Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-02-17-Speech-4-026"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000217.2.4-026"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"First of all, regarding the remarks of Mr Crowley, who asked whether the second proposal could not simply consist in taking over a pure ISD approach; the objections of the Commission to that proposal would be the following: such an approach would pose difficulties which would arise from two different authorisations which may even involve different authorities and non-consistent sets of rules; moreover there would be no provisions whatsoever on conflicts of interest. For example, a management company might be doing underwriting business and, if not able to sell, it would put the securities in the fund it would manage, or else there might be difficulties in which order business should be executed if the management company did brokering business. Furthermore the proposal put forward by Mr Crowley would require a change of the ISD which at present – as I am sure he already knows – does not cover collective management business. Lastly, his proposal would not give any passport to management companies which do not want to render ISD activities.
As regards the question put by Mr Huhne, his reference in the intervention he made this morning is to hedging operations. But hedging operations are already allowed in the existing Article 21(1) of Directive 611/85 on UCITS. So what Mr Huhne wants is already possible.
A question has been put by Mrs Villiers who referred to enhancing portfolio management. That is also something which is allowed under present legislation. I refer to the same Article 21 I referred to in relation to Mr Huhne’s question.
In her question Mrs Kauppi asks why the Commission has prepared a package of measures distributed in two separate proposals. The reason is that the first proposal focuses essentially on the product, while the second proposal focuses essentially on the service provider, and on prospectuses for UCITS. The separation of these two proposals which deal with two different sets of problems would facilitate the negotiating process in the Council. The Commission has not only to listen to Parliament and take into account parliamentary proposals but, as is well-known, must also deal with the Council. That is the reason why the Commission has put forward these two separate proposals.
Lastly, Mr Balfe has complained that there are, in his opinion, too many limits in the whole proposal the Commission has put forward. It seems to us that these limits are justified: firstly, by the need to diversify investments; secondly, because of the vulnerability to the need to reimburse investment at any time; thirdly, in order to avoid an inordinate influence over the investment funds. These are the reasons why the Commission believes, because of the prudence that has to be exercised in this field, that these various limits are necessary."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples