Market-Based Finance, Debt and Systemic Risk: A Critique of the EU Capital Markets Union

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vincenzo Bavoso
Author(s):  
Emilios Avgouleas

This chapter offers a critical overview of the issues that the European Union 27 (EU-27) will face in the context of making proper use of financial innovation to further market integration and risk sharing in the internal financial market, both key objectives of the drive to build a Capital Markets Union. Among these is the paradigm shift signalled by a technological revolution in the realm of finance and payments, which combines advanced data analytics and cloud computing (so-called FinTech). The chapter begins with a critical analysis of financial innovation and FinTech. It then traces the EU market integration efforts and explains the restrictive path of recent developments. It considers FinTech's potential to aid EU market integration and debates the merits of regulation dealing with financial innovation in the context of building a capital markets union in EU-27.


Author(s):  
de Serière Victor

This chapter addresses the non-financial information to be included in a prospectus, alongside an analysis of the fundamental concept of materiality. It examines some issues relating to non-financial information to be included in a prospectus under the new EU prospectus regime. A level playing field in terms of uniform investor protection within the EU accordingly has regrettably not been achieved. This chapter argues that the Prospectus Regulation could have achieved more by requiring Member States to impose certain uniform tort law requirements in their national prospectus liability regimes. Another topic addressed in this chapter relates to the possibility for offerors of securities to obtain liability protection by including exoneration clauses in prospectuses. The Prospectus Regulation does not regulate this topic, but the analysis in this chapter shows that the possibilities appear to be severely limited; practice in any event shows that exoneration is seldom (if ever) stipulated. The chapter concludes that all this appears to be relatively good news in terms of investor protection generally, but the lack of harmonisation stands in the way of a unified EU capital markets union.


This book provides integrated analysis of and guidance on the Prospectus Regulation 2017, civil liability for a misleading prospectus, and securities litigation in a European context. The prospectus rules are one of the cornerstones of the EU Capital Markets Union and analysis of this aspect of harmonisation, the areas not covered by the rules, and the impact of Brexit, provides valuable reference for all advising and researching this field. The book discusses the subjects of Prospectus Regulation from both a legal and economic perspective. It focuses on key subjects of the new Prospectus Regulation, providing an in-depth analysis of each issue. The book then moves on to explain the domestic law on liability for a misleading prospectus, this issue being omitted from the Regulation. The law and practice in each of the key capital markets centres in Europe is analysed and compared, with the UK chapter covering the issues and possible solutions under Brexit. A chapter on securities litigation gives full consideration of conflicts of laws issues with reference to the Brussels I regulation, and the Rome I and II Regulations. The book concludes by looking to the future of disclosure practices in connection with securities offerings in the EU.


2020 ◽  
Vol 24 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 248-267
Author(s):  
Nina Haerter

In the 11 years since the outbreak of the financial crisis, the EU has introduced many policy initiatives directed at the financial sector, the most recent one being the Capital Markets Union. The official aim is to integrate Europe’s financial markets, fulfilling decades-old wishes for a Single Market for capital. Some scholars have already voiced concerns about different elements of Capital Markets Union since its inception in 2015, but the extent to which this critique was generalizable remained unclear. Through an analysis of policy documents and interview data inspired by the ‘What’s the Problem Represented to be?’-approach, this paper reveals two common threads among the many Capital Markets Union proposals, which are not explicitly acknowledged: a reduction of prudential rules and various forms of incentivizing financial products with public funds. It is therefore argued that Capital Markets Union is not a market integration project (as its name and official narrative suggest), as much as it is the re-establishment of EU-led financialization, following a long tradition of asymmetrical integration in the Union.


2019 ◽  
Vol 76 ◽  
pp. 153-170
Author(s):  
Michał Czykierda

In September 2015, the European Commission announced the first actions of its plan to build a Capital Markets Union in Europe. The undertaken restructuring of the financing model is designed to make a shift in the main channel through which enterprises raise investment funds, from loans to capital, and – as a result – contribute to more dynamic growth in the EU Member States. I describe the key features of the Commission’s plan and discuss the economic rationale behind it. The plan has many strengths but also some weaknesses, such as limited ambition in the supervision and enforcement of securities regulations. Other challenges to the development of European capital markets include the financial transactions tax, the low-interest-rate environment, cultural reasons, and potential political opposition. My paper deals first of all with highlighting the structure of the financial sector in the European Union. It provides a overview of the role of the different financial and no financial sectors in offering capital funds to accomplish the needs of households, companies, governments, etc.. I also describe the history of capital market integration in the EU. The paper also analyses some important aspects of the implementation of the Capital Markets Union, which will be a key step in completing the EU Single Market. I concluded that the integration of the capital markets will be a strong step in supporting economic growth and competitiveness in the EU in the long run.


Author(s):  
Bas Zebregs ◽  
Victor de Serière

This chapter discusses the EU's efforts to strengthen the European clearing and settlement framework for securities and derivatives transactions. That exercise is pa should promote access and therefore competitrt of the EU's plans to establish an integrated European Capital Markets Union. Important steps have already been undertaken, and more legislation is now under construction, designed to lead to a comprehensive robust market infrastructure in the EU. These include the EU Commission's proposals to update the segregation provisions in the European Market Infrastructure Regulation and the proposed regulation dealing with the recovery and resolution of central counterparties. The chapter shows that although the advances made are significant, there is quite a long way to go before a fully integrated and risk-averse environment for clearing and settlement is achieved.


Author(s):  
Erik PM Vermeulen

The Capital Markets Union (CMU) aims to strengthen capital markets and investments in the EU. The rationale behind such a union is that it is necessary to provide businesses, particularly start-up companies, with a greater choice of funding at lower cost. More generally, it is assumed that, in the long-term, greater choice increases access to finance and fosters economic growth. This chapter argues that although the CMU may be a necessary step, it has to be situated in a much broader discussion about how to create successful innovation ecosystems. Such an approach highlights the sector-specific needs of start-ups (and scale-ups) and the importance of mobilizing other players, particularly established corporations.


Author(s):  
Niamh Moloney

The EU currently manages access by non-EU/-EEA states to the EU financial market through its ‘third country’ rules, which typically require that the financial governance regime of the state in question is ‘equivalent’ to the EU regime. However, the UK's departure from the EU by 31 March 2019 has raised questions about how UK, as a ‘third country,’ ensures access to the EU financial market, and how a related Free Trade Agreement (FTA) might be configured. This chapter first considers the current regulatory requirements governing third country access to the EU capital market and their implications for the Capital Markets Union. It then examines the evolution of third country/equivalence-related techniques internationally for capital markets and how they might be relevant for the EU. It also speculates as to how the EU's equivalence arrangements for third countries are likely to develop, including in the context of an EU/UK FTA.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document