13

resultat

Ord
Publikationstyp
Politikområde
Författare
Datum

Review of the European Market Infrastructure Regulation (EMIR): Updated rules on supervision of central counterparties (CCPs)

18-02-2019

The increasing importance of central counterparties (CCPs) and challenges such as the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the EU call for a more comprehensive supervision of CCPs in EU and non-EU countries to secure financial market infrastructure and build confidence. In June 2017, the Commission proposed amendments to Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 (ESMA – European Securities and Markets Authority) and Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 (EMIR – European Market Infrastructure), to strengthen the regulatory ...

The increasing importance of central counterparties (CCPs) and challenges such as the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the EU call for a more comprehensive supervision of CCPs in EU and non-EU countries to secure financial market infrastructure and build confidence. In June 2017, the Commission proposed amendments to Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 (ESMA – European Securities and Markets Authority) and Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 (EMIR – European Market Infrastructure), to strengthen the regulatory framework: EU CCPs would be supervised by national authorities in agreement with ESMA, and third-country CCPs subject to different requirements depending on whether (or not) they are systemically important. The European Parliament’s Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee (ECON) adopted its report in May 2018, and the Council agreed its position in November. Trilogue negotiations are now under way.

Framework for a pan-European personal pension product (PEPP)

21-11-2018

Europe’s population is ageing, due to people living longer and having fewer children, putting pressure on pension systems and leading to reforms to make public pensions more sustainable – and often less generous – in future. To support retirement incomes, the European Commission’s 2012 pensions white paper called for more opportunities for citizens to save in safe and good-value complementary pensions. The proposed framework for a pan-European personal pension product (PEPP) aims to encourage the ...

Europe’s population is ageing, due to people living longer and having fewer children, putting pressure on pension systems and leading to reforms to make public pensions more sustainable – and often less generous – in future. To support retirement incomes, the European Commission’s 2012 pensions white paper called for more opportunities for citizens to save in safe and good-value complementary pensions. The proposed framework for a pan-European personal pension product (PEPP) aims to encourage the development of personal pensions (that is, voluntary, individually funded pensions) in Europe, to support retirement saving and strengthen the single market for capital by making more funds available for investment. Generally the proposal is considered a welcome extra option to support retirement savings and investment. However differing national pension systems and tax treatments are noted as challenges, although the Commission has also issued a tax recommendation. Council agreed a general approach on 19 June 2018 and the ECON committee voted its report and negotiating mandate on 3 September, hence trilogues have started. Second edition. The ‘EU Legislation in Progress’ briefings are updated at key stages throughout the legislative procedure. Please note this document has been designed for on-line viewing.

Pan-European pension product

21-03-2018

This European added value assessment, prepared for the European Parliament's Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON), analyses the added value of a pan-European pension product, in particular from the taxation viewpoint. It presents the issues that led to the PEPP proposal being made and provides a short overview of key stakeholders' opinions and existing studies. Moreover it considers the question of PEPP taxation and the impact of costs on final pensions. The analysis concludes by identifying ...

This European added value assessment, prepared for the European Parliament's Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON), analyses the added value of a pan-European pension product, in particular from the taxation viewpoint. It presents the issues that led to the PEPP proposal being made and provides a short overview of key stakeholders' opinions and existing studies. Moreover it considers the question of PEPP taxation and the impact of costs on final pensions. The analysis concludes by identifying the potential European added value that could be achieved by means of the PEPP proposal.

Pan-European Personal Pension Product

27-10-2017

This note seeks to provide an initial analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the European Commission's impact assessment (IA) accompanying the above proposal, adopted on 29 June 2017 and referred to Parliament’s Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON). Pension systems across the EU vary considerably. While state-based public pensions constitute the most important part of retirement income, they may be complemented by occupational pensions and/or (national) personal pensions (private ...

This note seeks to provide an initial analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the European Commission's impact assessment (IA) accompanying the above proposal, adopted on 29 June 2017 and referred to Parliament’s Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON). Pension systems across the EU vary considerably. While state-based public pensions constitute the most important part of retirement income, they may be complemented by occupational pensions and/or (national) personal pensions (private pension savings by households) (IA, pp. 4-5). The IA observes that although demographic change and limited public budgets increase the pressure on public pension systems and their adequacy, currently only 27 % of the EU population between 25 and 59 years old, representing 13 % of the total EU population, invest in personal pensions (IA, p. 11, Annex 6, pp. 97-98). Moreover, the 2015 Action Plan on a Capital Markets Union found the single market for personal pension products to be highly fragmented, due to divergent national and European rules. It concluded that this fragmentation prevented providers from developing innovative and competitive products and savers from receiving good quality, flexible and easily portable personal pensions (IA, p. 4, 9). The availability of personal pension products varies widely from Member State to Member State, and the existing offers differ considerably as regards both their accumulation (saving) and decumulation (pay-out) phases; this makes their portability difficult and leads to a generally low take-up. Against this backdrop, as announced in its mid-term review of the Capital Markets Union Action Plan, the Commission came forward in June 2017 with a legislative proposal to create a voluntary pan-European personal pension product (PEPP). The aim is to complement the existing national personal pensions and to encourage private capital investments in retirement savings on an EU scale. Given the relevance of tax incentives for personal pension products, the proposal is accompanied by a recommendation on tax treatment of such products by Member States, which is also covered by the IA under examination.

Extern avdelning

Kramer, Esther

CETA: Investment and the right to regulate

08-02-2017

Under international public law, states can be asked to compensate investors whenever regulatory measures become expropriation measures or violate standards of treatment, such as the 'fair and equitable treatment of investors' obligation. The EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) takes a relatively restrictive approach to these investor rights.

Under international public law, states can be asked to compensate investors whenever regulatory measures become expropriation measures or violate standards of treatment, such as the 'fair and equitable treatment of investors' obligation. The EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) takes a relatively restrictive approach to these investor rights.

Crowdfunding in Europe: Introduction and state of play

16-01-2017

Crowdfunding is a relatively 'young' form of financing – especially for SMEs and start-ups, but also for not-for-profit projects – that is developing fast in Europe. While researchers point out its benefits, among them the fact that project owners have greater control, and financial risk is spread among a larger number of people, they also note its drawbacks. The latter include a high cost of capital, occasional displays of a 'herd mentality', capable of depriving potentially worthier projects of ...

Crowdfunding is a relatively 'young' form of financing – especially for SMEs and start-ups, but also for not-for-profit projects – that is developing fast in Europe. While researchers point out its benefits, among them the fact that project owners have greater control, and financial risk is spread among a larger number of people, they also note its drawbacks. The latter include a high cost of capital, occasional displays of a 'herd mentality', capable of depriving potentially worthier projects of adequate funding, and risks for investors from incompetence or fraud on the part of the project owners, and unclear regulations. The European Commission (through a communication and two reports) and the European Parliament (through three resolutions) have taken an active interest in this form of financing. As a result, the Commission recently conducted a study on the state of the European crowdfunding market. It found that, while crowdfunding is developing fast, it is still concentrated in a few countries (the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands), which have introduced tailored domestic regimes, and that it remains, for the time being, a national phenomenon with limited cross-border activity. The study therefore concluded that for the moment there is no strong case for EU-level policy intervention. Nonetheless, given the encouraging trends and the potential of crowdfunding to become a key source of financing for SMEs over the long term, the Commission noted that it will maintain regular dialogue with European supervisory authorities, Member States and the crowdfunding sector to monitor and review its development.

Recast occupational pensions directive (IORP II)

15-11-2016

The Institutions for Occupational Retirement Provision (IORP) Directive, from 2003, covers certain occupational pension savings. IORPs hold assets worth €2.5 trillion on behalf of around 75 million Europeans and are found mainly in the United Kingdom (55.9 % of IORP assets) and the Netherlands (30.7 %). Around a further 10 % of IORP assets are in Germany (4.5 %), Italy (2.8 %) and Ireland (2.4 %). The proposed revision (known as IORP II), to be debated during the Parliament's November plenary session ...

The Institutions for Occupational Retirement Provision (IORP) Directive, from 2003, covers certain occupational pension savings. IORPs hold assets worth €2.5 trillion on behalf of around 75 million Europeans and are found mainly in the United Kingdom (55.9 % of IORP assets) and the Netherlands (30.7 %). Around a further 10 % of IORP assets are in Germany (4.5 %), Italy (2.8 %) and Ireland (2.4 %). The proposed revision (known as IORP II), to be debated during the Parliament's November plenary session, aims to improve the governance, risk management, transparency and information provision of IORPs and help increase cross-border IORP activity.

Occupational pensions: Revision of the Institutions for Occupational Retirement Provision Directive (IORP II)

11-12-2015

In 2014, the European Commission proposed a revision (‘IORP II’) of the existing Institutions for Occupational Retirement Provision (IORP) Directive of 2003, which covers certain occupational pension savings. These are overwhelmingly in the United Kingdom (55.9% of IORP assets) and the Netherlands (30.7%). The proposed revision aims to improve the governance, risk management, transparency and information provision of IORPs and help increase cross-border IORP activity, strengthening the single market ...

In 2014, the European Commission proposed a revision (‘IORP II’) of the existing Institutions for Occupational Retirement Provision (IORP) Directive of 2003, which covers certain occupational pension savings. These are overwhelmingly in the United Kingdom (55.9% of IORP assets) and the Netherlands (30.7%). The proposed revision aims to improve the governance, risk management, transparency and information provision of IORPs and help increase cross-border IORP activity, strengthening the single market. The proposal did not include new prudential rules (i.e. capital requirements) for IORPs following a long and controversial debate. Stakeholders have in general welcomed the focus of the proposal and the lack of new prudential rules, but feel the revision is overly detailed and prescriptive and does not respect national competences, nor reflect the variety of IORPs and their position as social (not just financial) entities. The EESC and some national parliaments have made similar comments on the proposal. The Council has agreed on its negotiating mandate, while the ECON Committee is expected to vote on its draft report in early 2016. A more recent edition of this document is available. Find it by searching by the document title at this address: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/home.html

The Investment Chapters of the EU’s International Trade and Investment Agreements in a Comparative Perspective

29-09-2015

Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) clauses in international investment agreements have traditionally been based on an approach which may be termed ‘light touch regulation’ of investment protection. The avenue taken by the recently negotiated EU draft agreements, the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) and the EU-Singapore Free Trade Agreement (EUSFTA), can be described as ‘more comprehensive regulation’. Likewise, EUSFTA and CETA provide a rather detailed body of law on substantive ...

Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) clauses in international investment agreements have traditionally been based on an approach which may be termed ‘light touch regulation’ of investment protection. The avenue taken by the recently negotiated EU draft agreements, the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) and the EU-Singapore Free Trade Agreement (EUSFTA), can be described as ‘more comprehensive regulation’. Likewise, EUSFTA and CETA provide a rather detailed body of law on substantive standards for the protection of foreign investment. While this may add to the clarity and predictability of the current regime of international investment law, it may also lead to a reduced standard of protection. Compared with other agreements, EUSFTA and CETA have attempted to rebalance the protection of private property and the host state’s regulatory autonomy. In terms of the regulation of ISDS proceedings, EUSFTA and CETA preserve its principle characteristics but deliver moderate change in five areas: (1) consultation mechanisms, (2) the relationship between ISDS and domestic remedies, (3) the appointment and conduct of arbitrators, (4) cost allocation, and (5) transparency rules. This study proposes (1) further development regarding the coordination between effective domestic legal systems and ISDS and (2) the start of negotiations for the establishment of a permanent appeals mechanism in a regional or bilateral context.

Money market funds

20-04-2015

Money market funds (MMFs) are a type of collective fund that invests in short-term debt. During the financial crisis their liquidity and stability were challenged, which prompted regulators globally to propose rules intended to make MMFs more crisis-resilient. The Parliament is due to vote on the Commission's proposal for a regulation setting rules on MMFs in the Single Market.

Money market funds (MMFs) are a type of collective fund that invests in short-term debt. During the financial crisis their liquidity and stability were challenged, which prompted regulators globally to propose rules intended to make MMFs more crisis-resilient. The Parliament is due to vote on the Commission's proposal for a regulation setting rules on MMFs in the Single Market.

Kommande evenemang

26-05-2020
COVID-19 and the role of EIB in the EU response: public hearing
Utfrågning -
BUDG ECON
03-06-2020
EPRS online Book Talk | One of Them: From Albert Square to Parliament Square
Övrigt -
EPRS
11-06-2020
CONT Public Hearing: Implementation of EU funds
Utfrågning -
CONT

Partner