64 Amendments of Sven GIEGOLD related to 2015/2106(INI)
Amendment 1 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 1 a (new)
Citation 1 a (new)
– having regard to the report by the High Level Group on Financial Supervision in the EU chaired by Jacques de Larosière, 25 February 2009,
Amendment 2 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 1 b (new)
Citation 1 b (new)
– having regard to the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision ‘Report on the impact and accountability of banking supervision’, July 2015,
Amendment 5 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 15 a (new)
Citation 15 a (new)
– having regard to the UK Parliamentary Commission for Banking Standards’ final report ‘Changing banking for good’,
Amendment 29 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Underlines that a proper stocktaking of financial reforms should identify gaps in the current legislative framework where risks are inadequately addressed as well as potential inconsistencies or disproportionality and insists that any proposed changes must not compromise on high standards of financial stability and consumer protection;
Amendment 30 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 b (new)
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1b. Recalls that the costs of inadequate regulation of the financial sector, which amount to trillions of euros of lost growth and jobs as well as more than 1.5 trillion in state aid, dwarf the costs to the financial industry of implementing reforms;
Amendment 31 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 c (new)
Paragraph 1 c (new)
1c. Warns that, as a result of historically high levels of private debt and continued deleveraging as well as high levels of private wealth relative to GDP, risks of prolonged low interest rates, excess liquidity creating asset bubbles, contagion and other macro-prudential risks are still at worryingly high levels more than 7 years after the start of the financial crisis; notes, for example, that ESMAs latest risk dashboard shows that all areas of risk rank as ‘elevated’ or worse, with liquidity, funding pattern and sovereign risks likely to worsen;
Amendment 32 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 d (new)
Paragraph 1 d (new)
1d. Reminds that, since the nineties, the growth of the financial sector globally and in the EU has outstripped that of the economy it is supposed to serve; maintains that such excess growth is clearly out of proportion to the needs of the real economy and represents a potentially significant misallocation of capital, risk and skills which increases costs to end users of the financial system and acts as a drag on innovation and productive investment; calls for any reforms to put the direct needs of real economy end users before those of the financial services industry by ensuring transparency, simplicity, accessibility and fairness across the internal market;
Amendment 33 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 e (new)
Paragraph 1 e (new)
1e. Reminds that, the traditional life insurance business model has proven considerably less fragile in financial crises than that of banks; notes that, nevertheless, large, highly interconnected cross-border insurers, especially those that have significant activities outside traditional underwriting such as credit and investment guarantees or other bank- like products, can pose a significant systemic risk; points out that the Financial Stability Board (FSB) has identified nine large insurers as being systemic, of which five are headquartered in the Union; warns, in the current environment of permanent low interest rates, of an upcoming crisis in the insurance sector; calls, therefore, for an urgent reform of the prudential framework of insurance companies, in particular by tackling the problem of too big to fail and by introducing a resolution and recovery regime as has been done for banks; notes that low interest rate risks apply to workplace pension schemes too and, while these are not consumer products in the same sense, EU legislation should aim to improve the solvency and transparency of such schemes;
Amendment 34 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 f (new)
Paragraph 1 f (new)
1f. Warns that fossil fuel reserves held by publically listed companies and the way they are currently valued and assessed by markets pose a significant risk; due to governments activities to control carbon emissions, these fossil fuels face a drastic loss of value pointing to a market failure which creates systemic risks for institutional investors, notably the threat of fossil fuel assets becoming stranded as the shift to a low-carbon economy; stresses that this ‘Carbon Bubble’, if not mitigated sufficiently poses a threat financial stability; (Based on a contribution by the Carbon Tracker Initiative)
Amendment 45 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Considers that the Commission’s ambition to build a Capital Markets Union should be matched by an equivalent focus on raising the bar for retail investor protection to restore their trust; recommends that the Commission should make concrete proposals on how to (a) improve and harmonise retail investor protection rules for all saving and investment products, including pension products and individual shares and bonds; (b) impose effective supervision and enforcement by national and EU supervisory authorities in retail financial markets; (c) promote the development and distribution of simple and standardised investment products; (d) highlights that due to most of the current remuneration practises, the problem of conflicts of interests at the point of sale has not been solved; states that a cost- efficient distribution of retail investment products requires to solve this conflict of interest through promoting alternative mediation and advice approaches, a phase out of inducements, and effective disclosure of remuneration and costs, as a second best option;
Amendment 66 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Stresses that, to a significant extent, the complexity of the institutions in scope of the legislation makes it very difficult to provide clear, simple and effective legislation; considers that structural reform of parts of the financial system, aimed at ensuring that no institution’s failure will result in taxpayer losses, is the most effective way of ensuring the stability and smooth functioning of the financial system;
Amendment 73 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Notes that a sound and robust CMU has to acknowledge the interdependencies with other financial sectors and has to be based on well-established existing structures; stresses the need for a holistic view of EU financial services regulation that places meeting the needs of ordinary citizens and the real economy at the heart of the regulatory system;
Amendment 85 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Believes that an effective and efficient EU financial services regulation should be coherent, consistent (also on a cross- sectoral basis), proportionate, and free of superfluous complexity (in particular with regard to supervisory reporting requirements), non-duplicative and free of superfluous complexity; considers that the ‘think small first’ principle should also be respected in financial services regulation; believes that it should enable intermediaries to fulfil their role in funding the real economy and serve savers and investors; considers that it should contribute to the single market and focus on goals better achievable at European level; while leaving space for innovative financing with a more local focus; (Based on a contribution the Confederation of German Cooperative Banks (BVR))
Amendment 96 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Underlines the need to take stock of the financial services framework; in line with the review clauses adopted in each specific legislative act ; notes that similar exercises are being undertaken in other jurisdictions, notably in the US;
Amendment 128 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Believes that consumer protection does not necessarily entail large volumes of information; is concerned that the multiplicity of customer information might not ultimately serve real customer needs; points to the necessity of a European initiative for more and better financial education; stresses, therefore, that customer information needs to be comprehensible and enable proper decision-making as well as the need to promote the provision of independent advice; points to the necessity of a European initiative for more and better financial education as well as the importance of effective supervisory powers to detect and limit the marketing of products of unsuitable complexity, especially by making full use of the ESAs’ powers to issue warnings and for product interventions; (Based on a contribution by European Investors)
Amendment 138 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Highlights the benefits of asset diversification; emphasises that the purpose of prudential regulation is not to favour certain asset classes; calls for a risk- based approach to regulation, with the same rules being applied to the same risks; believes that a more granular categorisation of asset classes is appropriate, in particular by establishing categories such as infrastructure; recognises that infrastructure projects are not per se less risky and that, therefore, only an actually prudential regulation regime will be appropriate to reconcile the two fundamental and necessary political objectives which are infrastructure investments for economic growth and long - term capital accumulation for retirement provision; supports independent ongoing research concerning risks and benefits of infrastructure, including the disclosure of the applied methodology, to promote evidence based conclusions; (Based on a contribution by Better Finance)
Amendment 140 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. Believes that highly concentrated private wealth, contributes substantially to an abundance of liquidity in the market, which poses a huge threat for financial stability; calls, therefore, on the Member States to coordinate wealth taxes and investment efforts to make the system more resilient;
Amendment 149 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Stresses the need for consistency in the risk-based approach, including sovereign exposures; ; is concerned that the sovereign debt exposure of banks is overwhelmingly towards their domestic issuer and that this home bias is particularly strong in the countries where banks’ total euro area sovereign exposure is largest; notes on sovereign exposures that the domestic carve-out and the absence of a zero risk-weight floor for sovereign exposures in the standardised approach as well as the absence of a minimum regulatory floor in the IRB approach contradicts a risk-adjusted prudential regulation; deplores that the large exposure regime still excludes sovereign exposures and allows higher limits for interbank exposures; claims a more honest and realistic disclosure of banks´ balance sheet risks, such as reporting exposures with their gross risk and derivatives with their maximum loss; supports the work of the BCBS and ESRB in this regard; (see the ESRB report on sovereign risk)
Amendment 153 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10a. Points out that the de Larosière report recommended giving not only macroprudential monitoring but also supervisory powers to an effective EU macroprudential body and explicitly warned against giving microprudential powers to the ECB over EU banks and neither of these recommendations were followed; regrets that the EU has focused too much on complex microprudential rules and not enough on the powers and the resources of a macroprudential body and consequently lags behind the US in this respect where the FSOC is empowered, for example, to designate non-banks as systemic;
Amendment 154 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 b (new)
Paragraph 10 b (new)
10b. Insists that macro-prudential supervision is an essentially cross border function and for it to be effective, it is necessary to ensure that a European macro-prudential supervisor, with the power to monitor the distribution of capital and risks across asset classes require actions to prevent financial instability from national supervisors and institutions be established;
Amendment 155 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 c (new)
Paragraph 10 c (new)
10c. Notes also that the de Larosière report recommended giving direct supervision of market pan-EU infrastructure to a European authority, whereas such tasks currently remain in national hands;
Amendment 160 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Notes the possible unintended consequences of multiple capital, liquidity and leverage requirements on maturity transformation and the provision of long- term financing; is concerned that disproportionate requirements, such as in regards to the bank liquidity indicators LCR and NSFR, might endanger the business model of small- and medium- sized banks and therefore might have unintended consequences on the structure of the financial industry; asks the Commission, in cooperation with the supervisors, to analyse these consequences for banking and insurance as a matter of priority; (Based on a contribution by German cooperative banks (Sparda-Verband))
Amendment 168 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Is concerned about the lack of available and attractive risk-appropriate (long-term) investments and cost-efficient and suitable savings products for consumers; reiterates the need for diversity in investor and consumer choices; calls for the promotion of market access for net investment products in order to promote competition in the EU retail investment market;
Amendment 175 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)
Paragraph 12 a (new)
12a. Reiterates the need to work on a Pan European Pension Product (PEPP), with simple transparent design and prudential and consumer protection features, which will attract more retirement savings and foster the supply of long-term capital, whilst contributing to the delivery of adequate, safe and sustainable pensions for the European citizens throughout the EU; (based on a suggestion from EIOPA)
Amendment 184 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Welcomes the diversity of business models; calls for a differentiation in licencing, regulation and supervision regarding the nature, size, riskiness and complexity of entities;
Amendment 186 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)
Paragraph 13 a (new)
13a. Points out that a properly functioning market in financial services must ensure that entry barriers to new challengers that are not justified in terms on prudential and consumer protection grounds must be removed as much as possible; calls for an assessment of the extent to which current rules lead to greater market concentration;
Amendment 193 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Calls for an appropriate and clear-cut division of competences between EU and national level, bearing in mind that national supervisors have more knowledge of local market characteristics; is concerned about the effect of a one-size-fits-all supervisory approach on smaller and primarily nationally active entities within the Single Supervisory Mechanism (SSM);
Amendment 205 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Notes the achievements in establishing a banking union; stresses that the next step has to be its full implementation, including full capitalisation of national Deposit Guarantee Schemes (DGS) and the Single Resolution Fund (SRF); emphasises the aim of avoiding moral hazard and ensuring that risk-takers bear the costs when their risks materialise; criticises the low sensitivity to risk in the calculation of contributions to the SRF; highlights the need for stronger resilience of the euro area to local macroeconomic shocks; supports therefore the development of European deposit guarantee scheme based on a re-insurance system at the European level for the national or sectorial deposit guarantee schemes; warns that the creation of one single Deposit Guarantee Funds could create moral hazard and implicit subsidies between different business models with different risk profiles;
Amendment 217 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)
Paragraph 16 a (new)
16a. Notes that the de Larosière report recommended an ‘insurance union’ with a cross border resolution mechanism, for insurance undertakings, harmonised insurance guarantee schemes and the possibility of combined supervision of banking and insurance but no proposals have so far been made by the Commission;
Amendment 218 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 b (new)
Paragraph 16 b (new)
16b. Further notes that the de Larosière report also proposed a robust approach to ‘parallel’ or ‘shadow’ banking involving the detection of systemic entities, general transparency on risk and leverage and improved capital standards and that, to date, no comprehensive effort has been made to tackle this area;
Amendment 219 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 c (new)
Paragraph 16 c (new)
16c. Welcomes the work by the FSB on identifying systemic non-banks assessing and mitigating systemic risks posed by other shadow banking entities and activities; urges the Commission to provide an action plan for shadow banking to complete the work started with the proposals for transparency on Securities financing transactions and money market funds;
Amendment 248 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Recognises the efforts made to establish a more transparent securitisation market; is concerned of envisaged lowering of retention requirements; emphasises that stringent requirements for underlying high-quality assets and calibrations according to the actual risk profile are necessary, bearing in mind the riskiness of securitisation as shown during the crisis; calls on the Commission to conduct a thorough assessment of the benefits of securitisation for SMEs and the marketability of securitisation instruments as a matter of priority, and to report to Parliament;
Amendment 267 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Asks the Commission and supervisors to address the interaction between International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) and prudential requirements, and to review the impact of tax accounting on own funds; as more coherence would serve both the economy and the prudential supervisor,, and to review the impact of tax accounting on own funds; (Based on a contribution by the Confederation of German banks (BdB))
Amendment 273 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Stresses that efforts for a cultural change in the financial sector, have to be pursued further; acknowledgstresses the benefits of relationship banking for consumers and SMEsa diversified European banking sector the important role of relationship banking for consumers and SMEs; in financing micro- , small and medium enterprises, which can also be used to provide alternative methods of financing;
Amendment 278 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 a (new)
Paragraph 21 a (new)
21a. Underlines the detrimental effects of short-term orientation of market participants for the financial stability; calls, therefore, for introducing voting rights which can only be executed after minimum holding period and reminds of its decision for a quick implementation of a financial transaction tax;
Amendment 279 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 b (new)
Paragraph 21 b (new)
21b. Reminds that the financial crisis shed light on the lack of an effective means of imposing sanctions on key individuals responsible for failures in financial institutions under the existing regulatory framework; calls, therefore, to build on the proposals of the UK Parliamentary Commission to hold the responsible managers personally liable;
Amendment 280 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 c (new)
Paragraph 21 c (new)
21c. Underlines that the oligopolic structures revealed by the market shares of the three biggest rating agencies underscores that the conflict of interest rooted in this business model as not been overcome, calls for the promotion of alternative rating providers, which are funded more independently and not directly by their clients; and believes that social and ecological criteria (ESG criteria) have to be taken more into account in ratings;
Amendment 289 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Demands a stronger focus on appropriate balance be struck between the global competitiveness of the EU financial sectors and the interests of EU taxpayers and consumers of financial services be when making policy;
Amendment 300 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23 a (new)
Paragraph 23 a (new)
23a. Believes that the ESAs should be involved in the discussions on global regulatory principles within the international standard setting bodies; this would be key to ensure that European positions are properly reflected and precious know-how be taken on board; (based on a suggestion from EIOPA)
Amendment 314 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
26. Believes that better financial regulation starts withrequires that Member States applying, in a consistent manner, the current acquis; considers that attracting business through lower standards or gold-plating does not facilitate the functioning of the internal market;
Amendment 331 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28 a (new)
Paragraph 28 a (new)
28a. Calls on the Commission to require systemic insurers to have recovery and resolution plans as well as resolvability assessments in place, enhanced group supervision and higher loss absorbency requirements;
Amendment 332 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28 b (new)
Paragraph 28 b (new)
28b. Calls on the Commission to explore ways to reduce the unequal treatment of debt and equity in the tax systems of the Member States;
Amendment 340 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29
Paragraph 29
29. Welcomes the objectives of the better regulation agenda; underlines the role of REFIT in achieving an efficient and effective financial services regulation; at the same time, reminds that the focus of EU decision-making must be on improving regulation, not deregulating. ; is convinced that the result must be stricter rules with limited exemptions, with the medium-term objective of establishing an European book of financial service regulation, integrating and simplifying rules the current silo- based legislation; (Partly based on a contribution by BEUC)
Amendment 344 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29 a (new)
Paragraph 29 a (new)
29a. Calls on the ESAs to analyse and report more proactively on consumer trends, especially in relation to the returns and fees of retail products. (Based on a contribution by European Investors)
Amendment 353 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31 a (new)
Paragraph 31 a (new)
31a. Stresses that the revision of the ESA Regulations should ensure that the ESAs have the necessary resources to fulfil their tasks given by the co-legislators. (based on a suggestion from EIOPA)
Amendment 356 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32
Paragraph 32
32. Stresses the need to respect the interplay, consistency and coherence between the basic acts and delegated and implementing acts; insists that the Commission and the ESAs, when drafting delegated and implementing acts and guidelines, stick to the empowerments laid down in the basic acts and respect the co- legislators’ agreement; deplores that the coordination between the Commission (delegated acts) and the ESAs (technical standards) is insufficient and therefore may negatively affect the quality of compliance, particularly where detailed requirements are not agreed until shortly before the implementation deadline; (Based on contributions by the Confederation of German banks (BdB) and AIC)
Amendment 362 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34
Paragraph 34
34. Calls on the Commission to make any amendment made to the draft regulatory technical standards (RTS) and implementing technical standards (ITS) submitted by the ESAs transparent to the co-legislators; and stakeholders; (Based on a contribution by BEUC)
Amendment 365 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35
Paragraph 35
35. Emphasises that an early legal review by the Commission should not reduce the transparency of the process vis-à-vis Parliament and stakeholders; requests that during the drafting process the ESAs provide Parliament with provisional drafts; (Based on a contribution by BEUC)
Amendment 381 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 40 a (new)
Paragraph 40 a (new)
40a. Recalls Parliament’s resolution of March 2014 on with recommendations to the Commission on the European System of Financial Supervision (ESFS) Review that called for enhanced powers for the ESAs in relation to mediation, access to information, stress tests, consumer protection and for the ESRB in relation to macroprudential surveillance and coordination of national measures and to ensure its independence from microprudential and monetary policy bodies. Regrets the absence of proposals from the Commission to reflect the Parliaments demands in an upgrade the European System of Financial Supervision;
Amendment 382 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 40 b (new)
Paragraph 40 b (new)
40b. Calls on the Commission to propose measures to (1) facilitate the creation of banks with a mandate to promote long- term investment for regional development as well as banks which specially aim at establishing long-term relationships with retail customers and small and medium sized enterprises; and (2) to fully exploit the review process of the Capital Requirements legislation to introduce a simple set of rules, which does not compromise on ensuring financial stability, for small banks with a relationship banking approach, which is real economy focused and based on low- risk activities;
Amendment 383 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 40 c (new)
Paragraph 40 c (new)
40c. Calls on the Commission and ESAs to fully exploit their mandate in order to promote an effective EU wide standard for sustainable investment and to explore further evaluation approaches with a more encompassing definition of risk, including risks which stem from potential costs of climate change;
Amendment 388 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 41
Paragraph 41
41. Calls on the Commission and ESAs to conduct regular (at least annual) proportionality checks which should lead to a green paper to explore new approaches of promoting proportionality in financial regulation, particularly with regard to the requirements applicable for small and medium-sized market participants and on every draft legislative act, and to dedicate resources to this activity;
Amendment 389 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 41 a (new)
Paragraph 41 a (new)
41a. Calls on the Commission to propose measures to improve and streamline the decision-making process of the Single Resolution Mechanism (SRM) to enhance its effectiveness; stresses the importance of furthering the Banking Union specifically through a swift transposition of the Bank Resolution and Recovery Directive (BRRD) in all Member States and the proof that the SRM is fully operational; strengthening the SRM by (a) sufficiently high bail-in cushion (MREL at least 8%), (b) agreement on a bridge financing mechanism for the Single Resolution Fund (SRF) during the transition phase (as demanded in the Five Presidents’ Report); addressing possible pre-resolution funding problems of distressed banks; further harmonisation of the rules under CRD IV/CRR in order to strengthen the Single Supervisor; reduce the level of sovereign risks on bank balance sheets/modify the regulatory treatment of sovereign debt (as demanded in the Five Presidents’ Report);
Amendment 393 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 42
Paragraph 42
42. Stresses that the impact of individual legislative measures differs from their cumulative impact; calls on the Commission services, in corporation with the ESAs, SSM and ESRB, to conduct regular (at least annual) a comprehensive quantitative and qualitative assessment every five years of the cumulative impact of the EU financial services regulation at EU and Member State level; of the cumulative impact of the EU financial services regulation at EU and Member State level and assess whether the regulation is neutral with regard to competition or unintentionally favours big entities; calls on the Commission services, in corporation with the ESAs, SSM and ESRB, to conduct performance reviews with regard to EU financial services regulation and thereby assessing its effectiveness and efficiency as well as the appropriateness of options and national discretions; (Based on a contribution by German cooperative banks (Sparda-Verband))
Amendment 398 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 42 a (new)
Paragraph 42 a (new)
42a. Reminds that the quantification of impacts of legislative measures is very difficult, since especially its benefits, such as more harmonised of standards of capital, which provide better information about the banking sector, are difficult to measure;
Amendment 402 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 43 – introductory part
Paragraph 43 – introductory part
43. Calls on the Commission services to rely in its assessments also on independent research and to draw evidence based conclusions and to complete the first assessment by the end of 2016 and to report on the overall impact and, in separate chapters, on the following:
Amendment 406 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 43 – indent 1 a (new)
Paragraph 43 – indent 1 a (new)
– whether and how effectively the recommendations for the EU legislative framework for the financial system in the G20 communications, the de Larosière report and other EU or international bodies have been addressed since 2008,
Amendment 409 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 43 – indent 2
Paragraph 43 – indent 2
– possible gaps, loopholes, overlaps and unintended consequences,
Amendment 411 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 43 – indent 2 a (new)
Paragraph 43 – indent 2 a (new)
– the need for structural reforms placing limits on the size, complexity, and interconnectedness of certain financial firms,
Amendment 412 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 43 – indent 2 b (new)
Paragraph 43 – indent 2 b (new)
– the need to reform the solvency and large exposure regime with regard to the treatment of sovereign and interbank exposures as a risk to systemic stability,
Amendment 413 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 43 – indent 2 c (new)
Paragraph 43 – indent 2 c (new)
– the effectiveness and appropriateness of the framework for macroprudential supervision in the EU,
Amendment 414 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 43 – indent 2 d (new)
Paragraph 43 – indent 2 d (new)
– the capacity of ESAs to fulfil the tasks given to them under the current legislative framework and on the steps needed to improve the framework especially the financing of the ESAs in the near future, (based on a suggestion from EIOPA)
Amendment 415 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 43 – indent 2 e (new)
Paragraph 43 – indent 2 e (new)
– the effects on consumers and customers, (based on a suggestion by EIOPA)
Amendment 420 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 43 – indent 4 a (new)
Paragraph 43 – indent 4 a (new)
– the impact on financial stability of IFRS fair value accounting in comparison to prudent accounting,