: ECON

Philippe DE BACKER

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 21

(21) Directive xxxx/xx/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of […] on the access to the activity of credit institutions and the prudential supervision of credit institutions and investment firms19 has introduced a provision requiring banks and investment firms to assess the credit risk of entities and financial instruments in which they invest themselves and not to simply rely in this respect on external ratings. This rule should be extended to other financial firms regulated under Union law, including investment managers. Member States should not be entitled to impose rules that allow stricter reliance of these investors on external ratings. Additionally, Member States should revise their national law and technical standards to ensure that whenever a reference to credit ratings is made, a potential mechanistic reliance on those credit ratings is avoided.

2012/04/17
Committee: ECON

Philippe DE BACKER

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – point 6

Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009
Article 5a

Credit institutions, investment firms, insurance and reinsurance undertakings, institutions for occupational retirement provisions, management and investment companies, alternative investment fund managers and central counterparties as defined in Regulation (EU) No xx/201x of the European Parliament and of the Council of xx xxx 201x on OTC derivatives, central counterparties and trade repositories shall ~~make their own credit risk assessment and shall~~ not solely or mechanistically rely on credit ratings for assessing the creditworthiness of an entity or financial instrument. Competent authorities in charge of supervising these undertakings shall closely check the adequacy of undertakings credit assessment processes.

2012/04/17
Committee: ECON

Philippe DE BACKER

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – point 6

Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009
Article 5b – paragraph 1

The European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority) established by Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council (*) (EBA), the European Supervisory Authority (European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority) established by Regulation (EU) No 1094/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council (**) (EIOPA) and ESMA shall not refer to credit ratings in their guidelines, recommendations and draft technical standards where such references have the potential to trigger mechanistic reliance on credit ratings by competent authorities or financial market participants. Accordingly, and at the latest by 31 December 2013, EBA, EIOPA and ESMA shall review and remove ~~where appropriate all references to~~all references that potentially could cause a mechanistic reliance on credit ratings in existing guidelines and recommendations.

2012/04/17
Committee: ECON

Philippe DE BACKER

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – point 6

Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009
Article 5b – paragraph 1 a (new)

EBA, EIOPA and ESMA shall: (a) ensure that risk-weighting of securities does not rely only on the published ratings of credit rating agencies, in order to avoid a direct influence of such ratings on the capital of banks to be held; (b) ensure an effective reduction of reliance on external ratings, develop alternatives and gradually provide for the elimination of all mechanistic and automatic effects of an external credit rating for the risk-weighting of securities; (c) ensure that reliance only on the published ratings of credit rating agencies is avoided when new rules on capital standards for banking institutions are implemented.

2012/04/17
Committee: ECON

Philippe DE BACKER

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – point 8

Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009
Article 6b

Article 6b Maximum duration of the contractual relationship with a credit rating agency 1. Where a credit rating agency has entered into a contract with an issuer or its related third party for the issuing of credit ratings on that issuer, it shall not issue credit ratings on that issuer for a period exceeding three years. 2. Where a credit rating agency has entered into a contract with an issuer or its related third party for the issuing of credit ratings on the debt instruments of that issuer, the following shall apply: (a) when those credit ratings are issued within a period exceeding an initial period of twelve months but shorter than three years, the credit rating agency shall not issue any further credit ratings on those debt instruments from the moment that ten debt instruments have been rated; (b) when at least ten credit ratings are issued within an initial period of twelve months, that credit rating agency shall not issue any further credit ratings on those debt instruments after the end of that period; (c) when less than ten credit ratings are issued, the credit rating agency shall not issue any further credit ratings on those debt instruments from the moment a period of 3 years have elapsed. 3. Where an issuer has entered into a contract regarding the same matter with more than one credit rating agency, the limitations set out in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall only apply to one of these agencies. However, none of these agencies shall have a contractual relationship with the issuer exceeding a period of six years. 4. The credit rating agency referred to in paragraphs 1 to 3 shall not enter into a contract with the issuer or its related third parties for the issuing of credit ratings on the issuer or its debt instruments for a period of four years from the end of the maximum duration period of the contractual relationship referred to in paragraphs 1 to 3. The first subparagraph shall also apply to: (a) a credit rating agency belonging to the same group of credit rating agencies as the credit rating agency referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2; (b) a credit rating agency which is a shareholder or member of the credit rating agency referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2; (c) a credit rating agency in which the credit rating agency referred to in paragraph 1 and 2 is a shareholder or member. 5. Paragraphs 1 to 4shall not apply to sovereign ratings. 6. Where following the end of the maximum duration period of the contractual relationship, pursuant to the rules in paragraphs 1 and 2, a credit rating agency is replaced by another credit rating agency, the exiting credit rating agency shall provide the incoming credit rating agency with a handover file. Such file shall include relevant information concerning the rated entity and the rated debt instruments as may reasonably be necessary to ensure the comparability with the ratings carried out by the exiting credit rating agency. The exiting rating agency shall be able to demonstrate to ESMA that such information has been provided to the incoming credit rating agency. 7. ESMA shall develop draft regulatory technical standards to specify technical requirements on the content of the handover file referred to in paragraph 5. ESMA shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by 1 January 2013. Power is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in this paragraph in accordance with the procedure laid down in Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.deleted (This amendment applies throughout the text. Adopting it will necessitate corresponding changes throughout.)

2012/04/17
Committee: ECON

11 Amendments of Philippe DE BACKER related to 2011/0361(COD)

ParlTrack - 2011-2024