1 / 10

Supervision of a multi-jurisdictional operator : The Euronext Experience

Supervision of a multi-jurisdictional operator : The Euronext Experience. Olivier Lefebvre, Member of the Managing Board. European Parliament , 14 December 2005, Strasbourg. Euronext at a glance. Euronext Model. Multi-juridiction model : several home regulators.

kaden-cole
Télécharger la présentation

Supervision of a multi-jurisdictional operator : The Euronext Experience

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Supervision of a multi-jurisdictional operator :The Euronext Experience Olivier Lefebvre, Member of the Managing Board European Parliament, 14 December 2005, Strasbourg

  2. Euronext at a glance EuronextModel Multi-juridiction model : several home regulators Created in 2000, Euronext is the cross-border exchange : in four years, Euronext brought together Amsterdam, Brussels, Lisbon, Paris and Liffe exchanges Horizontal model : divested from post-trade activities Euronext’s open architecture is focused on its core activity: trading and listingfinancial instruments and disengaged from clearing and settlement activities Technological integration of trading platforms is the the basis of its confolidation process • Synergies : • single trading platform • single rule book • single list Goal: Meeting Users needs (market efficiency, low costs and reduced fees)

  3. Direct user benefits resulting from the integration of Euronext markets • Exchange fees decrease (Explicit trading costs) • Passing synergies benefits to users • Reduced internal operating costs (Explicit trading costs) • Savings on IT assets and human capital resources needed to access and monitor separate trading platforms • Optimized trading organization • Increased liquidity (Implicit trading costs) • Lower bid-ask spread, greater volume, lower volatility • Wider trading opportunities • Larger set of directly tradable securities • Direct access to all Euronext markets • Increased cross-border trading … but regulatory costs stable & regulatory burden is a limit to the model

  4. The Euronext regulatory model A Multi-jurisdiction model : the case of equities Members choose one “preferred” entry point F P X Z B NL Euronext « RuleBook 1 »  Eurolist RM RM RM RM Other regulated and non-regulated markets in various MS (and Alternext) Listed companies choose their jurisdiction of Listing

  5. The Euronext regulatory model • A Multi-jurisdiction model with only “home” • supervisors • Cooperation between 5 National Supervisors • Organised Through a MOU: • AFM, AMF, CBFA, CNVM, FSA • Chairs Committee, Steering Committee, • 5 working parties

  6. Challenges to be won • Increase cooperation to solve division of competences • Information on listed companies: authority of listing and authority of the country of registration • Market Abuse Directive: authority of the territory where the action has taken place and authority of the regulated market where the financial instrument is admitted to trading • Suspension of trading on various venues in different Member States • Increase convergence in terms of supervisory compliance • Disparities in information and reporting requirements • Disparities in the way supervision is practiced in various countries • Specific legal environment at national level e.g. requirements for outsourcing • Different philosophy towards financial markets e.g. list of insiders of the Market Abuse Directive (pragmatic route versus detailed requirements)

  7. Proposed action • Cooperation & coordination between regulators pushed to the greatest extent • A standard toolbox for regulators • Eliminate constraints limiting cross border integration • Strengthen cooperation mechanisms • Improve “Memorandum Of Understanding” • Allow join approval process • Removing differences between regimes on pre-approval or ex-post notification for changes or innovations • Consolidated list of information

  8. Proposed action • “coordinating regulator/supervisor” or “convening regulator/supervisor” • rather than a “lead” regulator • Cordinating/convening supervisor does not imply one regulator only • can be organised around a college of regulators • each supervisor coordinator for a specific portfolio • Effective cooperation • Delegation of task • Presemption of cooperation

  9. Key requirements • Allow the Lamfalussy process to continue and to develop with appropriate accountability • Political impetus to foster cooperation between regulators • Possibility for the private sector to ask for cooperation between regulators

More Related