BETA

Activities of Wolf KLINZ related to 2012/2115(INI)

Shadow reports (1)

REPORT on Shadow Banking PDF (182 KB) DOC (98 KB)
2016/11/22
Committee: ECON
Dossiers: 2012/2115(INI)
Documents: PDF(182 KB) DOC(98 KB)

Amendments (18)

Amendment 3 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
A. whereas the concept of the shadow banking system (SB) as defined by the FSB covers the system of credit intermediation which involves entities and activities outside the regular banking system;
2012/09/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 6 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)
Aa. whereas some elements that fall under the term SB are vital for financing the real economy and due care should be taken when defining the scope of any new or extension of existing regulatory measure;
2012/09/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 9 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
B. whereas, according to FSB estimates, the size of the global SB system was approximately € 4651 trillion in 20101, having grown from € 21 trillion in 2002; this represents 25-30 % of the total financial system and half the size of bank assets;
2012/09/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
C. whereas despite certain potential positive effects, SB can weaken thethreathen the stability of the financial system, especially through regulatory arbitrage and increased systemic risk;
2012/09/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 18 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
D. whereas proposals on shadow banking and on the structure of lenders' retail and investment arms are important elements of a European banking unionall-encompassing regulation that covers potential risks stemming from the SB system is important to ensure a stable and sustainable financial system;
2012/09/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 29 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
2. Agrees with the FSB's definition of SBthe SB system as ‘a system of intermediaries, instruments, entities or financial contracts generating a combination of bank-like functions but outside the regulatory perimeter or under a regulatory regime which is either light or addresses issues other than systemic risks, and without access to central bank liquidity facility or public sector credit guarantees’; contrary to the suggestion of the term, shadow banking is not necessarily an unregulated or illegal part of the financial sector; underlines the challenge involved in implementing this definition in a monitoring, regulatory and supervisory context also due to the continuous opacity, lack of data and understanding of this system;
2012/09/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 36 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Believes that close international cooperation and a pooling of efforts at global level is absolutely vital to get a holistic view on the SB system;
2012/09/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 47 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
5. Supports, therefore, as a first step, the creation by the ECB of a central EU database on euro repo transactions, and invites the Commission to submit a legislative proposal for the creation of such a database by the end of 2013, after under by the end of 2013; stresses in this respect the need for cooperation with international and 3rd country regulatory authorities and Central Banks in order to obtaking a feasibility study information on repo transactions denominated in other currencies;
2012/09/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 50 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Considers that despite the substantial amount of data and information required by the CRD under the repo reporting obligation the Commission should investigate the availability, timeliness and completeness of data for mapping and monitoring purposes;
2012/09/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 61 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Believes that bank reporting requirments are a vital and valuable tool to catch SB activity; reiterates that accounting rules should reflect reality and that ideally the balance sheet should reflect aggregates to the maximum extent possible;
2012/09/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 84 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
10. Believes further that the proposed extension ofCommission should carefully assess the extension of specific elements of the CRD IV to certain non-deposit-taking finance companieial institutions not covered by the definition in the Capital Requirements Regulation (CRR) is necessaryn order to address specific risks;
2012/09/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 90 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
11. Stresses the need to ensure that all SB entities having a bank sponsor or linked to a bank are included in the bank's balance sheet for prudential consolidation purposes; invithighlights the role of sponsor support with respect to Money Market Funds and its potential significant effects; urges the Commission to examine, by the beginning ofefore end 2013, means of ensuring that entities which are not consolidated from an accounting perspective are consolidated for prudential consolidation purposes; considers that a work stream should be started aiming at aligning to the maximum extent possible financial and prudential reporting requirements;
2012/09/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 93 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
12. Underlines the need to ensure greater transparency in the structure and activities of financial institutions; invites the Commission, taking account of the conclusions of the Liikanen report, to propose legislation to separatlooks forward in this respect to the conclusions of the Liikanen Group and invites the cCommercial and investment banks, in particular in order to avoid the financing of SB activities via savingsission to consider these carefully;
2012/09/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 103 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
13. Takes note of the importance of the repo and securityies lending market; invites the Commission to adopt measures, by the beginning of 2013, to increase transparency, as well as to allow regulators to impose minimumoblige market participants engaged in the repo and securities lending market to set haircut rates or margin levels for the collateralised financing markets; internally and define specific triggers and criteria to changes thereto; considers that the Commission should set reporting requirements to regulators on these internal policies as well as to define the potential for regulators to intervene;
2012/09/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 115 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
14. Believes that incentives associated with securitisation need to bare adequately addressed; invites the Commission to examine the securitisation market and to submit a legislative proposal at the latest by the beginning of 2013 for limiting the number of times a financial product can be securitised; calls on it to impose particular requirements on suppliers of securitisation (e.g. originators or sponsors) to retain part of the risks associated with securitisation and of measures to achieve transparency, by the introduction of an external valuer of the underlying assets and the Capital Requirements Directive; stresses however that the retained part of the securitised product needs to stay on the originators or sponsors book and cannot be sold on; invites the Commission to consider a legislative proposal for limiting the number of times a financial product can be securitised or for an increase on the retention rate for re- securitised products under the CRD; calls for a further standardisation of securitisation products as well as resolution processes;
2012/09/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 122 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
15. Recognises the important role money market funds (MMFs) fulfil in the financing of financial institutions in the short run and in allowing for risk diversification; recognises the different role and structure of MMFs based in the EU and the US; nevertheless considers that the regulatory framework in the US and the EU should be aligned as much as possible in order to prevent regulatory arbitrage; recognises that the 2010 ESMA guidelines imposed stricter standards on MMFs (credit quality, maturity of underlying securities and better disclosure to investors); notes, however, that some MMFs, in particular those offering a stable net asset value to investors, are vulnerable to massive runs; stresses, therefore, thatstresses the need to take additional measures need to be taken to improve the resilience of these funds and to cover the liquidity risk; invites the Commission to submit a legislative proposal at the beginning of 2013 requiring MMFs either to adopt a variable asset value with a daily evaluation or, if retaining a constant value, to be subject to capital requirementss as well as ensuring to the extent possible the equal treatment of investors; invites the Commission to continue the workstream on the UCITs VI revision and to submit a review of the framework with particular focus on the issue of MMFs in the first half of 2013;
2012/09/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 123 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)
15a. Invites the Commission in the context of the UCITs review to explore further the idea of introducing specific liquidity provisions for MMFs, by setting minimum requirements for overnight, weekly and monthly liquidity [20%, 40%, 60%] and to charge liquidity fees upon a trigger which also leads to a direct information obligation to the competent supervisory authority and ESMA;
2012/09/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 131 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
16. Recognises the benefits Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs) provide by giving retail investors access to a wider range of assets (such as commodities, in particular), but stresses the risks ETF carry in terms of complexity, counterparty risk, liquidity of products and possible regulatory arbitrage; invites the Commission, therefore, to submit a legislative proposal at the beginning of 2013 toassess and tackle these potential structural vulnerabilities in the ongoing UCITs VI review;
2012/09/18
Committee: ECON