Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-12-12-Speech-3-373"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20071212.34.3-373"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Madam President, Commissioner, I should like to thank the rapporteur for his text. The issues it tackles are recurring ones. For example, what exactly divides institutional and professional investors from private investors? Some people would have us think there is a sort of ‘Great Wall of China’ between the two. I am unconvinced, and recent events have shown the extent to which financial innovation spreads from one category of investor to another, right down to the individual saver. The fiction that we can design legislation entirely around the existence of two types of investor – enlightened, professional investors on the one hand and small savers on the other – is, in my view, a dangerous one. We are well aware of the gradual slippage of investment products. The notion of two kinds of investor is all very well but we need to recognise very clearly how we apply it.
The second question I would like to raise – which is also reflected in other texts concerning the financial markets – is about information for investors. This is obviously of key importance, yet we are starting from scratch because the complexity of financial innovation is something new that has not yet been properly acknowledged or confronted. To leave it at that, however, is not good enough: there is no substitute for responsibility on the part of those engaged in product placement and we need to remember that.
Thirdly, Commissioner, I have to say that I think you slipped up with regard to the connection between implementation of the MiFID Directive and the UCITS Directive. Does it make sense for the MiFID Directive to be implemented in the Member States before we even know how it will relate to the UCITS Directive? I think the current situation would be more balanced had we had proceeded otherwise.
With regard to taxation, the rapporteur has mentioned the implications for fund mergers. I think we also need to bear in mind the implications for product placement, which could be complicated by obstacles of a purely fiscal nature.
I should also like to say something about the Socialists’ amendment because the reality of the market in these products differs between countries that produce them, countries that buy them and countries that both produce and buy them. We have introduced the concept of reciprocity, which would apply not only to opening markets and to market access but also to the nature of regulatory provision and supervision. I think these elements are essential because the idea of a non-EU country which only produced these products having access to our markets on any sort of terms simply because we had access to its market (which might well be of no interest to European consumers) seems either unrealistic or purely theoretical and I cannot accept it.
The rapporteur has suggested more than once that reciprocity would be in breach of WTO rules. But Commissioner, I ask you: what did we do when we recognised equivalence rules with the United States? That is precisely the approach we are asking you to take here. It is also suggested that the concept is unrealistic because we do not have harmonisation inside the European Union. If, however, negotiating equivalence with third countries encouraged us to establish a common standard of regulation and supervision inside the Union, would that not constitute substantial progress?"@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples