16 Amendments of Sebastian Valentin BODU related to 2010/2303(INI)
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Takes the view that the number of boards on which directors of financial institutions may sit at the same time should be limited to three, in which connection membership of the boards of several companies within the same financial group should count as one directorship;. This limitation should not be applied to: (a) the member who is the owner of at least one fifth of the share capital of the financial institution; (b) the member who is an employee of a professional investor and performs the service as part of the job description with the employer,
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)
Paragraph 2 b (new)
2b. Emphasises that greater diversity among the members of boards is likely to improve the quality of debate and decision-making. Calls on the Commission to require expertise in business administration or professional background in the industry of the company in which board the member stands;
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 d (new)
Paragraph 2 d (new)
2d. In financial institutions combining the functions of chairman of the board of directors and chief executive officer should not be prohibited;
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 e (new)
Paragraph 2 e (new)
2e. Putting in place a compulsory evaluation of the functioning of the board of directors, carried out by an external evaluator, could lead to administrative burden and costs;
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 f (new)
Paragraph 2 f (new)
2f. Being compulsory for one or more members of the audit committee to be part of the risk committee and vice versa could lead to the dissolution of competence and lack of focus on just one job;
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 g (new)
Paragraph 2 g (new)
2g. The chairman of the risk committee should report to the general meeting or in any case he/she cannot be fired by the Executive or by the board of directors;
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 h (new)
Paragraph 2 h (new)
2h. An approval procedure should be established for the board of directors to approve new financial products, but only after the risk committee approves them, based also on a procedure;
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 e (new)
Paragraph 3 e (new)
3e. Takes the view that the status of the chief risk officer should be enhanced, as at least equivalent to that of the chief financial officer;
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 f (new)
Paragraph 3 f (new)
3f. The communication system between the risk management function and the board of directors should be improved by setting up a procedure for referring conflicts/problems to the hierarchy for resolution;
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 g (new)
Paragraph 3 g (new)
3g. The chief risk officer should be able to report directly to the board of directors, after reporting to the risk committee;
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Takes the view that the external auditors in financial institutions should be required to inform the board of directors and the competent supervisory bodies immediately if their audit brings to light facts which could jeopardise the future of the institution or seriously hamper its development or which point to a serious breach of the licensing requirements is now referred to financial audit. A new type of audit, especially focused on the operational risk (i.e. operational products) should be established separated from the financial audit. Financial institutions should be more than encouraged to use such an audit. Moreover, the supervisory bodies and auditors may enter into Public-Private Partnership in order to delegate audit tasks (i.e. related to operational risks) to private auditors. In such way the risk is better controlled and with less costs than obliging the current financial external auditors to extend their audit to risk related situations and to report the resulets governingto the superformance of dutvisory bodies;
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Takes the view that institutional investors should be required formally and publicly to explato make a public statement as to their approach to voting any actions which breach the uniform EU code for institutional investors (‘comply or explain’)d engagement and how they use their shareholder rights in the interests of those on whose behalf they invest;
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Takes the view that the identification of shareholders should be facilitated in order to encourage dialogue between companies and their shareholders and reduce the risk of abuse connected to "empty voting";
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 b (new)
Paragraph 6 b (new)
6b. The electronic vote should be established in order to encourage shareholders to engage in financial institutions' corporate governance;
Amendment 39 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Takes the view that external auditors and members of the board of directors should be strictly prohibited from engaging obtaining any opayment - besides their form of business deees for the audit they perform - from the financial ings, in particular consultancies, with the financial concern in questionstitution for a service which would be a breach of applicable independence or other ethics requirements;
Amendment 40 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 11 a (new)
Paragraph 11 a (new)
11a. Takes the view that , while taking into account the different existing legal and economic models, it is necessary to harmonise the content and detail of Community rules on conflicts of interest to ensure that the various financial institutions are subject to similar rules, in accordance with which they must apply the provisions of MiFID, the CRD, the UCITS Directive or Solvency 2;