Sorszám Cím Oldalszám 1. AZ EURÓPAI PARLAMENT ÉS A TANÁCS 2009/14/EK

Átírás

1 Az Európai Unió Hivatalos Lapjában (2009.március) kihirdetett jogforrások listája, illetve a pénzügyi szolgáltatások szektorral kapcsolatban az Európai Bizottság honlapján közzétett hírek Tartalomjegyzék: Az Európai Unió Hivatalos Lapja - L (Jogszabályok) Sorszám Cím Oldalszám 1. AZ EURÓPAI PARLAMENT ÉS A TANÁCS 2009/14/EK 2 IRÁNYELVE (2009. március 11.) a betétbiztosítási rendszerekről szóló 94/19/EK irányelvnek a fedezeti szint és a kifizetési határidő tekintetében történő módosításáról 2. A BIZOTTSÁG HATÁROZATA (2008. október 21.) a Magyar Köztársaság által a Postabank és Takarékpénztár Rt./Erste Bank Hungary Nyrt. tekintetében végrehajtott C 35/04. számú intézkedésről 3 Sajtóbejelentések Sorszám Cím Oldalszám 1. Payments: Commission and ECB provide further clarification to 4 ensure timely launch of Single Euro Payments Area (SEPA) Direct Debit scheme 2. Charlie McCREEVY 5 European Commissioner for Internal Market and Services Financial Markets & Economic Recovery Horwarth Bastow Charleton Conference Strategies in a Crisis Forum Limerick, 20 March State aid: Commission authorises temporary Hungarian scheme 9 allowing subsidised state guarantees to boost real economy 4. Financial market supervision: Commission launches 10 consultation of interested parties 5. Joaquín Almunia 11 European Commissioner for Economic and Monetary Policy The crisis and beyond: what priorities for European Financial Markets? 2 nd Financial Centre meeting Frankfurt, 5 March Charlie McCREEVY European Commissioner for Internal Market and Services Closing remarks: Financial inclusion and education in the EU 16

2 UniCredit Group Workshop on Financial Inclusion for Migrants Brussels, 4 March Commission calls on EU leaders to stay united against the crisis, move fast on financial market reform and show global leadership at G20 19 Jogszabályok 1. Jogszabály AZ EURÓPAI PARLAMENT ÉS A TANÁCS 2009/14/EK IRÁNYELVE (2009. március 11.) a betétbiztosítási rendszerekről szóló 94/19/EK irányelvnek a fedezeti szint és a kifizetési határidő tekintetében történő módosításáról Megjelent: L68 (III. 13.) Jogforrás tartalma: Az Irányelv a Bizottság azon szándékát tükrözi, hogy előmozdítsa a betétbiztosítási rendszerek konvergenciáját a 94/19/EK irányelv módosításával. A korábbi szabályozás már előír bizonyos alapfedezetet a betétesek számára, a jelenlegi pénzügyi zavarok azonban szükségessé teszik e fedezet emelését. A betétesek bizalmának fenntartása, valamint a pénzügyi piacok nagyobb stabilitásának elérése érdekében az irányelv előírja, hogy a minimális fedezeti szintet EUR-ra kell emelni, továbbá, hogy a tagállamoknak december 31-ig az egyes betétesek összevont betéteinek fedezetét EUR-ban kell megállapítani, arra az esetre, ha a betétek befagytak. (A betéteket akkor lehet befagyottnak tekinteni, ha a korai beavatkozási vagy átszervezési intézkedések nem jártak sikerrel.) Az értékhatár emelést nem kell végrehajtani, amennyiben a Bizottság december 31-ig elkészített hatástanulmánya alapján egy ilyen fedezetemelés és harmonizáció nem megfelelő és pénzügyileg nem valósítható meg minden tagállamban. Az Irányelv lehetővé teszi a tagországok számára, hogy az euroban megállapított összegeket saját nemzeti valutájukra számítsák át, és előírja, hogy a betétesek részére nemzeti valutában ténylegesen kifizetett összegek egyezzenek meg az Irányelvben meghatározottakkal. Az Irányelv a kifizetési határidő húsz munkanapra való csökkentését írja elő, szemben a jelenleg meghatározott három hónappal. Ez az időszak kizárólag rendkívüli körülmények esetén, és az illetékes hatóságok általi jóváhagyást követően hosszabbítható meg. Az ilyen meghosszabbítás nem haladhatja meg a tíz munkanapot, amelyre a jelenlegi szabályozás kilenc hónapot biztosít. Az Irányelv azt is előírja, hogy azokban az esetekben, amikor a kifizetést az illetékes hatóságok határozata indítja el, a határozatot a lehető leghamarabb, de minden esetben 2

3 legkésőbb öt munkanappal azt követően meg kell hozni, hogy először meggyőződtek arról, hogy egy hitelintézet elmulasztotta az esedékes és kifizetendő betétek kifizetését. Az irányelv a tagállamoknak előírja, hogy tegyenek a lehető legrövidebb időn belül intézkedéseket a megfelelő összegeknek az érintett betétes kérelmére történő, az adott kérelmet követő legfeljebb három napon belüli sürgősségi kifizetésének biztosítására. Az Irányelv rendelekezései a tagállamokat arra ösztönzi a működő betétbiztosítási rendszerek kapcsán, hogy a rájuk háruló kötelezettségekre vonatkozóan kössenek megállapodásokat vagy fejlesszék tovább a már meglévő megállapodásokat. A tagállamoknak június 30-ig kell hatályba léptetni azokat a törvényi, rendeleti és közigazgatási rendelkezéseket, amelyek szükségesek ahhoz, hogy ennek az irányelvnek megfeleljenek. Az Irányelv március 16-án lép hatályba. 2. Jogszabály: A BIZOTTSÁG HATÁROZATA (2008. október 21.) a Magyar Köztársaság által a Postabank és Takarékpénztár Rt./Erste Bank Hungary Nyrt. tekintetében végrehajtott C 35/04. számú intézkedésről Megjelent: L62 (III. 6.) Jogforrás tartalma: A Bizottság bejelentést kapott a Postabank és Takarékpénztár Rt-t, jelenleg Erste Bank Hungary Nyrt-t (a továbbiakban: Postabank javára hozott állami intézkedésekről, az Európai Unióhoz történő csatlakozásról szóló szerződés (a továbbiakban: csatlakozási szerződés) részét képező csatlakozási okmányban meghatározott ideiglenes eljárásnak megfelelően. A Bizottság október 20-i határozatában kimondta, hogy a bejelentett intézkedések nagy többsége a csatlakozás után nem alkalmazandó, és egy intézkedés az ismeretlen követelésekért való kártalanítási kötelezettségvállalás kapcsán eljárást indított, mivel komoly kétségei támadtak az intézkedés közös piaccal való összeegyeztethetőségét illetően. Az ismeretlen követelésekért való kártalanítási kötelezettségvállalás ebben az esetben olyan a magyar kormány által vállalt szerződéses feltétel, a jogvita esetére szóló kártalanítási kötelezettségvállalást is belelértve, amely kiterjed a részvényvásárlási megállapodást lezáró napot követő legkésőbb öt éven belül a Postabank tekintetében felmerülő esetleges vagy ismeretlen perbeli követelésekből származó fizetési kötelezettségekre. A Biztottság felderítte az ügy jogi hátterét, az megvizsgálta az érintett felek Magyar Köztársaság és az Erste Bank észrevételeit, a csatlakozást követő alkalmazandóság, az állami támogatás meglétének kérdését, elvégezte az összeegyeztethetőségi vizsgálatokat. 3

4 A vizsgálat alapján a Bizottság arra a következtetésre jutott, hogy az ismeretlen követelésekért való kártalanítási kötelezettségvállalásnak az a része, amelyet a csatlakozáskor egyértelműen meghatároztak, a csatlakozás után nem alkalmazandó (azaz a két könyvvizsgáló cég esetleges követelései; az Arthur Andersen Audit és a Prudentia Postabank elleni esetleges követelései; az Erste Bank április 29-i egyoldalú nyilatkozatának Kockázatmeghatározás O részében foglaltak szerint). A Bizottság kijelenti, hogy az ismeretlen követelésekért való kártalanítási kötelezettségvállalás további része, amelyet a Magyar Köztársaság a Postabank és Takarékpénztár Rt./Erste Bank Hungary Nyrt. tekintetében végrehajtott, a csatlakozás után alkalmazandó és a közös piaccal összeegyeztethetetlen állami támogatást képez. A Magyar Köztársaságnak április 30-ára visszamenőleges hatállyal fel kell mondania az ismeretlen követelésekért való kártalanítási kötelezettségvállalás csatlakozás után alkalmazandó részét. A Magyar Köztársaság e határozat közlésétől számított két hónapon belül köteles tájékoztatni a Bizottságot a határozat végrehajtása érdekében hozott intézkedésekről. Sajtóbejelentések 1. IP/09/468 Brussels, 24 th March 2009 Payments: Commission and ECB provide further clarification to ensure timely launch of Single Euro Payments Area (SEPA) Direct Debit scheme The European Commission and the European Central Bank (ECB) have issued a joint statement providing further clarification so as to encourage the European Payments Council (EPC) to launch the SEPA Direct Debit scheme (SDD) on 1 November In particular, the Commission makes clear that a general per transaction multilateral interchange fee (MIF) for direct debit transactions does not seem justified for efficiency reasons and therefore does not appear compatible with EU antitrust rules. The Commission and the ECB also noted that the forthcoming approval of the revised Regulation on crossborder payments will provide a three-year transitional regime for the SDD business model. The clarifications provided today are aimed at the long-term i.e. after 1 November 2012 and are based on earlier statements issued by the EC and the ECB (see IP/08/1290). Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes stated "The Commission will ensure that SEPA will be subject to effective competition so that a fair share of the benefits resulting from the creation of SEPA's direct debit scheme, both on a cross border and domestic level, are passed on to consumers and companies". Internal Market Commissioner Charlie McCreevy stated "The benefits for companies and consumers of the Single Euro Payments Area are tremendous; with this hurdle crossed, banks and creditor companies can start preparing for migration." 4

5 ECB s Executive Board member Gertrude Tumpel-Gugerell stated The launch of SEPA Direct Debit is vital for the success of SEPA. We acknowledge that, after having provided clarity on the applicability of multilateral interchange fees during an interim period, this further clarifying position of the Commission now provides a clear scenario also for the long term." The European Commission considers that a general per transaction multilateral interchange fee (MIF) does not seem necessary for direct debit transactions. Such MIFs paid by creditor banks to debtor banks for direct debits cannot, in general, be justified for efficiency reasons, and it appears unlikely that they would be compatible with EU antitrust rules, either for national or for cross-border transactions. After 1 November 2012 they should therefore have been replaced by other mechanisms, at the national and at the cross border level, for both SEPA Direct Debits and for national 'legacy' Direct Debits. Direct debit payments are typically used by consumers to pay for recurring payments, such as rent, mortgage, energy bills, telephone bills and magazine subscriptions. Under the SEPA Direct Debit scheme, bank customers would, for the first time, be able to arrange to pay their bills by direct debit to and from bank accounts in any of the 31 European countries participating in SEPA. The direct debit market is a two-sided market in which creditors have a clear interest to attract debtors to engage in a direct debit relationship. Creditor companies have effective means to encourage customers directly to make use of direct debit, in particular by granting rebates to them. A multilateral interchange fee for error transactions could nevertheless be envisaged as it may create an incentive to avoid such error transactions and, therefore, encourages the efficient functioning of the SDD scheme. The Commission and the ECB stand open to discussions on this. For full text of the Commission/ECB statement, see: For further details on SEPA, see: SPEECH/09/136 Charlie McCREEVY European Commissioner for Internal Market and Services Financial Markets & Economic Recovery Horwarth Bastow Charleton Conference Strategies in a Crisis Forum Limerick, 20 March

6 Introduction Good afternoon Ladies and gentlemen. I'm delighted to have been invited to this forum. It's always a pleasure to be in Limerick. We have the curse of living in interesting times. Interesting times are often crisis times, as now. The global economy is engulfed in turmoil. We have to understand what went wrong, and draw conclusions about what needs to be done. I suspect we will never get anything near unanimity on what went wrong and how to put it right because people's perceptions and conclusions are invariably coloured by the role they played or didn't play in contributing to the current sorry mess. There are however some issues on which there has been broad consensus : The scale of irresponsible origination and underwriting, lack of due diligence, toxic securitization, and reckless credit ratings was far greater in the United States than anywhere else in the world. There is no doubt but that it was primarily this that triggered the global crisis on the scale that we are now seeing. That said European banks bought into these toxic securities and in Europe there is now a broad consensus that our supervisory systems are not and have not been up to the mark or fit for purpose. Not fit for purpose at an EU institutional level. Not fit for purpose at a Member State level. With cross-border banking groups now accounting for 80 per cent of Europe's banking assets the absence of strong co-ordination mechanisms between supervisors as well as effective early warning arrangements was and is an unacceptable gap in our regulatory and supervisory framework. The Commission's plan for restoring stability to the financial system is based on four priorities: Getting the supervision right; Getting the regulation right; Getting the risk management and pay incentives right; Getting the sanctions right. Let's take supervision first, as it's so crucial. A special group we established some time back to look at financial supervisory structures in the EU known as the de Larosière group - issued its report three weeks ago. It proposed a radical overhaul of the supervisory framework for the EU. In particular, it proposed the creation of a European Systemic Risk Council, chaired by the President of the ECB, to protect the European financial system against systemic risk what we call macro risk. No such body currently exists. Regarding risk to individual financial institutions micro risk it proposes a European System of Financial Supervision, and turning existing supervisory committees into supervisory authorities with real teeth. In our reaction to the de Larosière report, we have committed to making formal proposals by the end of May and to coming forward with concrete legislative proposals in the autumn. We currently have a consultation ongoing on financial supervision, with a deadline of 10 April for comments. I won't prejudge the outcome today. But I'm on the record as saying that the status quo is not an option. The existing set up in Europe the Committees of Supervisors - clearly lack teeth. Bold steps are needed but there are very different ideas on how to go about it. Indeed 6

7 there is a good deal of hypocrisy and double-speak too: while Member State governments are pretty well unanimous that the issue needs to be addressed, the fact is that any time over the past decade when proposals - however modest - have been put forward to address them the consensus breaks down. Member State governments must come to recognise and address the need to stand up to the vested interests of their home supervisors who resist ceding anything with an eye to protecting their own empires. However, never again will the political climate be so favourable for making a meaningful step forward and never before has so much momentum been built up towards a search for meaningful progress in this area. Regulation existing and new initiatives I turn now, regulation. We have already done a lot in this field in 2008, in particular with the proposed Regulation on Credit Rating Agencies, the Solvency II Directive for insurance companies, which I very much hope will find agreement in Council and Parliament soon, and the proposal for revising the Capital Requirements Directive which regulates the capital requirements for banks. The subject of the CRD brings me to its basis, Basel 2. In my view, the entire Basel 2 Accord clearly requires some fundamental overhaul. The Commission services have been looking at the areas of weakness in the existing framework: It is now patently obvious that the shortcomings of that framework include the absence of any overall gearing cap on bank balance sheets, wholly inadequate and inappropriate risk weightings for AAA rated structured products, the stupidities of intellectually refined value at risk models, overreliance on External Credit Rating assessments undertaken by agencies who are paid by the issuer, and the absurdities of some mark to market requirements when markets are totally illiquid. All these regulatory weaknesses must be urgently addressed. To many of you here who run businesses some of this may seem very academic. But having an appropriate prudential framework in place for banks is vital if we are to restore confidence in the banking system and if the banking system is to have confidence in itself. It is that lack of self confidence that is at the root of some of the problems in the credit markets at the moment and which I have little doubt is restricting the flow of credit to businesses large and small. Credit is the lifeblood of the economic system. Without it investment and risk taking is wiped out and the economy goes into a tailspin. But the root of the shortage of credit lies in the absence of confidence of banks in the future. We have to break this cycle, first by ensuring that banks are adequately capitalize, and second by concerted international action to kick-start recovery with the application of whatever monetary and fiscal policies are deemed most appropriate. In the short term, we are going to further strengthen capital requirements for banks with regard to trading book activities and complex securitisations. We will also look at ways to mitigate pro-cyclicality in the current bank capital framework. A new revision to the capital requirements framework will be proposed this summer incorporating those improvements. Pay incentives and risk I turn now to the third of the pillars which I mentioned: risk management and pay incentives. There has been too much short-termism and excessive risk taking in financial institutions, often encouraged by inappropriate bonus structures. We are going to issue a new Recommendation on remuneration in financial services companies, and in the 7

8 framework of the forthcoming revision of the CRD, we will look at whether capital requirements need to be increased in the case of institutions with inappropriate bonus structures which promote excessive risk-taking. We will also consider possible regulatory action on corporate governance for banks, if we conclude that it is inadequate. Sanctions At present, sanctioning regimes in the Member States are diverse and often not strong enough. We need to give investors, consumers and companies confidence that misbehaviour within the financial industry will be dealt with quickly, fairly and effectively. The Commission will therefore conduct a review on sanctions, and on the Market Abuse Directive, and report back this autumn. Consumers, investors and SMEs We also have to protect consumers, small investors and SMEs. Last month I proposed to lighten the financial reporting burden for micro-enterprises, which could save them up to 1,200 euros per year. For retail investors, we're going to make proposals next month to safeguard customers of retail investment products. Multilateral discussions However, our efforts will not achieve their desired impact if they are limited to Europe. That's why we have to take part actively in the multilateral discussions in the G20 and the Financial Stability Forum in particular, to make sure that global solutions to the present financial market dysfunctioning are found. The Commission is active in the working groups of the G20 which are preparing the Heads of State summit in London on 2 April, and we are also pushing for full membership of the Commission in the FSF. We think that the decisive measures which we are taking in Europe can serve as a good example to other jurisdictions worldwide, although of course each jurisdiction needs to adopt solutions appropriate for its own economy and institutions. Conclusions To conclude, we have a huge agenda for this year, as you can see. But let me assure you, we are not regulating for regulation's sake, nor making changes in the supervisory structure for its own sake. I am known for not being an over-interventionist regulator. I don't believe in fixing things which aren't broken. But there are things in Europe, and indeed the world, which are broken, or at least not working as they should. We are determined to set our own house in order. We will not be listened to by others, in the G20 and elsewhere, if we do not show the way by taking prudent but firm action to improve our structure of regulation and supervision for the financial sector. If we do that, alongside the ambitious stimulus for the European real economy announced by the Commission last December and reinforced earlier this month, we can be cautiously optimistic about getting the European financial sector and the real economy back on its feet and better able to withstand future shocks. Here in Ireland the government faces a hard road ahead. Nothing that it announces in coming weeks can possibly be popular. But at times like this it is not policies that are popular but policies that are sensible and that are essential for survival that we need most. It 8

9 would be impossible for any government to craft a budget in current circumstances that would have even a small segment of the population aside of course from the masochists jumping for joy. Making the inroads into the deficit that must be made to retain the confidence of the capital markets that finance that deficit will not be easy. Of necessity, it will involve eating heavily into everyone but the very poorest's living standards and cutting spending and waste in every corner of the public sector. A government that faces up to these challenges will almost inevitably lose political support in the short term. But a government that fails to face up to them will never be forgiven in the longer term. I know that the mood throughout the country is sombre at present. There is no immediate relief from the gloomy outlook. But this country retains the resources and the capacity to recover the same resources that drove our success over the past 15 years. I believe we also have the will to strengthen and build on those resources in the time aheadand to make the sacrifices necessary - so that this economy can return to the path of growth, prosperity and opportunity to which we have become accustomed - and to which our children and grandchildren are entitled to aspire too. 3. IP/09/387 Brussels, 11 th March 2009 State aid: Commission authorises temporary Hungarian scheme allowing subsidised state guarantees to boost real economy The European Commission has authorised under EC Treaty rules on state aid a Hungarian scheme aimed at providing relief to companies encountering financing difficulties as a result of the credit squeeze in the current economic crisis. The scheme allows authorities to grant aid in the form of subsidised guarantees for investment and working capital loans and financial leasing concluded by 31 December The scheme meets the conditions of the Commission s Temporary Framework for state aid measures to support access to finance in the current financial and economic crisis (see IP/08/1993), as amended on 25 February 2009, because it is limited in time, respects the relevant thresholds and applies only to companies that were not in difficulty on 1 July It is therefore compatible with Article 87(3)(b) of the EC Treaty, which permits aid to remedy a serious disturbance in the economy of a Member State. Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes said "By facilitating the access of firms to loans, the notified measure is an effective way of encouraging business investment and economic recovery, without unduly distorting competition." The Hungarian authorities designed the scheme on the basis of the rules laid down in the Commission's Temporary Framework on state aid to the real economy during the current crisis (see IP/08/1993) and in particular the conditions for aid in the form of subsidised guarantees. During a period of up to two years the guarantee fee for loan and leasing guarantees contracted no later than 31 December 2010 can be reduced by 25% compared with the market level fee calculated through a methodology accepted by the Commission. The guarantee coverage can amount to 90% of the underlying loan or leasing. Guarantees can only be given under the scheme to small or medium sized enterprises up to a total of 2.5 million per beneficiary. The scheme does not apply to firms that were already in difficulty on 1 July 2008 (i.e. before the credit crunch). 9

10 The scheme is to be implemented by Garantiqa-Hitelgarancia Zrt on behalf of the Hungarian state. It is already the third Hungarian measure authorised under the Temporary Framework (for the first two please see IP/09/325). The decision will be published in the State Aid Register on DG Competition s website, under the reference number N 114/2009. The latest decisions on state aid published in the Official Journal and on the website are listed in the electronic newsletter State aid Weekly e-news. 4. IP/09/373 Brussels, 10 March 2009 Financial market supervision: Commission launches consultation of interested parties The European Commission is launching a consultation on the improvement of supervision for the financial services sector. Following the report of the high-level group on financial supervision in the EU chaired by Jacques de Larosière, published on 25 February 2009, the Commission intends to come forward by the end of May 2009 with a Communication setting out its proposals on the future of the EU supervisory architecture followed by specific legislative measures in autumn Before doing so, it wishes to take into account the views of all interested parties. In its Communication of 4 March 2009 to the Spring European Council, "Driving European Recovery", the Commission endorses and asks EU leaders to endorse the key principles set out by the de Larosière Group. The Commission calls for a supervisory system combining stronger oversight at EU level with maintaining a key role for national supervisors. It backs the Group's proposal to set up an early warning body under ECB auspices to identify and tackle systemic risks. In May, the Commission will put forward to the June European Council a detailed plan for revising the European supervisory architecture based on the de Larosière report. It intends to bring forward legislative proposals on the new supervisory framework in the autumn. Before making its proposals, the Commission invites any interested parties to submit their comments on the proposals on financial supervision made in the de Larosière report and in the Commission Communication of 4 March All contributions should be sent, by post, fax or , to: European Commission DG Internal Market Unit G1 Consultation on Financial Supervision B-1049 Brussels. MARKT-G1@ec.europa.eu Fax number: Comments should be submitted by the 10 th of April More information on the consultation is available at: 10

11 The de Larosière report published on can be found at the link below: The Commission's Communication "Driving European Recovery" and its annex can be found on: SPEECH/09/95 Joaquín Almunia European Commissioner for Economic and Monetary Policy The crisis and beyond: what priorities for European Financial Markets? 2 nd Financial Centre meeting Frankfurt, 5 March 2009 Ladies and gentlemen, It gives me great pleasure to join you this afternoon in Frankfurt. When I received the invitation for this conference last autumn, the financial crisis was at its height. The European banking sector was on the verge of collapse. And there were increasing signs that the financial turmoil could impact economic growth. In Europe we acted quickly. Member States, working closely with the Commission and the European Central Bank took coordinated steps to re-capitalise and guarantee banks to prevent a widespread dry up of liquidity. As consumption and investment began to fall, we launched a coordinated fiscal stimulus for the economy to boost demand and support economic activity. Today, 18 months after the outbreak of the crisis in the US, the financial system has avoided meltdown but still remains under severe strain. On the other hand, the degree to which the crisis has spread to the global economy has exceeded our worst fears. The world is seeing its deepest recession in decades. In the EU, growth is forecast to fall by nearly 2% this year and unemployment to rise by 3.5 million. And we are not alone. The US and Japan are also experiencing severe contractions in their economies. This deterioration is having further knock-on effects for financial markets. Yesterday the European Commission adopted a stock take of the measures taken to contain the crisis and limit the downturn taken over the last months. The figures are huge. To boost demand, Member States have channelled 400 billion euros of fiscal support to their economies representing 3.3% of the EU's GDP. The results of this massive stimulus should start to feed through in the next months. 11

12 However, one clear message stood out from our assessment: economic recovery can only take hold if confidence in the financial sector is restored. This crisis began in the financial system and unless we can rapidly return stability to markets and re-build trust in the system, the economy will continue to pay a high price. Fixing the financial system for recovery How then can we restore confidence in the financial sector? First, we need to anchor macro-financial stability in the EU by ensuring that financial support provided by governments are put in place to good effect. So far, 2.5 trillion euro has been issued in guarantees for banks and 300 billion euro of capital has been injected into financial institutions to shore up bank balance sheets. As a combined consequence of the monetary policy easing and of these actions to support the banking system, interbank lending rates and spreads, although still volatile, have declined over the last couple of months. We now need to ensure that these packages continue to be implemented effectively and in full adherence to the rules of the single market. This is particularly important when it comes to financial institutions with significant cross-border operations. These days there is too much talk about the situation of some banks with subsidiaries in Central and Eastern European countries. Of course, they need to ensure that their subsidiaries also see the benefits from any support packages launched in their home country. If a local banking system is left with a lack of liquidity, it would not only cause serious problems for local economies, it would soon become a problem for the parent banks too. This is not just a question of keeping banks afloat. It is a matter of safeguarding macrofinancial stability in Europe. And the Commission is monitoring this situation closely. Second, we need to re-build trust in financial markets. I don't need to tell you that confidence levels are low. Financial institutions continue to announce large write-downs. Even 18 months after the beginning of the crisis, the full scale of losses in unknown. And estimates of banks' exposure to impaired assets are growing. This is doing nothing to defuse the climate of uncertainty in the industry. Most worrying, banks are beginning to show unwillingness to lend and households and businesses are suffering from reduced access to finance. If appropriate action is not taken soon, it will aggravate the drop in economic activity and deepen the recession. The Commission is calling on banks to disclose impaired assets on their balance sheets as a means to evaluate their solvency. The sooner they do so, the sooner confidence will be restored to the sector as a whole. A number of EU countries have also announced their intention to take direct action to clean balance sheets by identifying and removing impaired assets. Hence the European Commission came forward last week with a set of guidelines to facilitate these actions. Let me be clear that we are not advocating measures by all Member States. Not all countries are affected to the same degree and not all will find it necessary to announce 12

13 schemes. Nor do we stipulate how these schemes should be designed. Whether to go for a 'bad bank', state guarantees or a hybrid arrangement is for the individual Member State to decide. However, asset relief measures should be coordinated if they are to be effective. This is true not just in Europe but around the world. Nevertheless, a coherent approach is even more important for the EU if we are to maintain a level playing field among banks in the single market. This is why we have proposed common principles for deciding which assets are eligible for treatment and common methodologies for their valuation. The medium and long term impact of asset relief measures also need to be considered. Schemes should be feasible from a budgetary perspective and must not inflict harm on the long term sustainability of public finances. Where necessary, they should be accompanied by a restructuring of the bank in question. We cannot simply pour taxpayers money into banks that are not viable in the long run. Ultimately, asset relief schemes are a costly solution to the problems in the financial sector, and that's why they should primarily be paid for by the banks themselves. However, if we do nothing, it is the economy and ordinary citizens who will end up paying the price. Restoring confidence in the banking system is a pre-requisite to re-establish the flow of credit to the economy. And once credit is flowing to the economy, the fiscal stimuli will have a greater impact. This, together with the ECB's cuts in interest rates, should create the conditions for a gradual recovery to take place at the beginning of next year. Building a sustainable financial system for the future So far I have set out our priorities for financial markets from a short term perspective. Yet, our actions to stabilise the financial sector need to be matched by a far reaching reform of financial markets, at EU level and globally. The crisis has revealed serious shortcomings in the regulatory and supervisory structure of the financial system. Two decades of light touch regulation plus an environment of ample liquidity and low interest rates have sown the seeds for the problems we are experiencing today. Of course, it is difficult to prevent the occurrence of financial crises, but we have an obligation to ensure that a disaster of such a profound and systemic nature cannot happen again. We need to take action to move the European financial system from a model based on short term excessive risk-taking and speculation, to one founded on stability and sustainability. To this end, we have already adopted a number of important proposals since October 2007, including measures to protect bank depositors, to strengthen rules on capital requirements and to regulate Credit Rating Agencies. We are now at the stage where we need to push forward with more ambitious measures to put the financial system back on a more secure and sustainable footing. Hence over the course of this year, the Commission will implement an extensive timetable for the radical overhaul of the European financial sector. 13

14 One of the most important of these planned reforms is in the sphere of supervision. Having largely national based supervisors for a highly integrated financial sector with numerous cross border financial institutions has long been recognised as a liability. However, the political will for serious reform was absent. That was before the crisis. It is now clear that maintaining the status quo is simply out of the question. The Commission realised the urgency to act and last November we asked a high level group of experts, chaired by Jacques De Larosière, to make concrete proposals to strengthen the supervisory structure in the EU. Last week the De Larosière report was published and we have welcomed its broad and constructive recommendations. The Group highlights the lack of coordination, consistency and trust between national supervisors. They identify failures in both the way supervisors look at specific cases and in the way they prevent and manage issues in the financial system as a whole. Therefore, the report makes two key proposals, to address both the macro-prudential supervision and micro-supervision. On macro-prudential supervision, the group proposes to establish a new European body that would gather and assess information on risks to the financial sector as a whole. This body, to be called the European Systemic Risk Council, would operate under the auspices of the European Central Bank and in cooperation with the Commission and the Committees of European Supervisors. The Commission welcomes this initiative as a particularly crucial means to identify and manage systemic risk at the European level. On micro-prudential supervision in other words, supervision of individual companies the group recommends setting up a European System of Financial Supervision. This would transform the Committees of European supervisors the Level 3 Committees of the Lamfalussy framework- into authorities that would operate at EU level, while relying on colleges of supervisors and national supervisors to continue supervision of individual companies. We fully agree with the structure of the existing Committees needs to be reformed. The current arrangements are not adequate to ensure financial stability in the EU and there is clearly value in combining centralised responsibilities at European level while keeping specific tasks for national supervisors. We support transforming the three Committees into authorities. These authorities could play a very useful role in overseeing colleges of supervisors for cross-border groups and hence contribute to the early warning system that should help us to preserve financial stability. Working on the basis of these two recommendations, the European Commission will now develop proposals to establish a new European supervision system which we will present by the end of May. Provided these changes are agreed at the European Council in June, they should be up and running in the course of In addition to efforts in supervision, a number of critical reforms are called for on the regulatory side: For example, on hedge funds and private equity. These pools of capital have become important market players in their own right. So the Commission will bring forward legislation establishing regulatory and supervisory standards for these and other forms of non-harmonised investment funds before the end of April. 14

15 We will also review the framework of Basel II in light of the crisis. In particular, we may have to address the pro-cyclical impact of the current framework and the tendency of rules to amplify market trends upwards and downwards. We will bring forward a new initiative on executive remuneration in the financial services sector by April, with the aim of aligning rewards more closely with the longer term benefits of companies. We will make proposals to further increase transparency in derivatives and other complex structured products, based on a report to be released in June. In the same month we will also present a proposal to increase the quality and quantity of bank' prudential capital and tackle securitisation followed by a proposal to address liquidity risk and excessive leverage in the autumn. We will be asking the spring European Council to endorse this reform agenda later this month. Let me say that this is not about introducing excessive regulation for the sake of it. We will take care to strike a balance between improving resilience of financial markets and preserving the capacity of the sector to innovate. But we must tackle the weaknesses that aggravated this crisis. And it won't be enough to act at European level. We need international consistency in standards and rules if we are to anchor stability in the global financial system. The EU played a leading role during the Washington summit in November to establish consensus on renewing the global financial architecture. We need to show the same clarity, the same European solidarity at the follow up meeting in London in one month's time. If we can stand together and speak with one voice, Europe will be well placed to propose concrete solutions to challenges at the global level. For example, on reforms to the global financial and regulatory system. We need to push for stronger bank prudential rules and accounting. Credit rating agencies, hedge funds and private equity should all be subject to appropriate regulation at global level as well as EU level. Moreover, it is only at the global level that we can effectively tackle non-cooperative jurisdictions. We will also strongly advocate for an early warning system to be established for the global economy, with the IMF at its centre. The IMF should play a critical role in safeguarding the future stability of the global economy. It needs to enhance its surveillance of the financial system and work in closer partnership with the Financial Stability Forum. And it should beef up multilateral surveillance of the world economy, so that it can effectively mobilize efforts to reverse the global imbalances that contributed to the current crisis. Last but not least, we will use the London meeting to send an uncompromising message on protectionism: we will not tolerate the resurgence of economic nationalism that in the world economy. However, this message will only be strong if the EU sets an example at home, by upholding the principles of openness and fairness in the Internal Market. The Internal Market is an enormous asset for the European Union and has driven increases in economic growth, trade and jobs over the last years. We will not let this crisis undermine those gains. The Commission will work hard to ensure that any national measures taken by 15

16 Member States as part of fiscal stimulus packages or support to financial institutions comply with both our EU treaty and our international obligations. Conclusion Ladies and gentlemen, let me conclude. The European Commission is working hard with Member States and with Central Banks to restore growth to European economies. We have launched unprecedented and coordinated actions and directed billions of euros to support economic activity and demand. But unless we can fix the financial markets, unless we can re-build trust among financial actors, our efforts will be in vain. Fixing the financial system is now our number one priority and rest assured that we will do all that is necessary to return markets to normal functioning. And we will not stop working once the recovery is in place. The global crisis is exposing weaknesses in our financial systems and revealing lessons that we cannot afford to ignore. We are committed to learning those lessons and acting on them. Over the coming months and years the Commission will work hand in hand with national authorities, EU level institutions and our international partners to implement an ambitious timetable for financial reform. I am confident we can deliver a more stable and resilient financial system for the future. 6. SPEECH/09/94 Charlie McCREEVY European Commissioner for Internal Market and Services Closing remarks: Financial inclusion and education in the EU UniCredit Group Workshop on Financial Inclusion for Migrants Brussels, 4 March 2009 Ladies and Gentlemen: Thank you for inviting me to speak at this event. We are living in hard times. More and more families feel the painful impact of the financial crisis and the recession. Many people are losing their jobs, some have lost their homes. Access to credit has become more difficult. In this tough situation we should remember that some social groups are particularly vulnerable. Migrants are one of them. At the Commission, we are trying to make the best use of the EU's limited powers in the social area to help disadvantaged groups. One of the relevant policies is financial inclusion. The Commission is promoting the right of access to basic financial services and the provision of financial education to all consumers in the Internal Market. Financial inclusion 16

17 Access to basic financial services has become a necessary pre-condition for participating in economic and social life in a modern society. In particular, access to a bank account, offering a minimum of basic transactions, has become key to social integration. Salaries, benefits and utilities are more and more paid via bank accounts. Moreover, being a gateway to other financial services like savings, insurance and credit, a basic bank account can be considered as a starting point for financial inclusion. In spite of many positive actions taken both by national authorities and financial services providers, the evidence shows that there are still considerable efforts to be made across the EU to ensure access to basic banking services for all. In most countries, a large number of people encounter difficulties accessing a basic bank account in the mainstream market. According to a study carried out by the Commission, the percentage of the "unbanked" ranges from 10 % of all adults in the pre-enlargement EU to nearly 50% in the Member States that joined after Those people are very often in a vulnerable position in society living on low incomes, unemployed, being single parents, recipients of social assistance, pensioners or migrants - which demonstrates the link between financial and social exclusion. Moreover, increasing numbers of consumers are likely to be affected as a result of the ongoing financial crisis. Access to basic financial services could become harder as the capacity of the industry to meet the needs of consumers will be impacted, potentially resulting in an increased number of people being excluded from mainstream financial services. The Commission believes the situation needs to be improved and that, eventually, all Europeans should be guaranteed adequate access to basic financial services. In November 2007, the Single Market Review announced the Commission's intention to ensure that by a certain date nobody is denied access to a basic bank account. The need for action was highlighted at a conference held in May 2008 which brought together more than 400 people from the financial sector, public authorities, consumer groups and NGOs. The main conclusion of the conference was that public authorities, both at national and European levels, have the responsibility to guarantee that all Europeans can access and have adequate use of basic financial services. As a follow-up to the conference, last month the Commission launched a public consultation to gather views and ideas on how to ensure access to a basic bank account. The consultation paper explains the current situation and presents various policy solutions to address financial exclusion. Everyone is invited to express their views on the possible roles for various stakeholders, both private and public, at national and European levels, and on the instruments to promote financial inclusion. Financial education Another way to support migrants' social and economic integration is through financial education. Migrants tend to suffer from low levels of financial awareness. They, in general, need help to understand financial services and use them in the appropriate way. Indeed, a certain level of financial literacy is necessary for those who obtain access to financial services even the basic ones. In this regard, the Commission complements its work on financial inclusion with some initiatives aimed at promoting financial education across the EU. 17

18 The Commission recognised the importance of consumer financial capability for the proper functioning of the Internal Market in its Communication of December 2007 on financial education. Consumers have to be empowered to take responsible decisions regarding their personal finance. Only in this way will they be able to reap benefits that come from European financial integration. The EU's role in this regard is mainly supportive, as education is a competence of the Member States. The national level is the most appropriate for the delivery of consumer education programmes. It is also the most effective and efficient level. Member States have a key role to play, for example by adopting national financial education strategies based on public private partnership. We believe that the Commission's role is to act as a promoter of financial education EU-wide: showing its benefits, coordinating efforts, demonstrating best practice. In this regard, the Commission has been implementing a few practical initiatives. Last year we created an Expert Group on Financial Education to provide a forum for exchanging best practice and producing advice to the Commission on relevant policy issues. The Expert Group includes experts with various backgrounds, representing the industry, regulators, consumers and academia in various Member States. It held its first meeting last October, devoted to national strategies for financial education. The report, with some practical recommendations for those involved in development of such strategies, is available on our website. To support financial education at school, the Commission has been developing on-line tools for teachers as a part of its "DOLCETA" project for consumer education. The purpose is to make it easier for teachers to incorporate financial literacy topics into the existing school programmes. This Internet-based resource will be proposed by the Commission for use on a voluntary basis. The lesson plans will be fully adapted to the specific circumstances of each country. The work is in progress and this tool will be available in early We have also published a European Database for Financial Education, an electronic library of consumer and investor education schemes run by all types of providers. The Database, which was launched in January this year, already includes over 200 entries from various Member States. It is a living database: any provider is welcome to add and manage information about its work. The European Database for Financial Education is available on the "Europa" website. The Commission also offers its patronage to selected events giving visibility to financial education in the Member States. Conclusion We cannot let the current economic situation overshadow the importance of developing effective solutions which provide for real long-term access to basic financial services to all Europeans. We cannot abandon efforts to encourage and facilitate the development of financial education programmes in the Member States. On the contrary, the current financial turbulence has highlighted more than ever the need to manage personal finances efficiently, and the necessity of creating a greater level of awareness of the issue of financial inclusion across the EU. 18