Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-09-23-Speech-2-329"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030923.11.2-329"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, everyone is congratulating the rapporteur, so I will do likewise, and I recognise the progress that has been made between what she referred to as the ‘Prodi amendment’ and the text that is on the table today, even if influences from outside the continent have had a significant bearing on our debate.
We are all familiar with the directive's objectives: to ensure that the financial sector allocates our economy's financial resources in the best possible way. On this basis, I believe that the text that we have drafted is expected by all traders. All that remains is for me to make a few essential observations.
To protect non-professional investors, financial companies need to take the trouble to check their level of knowledge and their resources. Execution only is not a continental practice and by suddenly imposing it we would run the risk of destabilising many investors. Secondly, for competition to be genuine, information must be made available to all players. Transparency is therefore essential. Pre-trade transparency should not admit of any exception and I can accept that it does not apply to limit price orders and is restricted to orders of a standard size, but the possibility of price improvement, already mentioned by Mr Jean-Louis Bourlanges, seems to me to be an extremely worrying development.
Finally, in the vote on Thursday, I think that we should try to restate the position that we in Parliament adopted on the 'delivery' regulation, which is to say that we should ask the Commission to draft a directive on this point."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples