BETA

17 Amendments of Fulvio MARTUSCIELLO related to 2016/2247(INI)

Amendment 88 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 (new)
-1 Underlines that the completion of the Banking Union requires further convergence on many fields; in this light, recalls the importance to draw a Single Rule book on insolvency and criminal law, coupled with strong convergence on tax issues;
2016/12/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 91 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
1. Notes the high level of non- performing loans (NPLs) in some jurisdictions; considers that this issue is crucial and has yet to be solved; considers that this issue is crucial but needs time to be solved; considers that any suggested solution should take into account the source of NPLs, the impact on banks' lending capacity to the real economy, and the need for the development of a NPL primary and secondary market; calls on the ESRB and the Commission to suggest a solution for creating a European primary and secondary market for NPLs; welcomes the work of the SSM and its draft guidance on this issue; looks forward to the results of the work on a minimum EU insolvency framework; calls on Member States to improve their insolvency legislation and to stimulate growth in order to tackle NPLs;
2016/12/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 112 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Notes the high level of Level 3 assets on many jurisdictions; calls for a quantitative stress-test on this issue and for a stable reduction of this kind of asset;
2016/12/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 130 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
2. Considers that there are risks associated with sovereign debt; notes, however, that modifying its prudential treatment could have a significant effect on the financial sector, which calls for caution in reform efforts; awaits with interest the results of the international work on this issue; considers that, in the end, a better regulatory framework, be it European or international, will be needed as a necessary pre-condition for any proposal; as previously stated by the European Parliament itself, considers that, in the end, any proposal on sovereign debt should be carefully evaluated; suggests that a structural convergence on taxation regime, accounting standards, application of State Aid rules etc. should be reached before any proposal on sovereign debt;
2016/12/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 152 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Recalls the importance of avoiding discrimination between EU and international banks, contrary to some of the proposals drafted by the Basel Committee for its revised capital and liquidity requirements framework;
2016/12/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 174 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
5. Stresses that national options and discretions are hindering the creation of a level playing field between Member States; welcomes the ECB guidance and regulation harmonising the exercise of some of these within the Banking Union; looks forward to the upcoming amendments to the CRR as a means of closing the most significant ones and asks for a wise transposition of the net stable funding ratio (NSFR) in the EU context if some European specificities will prove to deserve specific treatments;
2016/12/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 183 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Notes relevant differences between jurisdictions and inside the European Union, such as different implementation of the IFRS accounting standards; calls for a strong convergence on the basis of a complete adoption of full IFRS in the banking sector;
2016/12/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 186 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
6. Recalls the need to clarify the objectives of Pillar 2 and its place within the stacking order of capital requirements; is of the view that the use of capital guidance is a relevant way forward in order to balance financial stability concerns with flexibility needs;deleted
2016/12/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 204 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
7. Notes that the ‘too-big-to-fail’ issue still needs to be addressedhas been tackled by the adoption of the TLAC requirement;
2016/12/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 229 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
9. Recalls the need to find, in the exercise of supervision, a balance between the need for proportionality and the need for a consistent approach; considers that, in this light, the SREP process should be more balanced in its focus and should look beyond credit risk, to all forms of banks' risk, including an in-depth analysis of the financial portfolio, especially Level 3 assets;
2016/12/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 284 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
10. Recalls the need to adhere to State aid rules in the context of bank resolution; takes the view that enough flexibility is embedded within the current framework to address specific situations and; notes that specific situations have been treated differently without clear justifications; recalls that flexibility might be better exploited, in particular in the case of preventive measures involving the use of DGS funds;
2016/12/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 288 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10a. Calls for a reflection on the possible negative impact on the real economy from the revision of the Basel rules, the introduction of MREL requirements, the introduction of TLAC and IFRS 9; calls for any solution aimed at smoothing the impacts;
2016/12/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 291 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 b (new)
10b. After the adoption of the new packages from the Basel Committee, calls for a period of suspension of new rules in order to stabilise the supervision framework and facilitate the banks' capital and liquidity planning, essential for a sound support to the real economy;
2016/12/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 296 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
11. Takes note of the differences between Stresses, that bothe FSB TLAC standard and the MREL; stresses, however, that both MREL standards share the same objective; concludes therefore that a holistic approach to loss-absorption can be reached by combining the two; highlights that due consideration should be given to retaining the two criteria of size and risk-weighted assets; proportionality; considers that an in-depth analysis is needed: a) on the disclosure regime, avoiding any impact on banks' capital soundness, driven by markets and investor misinterpretation of the MREL requirements; b) on the market capacity related to MREL eligible liabilities;
2016/12/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 343 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
18. Regrets that the Commission did not allow for more time to assess the implementation of the DGSD before proposing the EDIS and did not conduct a proper impact assessment of the proposal; stands ready, however, to seize the opportunity generated by the proposal to discuss the DGSD and address some of the options and discretions it includes;deleted
2016/12/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 361 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
19. Is aware of the potential benefits of an EDIS; is nevertheless of the opinion that risk reduction measures are an indispensable counterparty to its establishment in order to prevent moral hazard, and that such measures should preferably precede risk sharing;deleted
2016/12/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 393 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
21. Recommends that the Commission, the ECB and the EBA study the possibility and suitability of accompanying the introduction of the EDIS with an assessment of the capital and liquidity situation of banks in order to better quantify the risks to be insurdeleted;
2016/12/20
Committee: ECON