Is the Larosière Proposal on European Financial Regulation on the Right Path?

2010 ◽  
Vol 45 (1) ◽  
pp. 59-73 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marco Onado
Keyword(s):  
Financial Regulation ◽  
The Right ◽  
European Financial Regulation

Part II The Financial Crisis of 2007–2011, 9 The Initial Response to the Financial Crisis by the EU and Elsewhere

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mccormick Roger ◽  
Stears Chris
Keyword(s):  
Financial Crisis ◽  
European Commission ◽  
Financial Stability ◽  
Financial Regulation ◽  
Initial Response ◽  
Banking Supervision ◽  
Basel Committee ◽  
Regulation And Supervision ◽  
European Financial Regulation ◽  
The Eu

This chapter discusses the various laws, regulations, and comparable measures that were passed or proposed in response to the financial crisis in the EU and elsewhere. It covers the responses of the de Larosière Report, G20, the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, and the Financial Stability Board. The de Larosière Report, for instance, was commissioned by the President of the European Commission in October 2008 and delivered on 25 February 2009. The report sought ‘to give advice on the future of European financial regulation and supervision’ and has formed the basis of many of the responses to the financial crisis at EU level. The G20 issued a comprehensive communiqué on the crisis at the London ‘Summit’ of 2 April 2009, covering a number of macro-economic and other ‘architectural’ issues.

Cross-border regulation and fintech: are transnational cooperation agreements the right way to go?

2019 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 367-395
Author(s):  
Petja Ivanova
Keyword(s):  
At Risk ◽  
Financial Markets ◽  
Financial Stability ◽  
Financial Regulation ◽  
Financial Sector ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Transnational Cooperation ◽  
Regulatory Instruments ◽  
The Right ◽  
Financial Technology

Abstract In light of inevitable cross-border scenarios in today’s highly interconnected financial markets and since financial stability may be put at risk by the rising phenomenon of financial technology (known as fintech), the importance of developing effective ways to regulate fintech across borders cannot be neglected. The financial sector has changed from a traditional one marked by conventional financial intermediation structures towards an increasingly technology-affected one. Not only this change but anticipated developments too require if not extensively reconsidering the design of financial regulation,1 then at least not turning a blind eye to shaping developments. Whether the numerous recently sprouting bilateral fintech cooperation agreements are adequate transnational regulatory instruments to address fintech effectively across borders is for this paper to elucidate.

Legal Fragmentation, Extraterritoriality and Uncertainty in Global Financial Regulation

2016 ◽  
Vol 37 (2) ◽  
pp. 406-434 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthias Lehmann
Keyword(s):  
Financial Stability ◽  
Financial Regulation ◽  
Regulatory Competition ◽  
Collaborative Approach ◽  
Global Regulation ◽  
Information Base ◽  
The Right ◽  
Current Mechanism

Abstract This article explores the reasons for legal fragmentation and extraterritoriality in the global regulation of finance. It shows that duplicative and overreaching rules are not necessarily the result of regulatory competition in which egoistic states undercut the rules of others in order to improve their position. An equally pivotal problem that global financial regulation has to cope with is uncertainty. Such uncertainty exists with regard to the right measures for achieving financial stability and with regard to the willingness and ability of other states to adopt them. The article analyses approaches to overcoming legal fragmentation while maintaining global financial stability. It suggests that there is no alternative to a collaborative approach, using intensified regulatory dialogue, a broadening of the information base and deference to other states’ rules. In order to improve the current mechanism, it proposes the introduction of multinational panels to assess whether regulatory and supervisory set-ups of two or more states lead to comparable outcomes, in which case they must be recognised as being ‘equivalent’ or ‘substituted compliant’.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document