Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-09-23-Speech-2-326"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030923.11.2-326"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, confrontation lay at the very root of this report because of two different philosophies. The first considered that investment firms – businesses practising internalisation – should be authorised to forge a strictly bilateral relationship with their clients, which had the disadvantage of not enabling these clients to benefit from the best possible price on the market, or even to learn what that best price was, or even quite simply to ensure price formation, which can only emerge from a general confrontation of bids and offers. The second philosophy, the so-called philosophy of regulated markets, considered that consumer protection required competition on a single, transparent market between all bids and offers, so as to enable clients to know the price and to benefit from the best possible price.
Were these two philosophies compatible? Yes, provided that the policies of investment firms were subject to common rules. In this respect the Commission text was very satisfactory. I am not sure, unlike Mr Bolkestein, that Mrs Villiers's report does markedly improve your initial text. But we can live with this compromise, because it is, as we have just been reminded, relatively satisfactory. It allows us to defend true principles and to act on them.
This statement is however subject to two reservations. The first concerns the issue of price improvement. It is not a question of knowing whether the client has the best price. Of course he should have the best price! The issue with price improvement is that it makes it possible for investment firms to apply a different price from the one that they publish and thus to prevent the market from contributing to the formation of fair prices.
Secondly, we are also unable to accept transactions relating to portfolios that consist, for the purpose of removing a transaction from the constraints of the directive, of an amalgam of securities of different kinds bearing no relation to each other. Subject to these two essential reservations, where some of us will be voting against the proposal, we consider Mrs Villiers's report to be satisfactory. I would be happy to congratulate the rapporteur if I felt – and this is a reservation – that she had been completely fair throughout the negotiations between the groups."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples