The de Larosière GroupJacques de Larosière
ChairmanLeszek Balcerowicz
Otmar Issing
Rainer Masera
Callum Mc Carthy
Lars Nyberg
José Pérez
Onno Ruding

Secretariat of the GroupDavid Wright, Rapporteur, DG Internal Market
Matthias Mors, Secretariat, DG Economic and Financial Affairs
Martin Merlin, Secretariat, DG Internal Market
Laurence Houbar, Secretariat, DG Internal Market

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS
AVANT-PROPOS .................................................................................................................... 3
DISCLAIMER.......................................................................................................................... 5
INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................... 6
CHAPTER I: CAUSES OF THE FINANCIAL CRISIS...................................................... 7
CHAPTER II: POLICY AND REGULATORY REPAIR................................................. 13I.

INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................ 13

II.

THE LINK BETWEEN MACROECONOMIC AND REGULATORY POLICY .... 14

III. CORRECTING REGULATORY WEAKNESSES..................................................... 15
IV. EQUIPPING EUROPE WITH A CONSISTENT SET OF RULES............................ 27
V.

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE.................................................................................. 29

VI. CRISIS MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION........................................................ 32
CHAPTER III: EU SUPERVISORY REPAIR................................................................... 38I.

INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................ 38

II.

LESSONS FROM THE CRISIS: WHAT WENT WRONG? ..................................... 39

III. WHAT TO DO: BUILDING A EUROPEAN SYSTEM OF SUPERVISIONAND CRISIS MANAGEMENT.................................................................................. 42
IV. THE PROCESS LEADING TO THE CREATION OF A EUROPEAN SYSTEM
OF FINANCIAL SUPERVISION ............................................................................... 48
V.

REVIEWING AND POSSIBLY STRENGTHENING THE EUROPEANSYSTEM OF FINANCIAL SUPERVISION (ESFS).................................................. 58

CHAPTER IV: GLOBAL REPAIR ..................................................................................... 59
I.

PROMOTING FINANCIAL STABILITY AT THE GLOBAL LEVEL.................... 59

II.

REGULATORY CONSISTENCY .............................................................................. 60

III. ENHANCING COOPERATION AMONG SUPERVISORS ..................................... 61
IV. MACROECONOMIC SURVEILLANCE AND CRISIS PREVENTION ................ 63
V.

CRISIS MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION........................................................ 66

VI. EUROPEAN GOVERNANCE AT THE INTERNATIONAL LEVEL...................... 67
VII. DEEPENING THE EU'S BILATERAL FINANCIAL RELATIONS ........................ 67
ANNEX I:MANDATE FOR THE HIGH-LEVEL EXPERT GROUP ON
FINANCIAL SUPERVISION IN THE EU ................................................. 69

ANNEX II:MEETINGS OF THE GROUP AND HEARINGS IN 2008 - 2009 ........... 70

ANNEX III: AN INCREASINGLY INTEGRATED SINGLE EUROPEAN
FINANCIAL MARKET ................................................................................ 71
ANNEX IV: RECENT ATTEMPTS TO STRENGTHEN SUPERVISION
IN THE EU .................................................................................................... 75
ANNEX V:

ALLOCATION OF COMPETENCES BETWEEN NATIONAL
SUPERVISORS AND THE AUTHORITIES IN THE ESFS………. ....... 78

2

AVANT-PROPOS
I would like to thank the President of the European Commission, José ManuelBarroso, for the very important mandate he conferred on me in October 2008 tochair an outstanding group of people to give advice on the future of European
financial regulation and supervision. The work has been very stimulating. I am
grateful to all members of the group for their excellent contributions to the work,and for all other views and papers submitted to us by many interested parties.
This report is published as the world faces a very serious economic and financial
crisis.
The European Union is suffering.
An economic recession.
Higher unemployment.
Huge government spending to stabilize the banking system – debts that future
generations will have to pay back.
Financial regulation and supervision have been too weak or have provided thewrong incentives. Global markets have fanned the contagion. Opacity,
complexity have made things much worse.
Repair is necessary and urgent.
Action is required at all levels – Global, European and National and in all
financial sectors.
We must work with our partners to converge towards high global standards,
through the IMF, FSF, the Basel committee and G20 processes. This is critical.
But let us recognize that the implementation and enforcement of these standards
will only be effective and lasting if the European Union, with the biggest capital
markets in the world, has a strong and integrated European system of regulationand supervision.
In spite of some progress, too much of the European Union's framework today
remains seriously fragmented. The regulatory rule book itself. The European
Unions' supervisory structures. Its crisis mechanisms.

3

This report lays out a framework to take the European Union forward.
Towards a new regulatory agenda – to reduce risk and improve risk
management; to improve systemic shock absorbers; to weaken pro-cyclical
amplifiers; to strengthen transparency; and to get the incentives in financial
markets right.
Towards stronger coordinated supervision – macro-prudential and microprudential. Building on existing structures. Ambitiously, step by step but with asimple objective. Much stronger, coordinated supervision for all financial actors
in the European Un ion. With equivalent standards for all, thereby preserving
fair competition throughout the internal market.
Towards effective crisis management procedures – to build confidence amongsupervisors. And real trust. With agreed methods and criteria. So all Member
States can feel that their investors, their depositors, their citizens are properly
protected in the European Union.
In essence, we have two alternatives: the first "chacun pour soi" beggar-thyneighbour solutions; or the second - enhanced, pragmatic, sensible European
cooperation for the benefit of all to preserve an open world economy. This willbring undoubted economic gains, and this is what we favour.
We must begin work immediately.

Jacques de Larosière
Chairman

4

DISCLAIMER

The views expressed in this report are those of
the High-Level Group on supervision.
The Members of the Group support all the recommendations.
However, they do not necessarily agree on all the detailed points
made in the report.

5

INTRODUCTION

1) Since July 2007, the world has faced, and continues to face, the most serious anddisruptive financial crisis since 1929. Originating primarily in the United States, the crisis
is now global, deep, even worsening. It has proven to be highly contagious and complex,
rippling rapidly through different market segments and countries. Many parts of thefinancial system remain under severe strain. Some markets and institutions have stopped
functioning. This, in turn, has negatively affected the real economy. Financial markets
depend on trust. But much of this trust has evaporated.
2) Significant global economic damage is occurring, strongly impacting on the cost andavailability of credit; household budgets; mortgages; pensions; big and small company
financing; far more restricted access to wholesale funding and now spillovers to the morefragile emerging country economies. The economies of the OECD are shrinking into
recession and unemployment is increasing rapidly. So far banks and insurance companies
have written off more than 1 trillion euros. Even now, 18 months after the beginning of
the crisis, the full scale of the losses is unknown. Since August 2007, falls in global stock
markets alone have resulted in losses in the value of the listed companies of more than
€16 trillion, equivalent to about 1.5 times the GDP of the European Union.
3) Governments and Central Banks across the world have taken many measures to try to
improve the economic situation and reduce the systemic dangers: economic stimulus
packages of various forms; huge injections of Central Bank liquidity; recapitalisingfinancial institutions; providing guarantees for certain types of financial activity and inparticular inter-bank lending; or through direct asset purchases, and "Bad Bank" solutions
are being contemplated by some governments. So far there has been limited success.
4) The Group believes that the world's monetary authorities and its regulatory andsupervisory financial authorities can and must do much better in the future to reduce thechances of events like these happening again. This is not to say that all crises can beprevented in the future. This would not be a realistic objective. But what could and should
be prevented is the kind of systemic and inter-connected vulnerabilities we have seen andwhich have carried such contagious effects. To prevent the recurrence of this type ofcrisis, a number of critical policy changes are called for. These concern the European
Union but also the global system at large.
5) Chapter 1 of this report begins by analysing the complex causes of this financial crisis, asine qua non to determine the correct regulatory and supervisory responses.

6

CHAPTER I: CAUSES OF THE FINANCIAL CRISIS
Macroeconomic issues6) Ample liquidity and low interest rates have been the major underlying factor behind thepresent crisis, but financial innovation amplified and accelerated the consequences ofexcess liquidity and rapid credit expansion. Strong macro-economic growth since the midnineties gave an illusion that permanent and sustainable high levels of growth were not
only possible, but likely. This was a period of benign macroeconomic conditions, lowrates of inflation and low interest rates. Credit volume grew rapidly and, as consumer
inflation remained low, central banks - particularly in the US - felt no need tightenmonetary policy. Rather than in the prices of goods and services, excess liquidity showed
up in rapidly rising asset prices. These monetary policies fed into growing imbalances in
global financial and commodity markets.
7) In turn, very low US interest rates helped create a widespread housing bubble. This was
fuelled by unregulated, or insufficiently regulated, mortgage lending and complex
securitization financing techniques. Insufficient oversight over US government sponsoredentities (GSEs) like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and strong political pressure on these
GSEs to promote home ownership for low income households aggravated the situation.
Within Europe there are different housing finance models. Whilst a number of EU
Member States witnessed unsustainable increases in house prices, in some Member States
they grew more moderately and, in general, mortgage lending was more responsible.
8) In the US, personal saving fell from 7% as a percentage of disposable income in 1990, tobelow zero in 2005 and 2006. Consumer credit and mortgages expanded rapidly. In
particular, subprime mortgage lending in the US rose significantly from $180 billion in2001 to $625 billion in 2005.
9) This was accompanied by the accumulation of huge global imbalances. The credit
expansion in the US1 was financed by massive capital inflows from the major emerging
countries with external surpluses, notably China. By pegging their currencies to thedollar, China and other economies such as Saudi Arabia in practice imported loose US
monetary policy, thus allowing global imbalances to build up. Current account surplusesin these countries were recycled into US government securities and other lower-risk
assets, depressing their yields and encouraging other investors to search for higher yields
from more risky assets…
10) In this environment of plentiful liquidity and low returns, investors actively sought higher
yields and went searching for opportunities. Risk became mis-priced. Those originating
investment products responded to this by developing more and more innovative andcomplex instruments designed to offer improved yields, often combined with increased
leverage. In particular, financial institutions converted their loans into mortgage or asset
backed securities (ABS), subsequently turned into collateralised debt obligations (CDOs)
often via off-balance special purpose vehicles (SPVs) and structured investment vehicles(SIVs), generating a dramatic expansion of leverage within the financial system as a
1

Evidenced by a current account deficit of above 5% of GDP (or $700 billion a year) over a number of years.

7

whole. The issuance of US ABS, for example, quadrupled from $337 billion in 2000 toover $1,250 billion in 2006 and non-agency US mortgage-backed securities (MBS) rosefrom roughly $100 billion in 2000 to $773 billion in 2006. Although securitisation is inprinciple a desirable economic model, it was accompanied by opacity which camouflaged
the poor quality of the underlying assets. This contributed to credit expansion and thebelief that risks were spread.
11) This led to increases in leverage and even more risky financial products. In the macro
conditions preceding the crisis described above, high levels of liquidity resulted finally inrisk premia falling to historically low levels. Exceptionally low interest rates combinedwith fierce competition pushed most market participants – both banks and investors – tosearch for higher returns, whether through an increase in leverage or investment in morerisky financial products. Greater risks were taken, but not properly priced as shown by thehistorically very low spreads. Financial institutions engaged in very high leverage (on andoff balance sheet) - with many financial institutions having a leverage ratio of beyond 30 sometimes as high as 60 - making them exceedingly vulnerable to even a modest fall in
asset values.
12) These problems developed dynamically. The rapid recognition of profits which
accounting rules allowed led both to a view that risks were falling and to increases infinancial results. This combination, when accompanied by constant capital ratios, resulted
in a fast expansion of balance sheets and made institutions vulnerable to changes invaluation as economic circumstances deteriorated.

Risk management
13) There have been quite fundamental failures in the assessment of risk, both by financial
firms and by those who regulated and supervised them. There are many manifestations of
this: a misunderstanding of the interaction between credit and liquidity and a failure toverify fully the leverage of institutions were among the most important. The cumulative
effect of these failures was an overestimation of the ability of financial firms as a whole tomanage their risks, and a corresponding underestimation of the capital they should hold.
14) The extreme complexity of structured financial products, sometimes involving several
layers of CDOs, made proper risk assessment challenging for even the most sophisticatedin the market. Moreover, model-based risk assessments underestimated the exposure tocommon shocks and tail risks and thereby the overall risk exposure. Stress-testing too
often was based on mild or even wrong assumptions. Clearly, no bank expected a total
freezing of the inter-bank or commercial paper markets.
15) This was aggravated further by a lack of transparency in important segments of financial
markets – even within financial institutions – and the build up of a "shadow" banking
system. There was little knowledge of either the size or location of credit risks. While
securitised instruments were meant to spread risks more evenly across the financial
system, the nature of the system made it impossible to verify whether risk had actually
been spread or simply re-concentrated in less visible parts of the system. This contributed
to uncertainty on the credit quality of counterparties, a breakdown in confidence and, inturn, the spreading of tensions to other parts of the financial sector.

816) Two aspects are important in this respect. First, the fact that the Basel 1 framework did
not cater adequately for, and in fact encouraged, pushing risk taking off balance-sheets.
This has been partly corrected by the Basel 2 framework. Second, the explosive growth of
the Over-The-Counter credit derivatives markets, which were supposed to mitigate risk,
but in fact added to it.
17) The originate-to-distribute model as it developed, created perverse incentives. Not only
did it blur the relationship between borrower and lender but also it diverted attention awayfrom the ability of the borrower to pay towards lending – often without recourse - against
collateral. A mortgage lender knowing beforehand that he would transfer (sell) his entire
default risks through MBS or CDOs had no incentive to ensure high lending standards.
The lack of regulation, in particular on the US mortgage market, made things far worse.
Empirical evidence suggests that there was a drastic deterioration in mortgage lending
standards in the US in the period 2005 to 2007 with default rates increasing.
18) This was compounded by financial institutions and supervisors substantially
underestimating liquidity risk. Many financial institutions did not manage the maturity
transformation process with sufficient care. What looked like an attractive business modelin the context of liquid money markets and positively sloped yield curves (borrowing
short and lending long), turned out to be a dangerous trap once liquidity in credit markets
dried up and the yield curve flattened.

The role of Credit Rating Agencies
19) Credit Rating Agencies (CRAs) lowered the perception of credit risk by giving AAA
ratings to the senior tranches of structured financial products like CDOs, the same rating
they gave to standard government and corporate bonds.
20) The major underestimation by CRAs of the credit default risks of instruments
collateralised by subprime mortgages resulted largely from flaws in their rating
methodologies. The lack of sufficient historical data relating to the US sub-prime market,
the underestimation of correlations in the defaults that would occur during a downturn andthe inability to take into account the severe weakening of underwriting standards bycertain originators have contributed to poor rating performances of structured products
between 2004 and 2007.
21) The conflicts of interests in CRAs made matters worse. The issuer-pays model, as it hasdeveloped, has had particularly damaging effects in the area of structured finance. Since
structured products are designed to take advantage of different investor risk appetites, they
are structured for each tranche to achieve a particular rating. Conflicts of interests become
more acute as the rating implications of different structures were discussed between theoriginator and the CRA. Issuers shopped around to ensure they could get an AAA rating
for their products.
22) Furthermore, the fact that regulators required certain regulated investors to only invest in
AAA-rated products also increased demand for such financial assets.

9Corporate governance failures23) Failures in risk assessment and risk management were aggravated by the fact that thechecks and balances of corporate governance also failed. Many boards and senior
managements of financial firms neither understood the characteristics of the new, highly
complex financial products they were dealing with, nor were they aware of the aggregate
exposure of their companies, thus seriously underestimating the risks they were running.
Many board members did not provide the necessary oversight or control of management.
Nor did the owners of these companies – the shareholders.
24) Remuneration and incentive schemes within financial institutions contributed to excessiverisk-taking by rewarding short-term expansion of the volume of (risky) trades rather thanthe long-term profitability of investments. Furthermore, shareholders' pressure on
management to deliver higher share prices and dividends for investors meant thatexceeding expected quarterly earnings became the benchmark for many companies'
performance.

Regulatory, supervisory and crisis management failures25) These pressures were not contained by regulatory or supervisory policy or practice. Somelong-standing policies such as the definition of capital requirements for banks placed too
much reliance on both the risk management capabilities of the banks themselves and on
the adequacy of ratings. In fact, it has been the regulated financial institutions that haveturned out to be the largest source of problems. For instance, capital requirements wereparticularly light on proprietary trading transactions while (as events showed later) therisks involved in these transactions proved to be much higher than the internal models had
expected.
26) One of the mistakes made was that insufficient attention was given to the liquidity ofmarkets. In addition, too much attention was paid to each individual firm and too little tothe impact of general developments on sectors or markets as a whole. These problems
occurred in very many markets and countries, and aggregated together contributed
substantially to the developing problems. Once problems escalated into specific crises,
there were real problems of information exchange and collective decision making
involving central banks, supervisors and finance ministries.
27) Derivatives markets rapidly expanded (especially credit derivatives markets) and offbalance sheet vehicles were allowed to proliferate– with credit derivatives playing asignificant role triggering the crisis. While US supervisors should have been able toidentify (and prevent) the marked deterioration in mortgage lending standards andintervene accordingly, EU supervisors had a more difficult task in assessing the extent towhich exposure to subprime risk had seeped into EU-based financial institutions.
Nevertheless, they failed to spot the degree to which a number of EU financial institutions
had accumulated – often in off balance-sheet constructions- exceptionally high exposure
to highly complex, later to become illiquid financial assets. Taken together, thesedevelopments led over time to opacity and a lack of transparency.
28) This points to serious limitations in the existing supervisory framework globally, both in anational and cross-border context. It suggests that financial supervisors frequently did not10have and in some cases did not insist in getting, or received too late, all the relevant
information on the global magnitude of the excess leveraging; that they did not fully
understand or evaluate the size of the risks; and that they did not seem to share theirinformation properly with their counterparts in other Member States or with the US. In
fact, the business model of US-type investment banks and the way they expanded was notreally challenged by supervisors and standard setters. Insufficient supervisory andregulatory resources combined with an inadequate mix of skills as well as different
national systems of supervision made the situation worse.
29) Regulators and supervisors focused on the micro-prudential supervision of individual
financial institutions and not sufficiently on the macro-systemic risks of a contagion ofcorrelated horizontal shocks. Strong international competition among financial centres
also contributed to national regulators and supervisors being reluctant to take unilateral
action.
30) Whilst the building up of imbalances and risks was widely acknowledged and commented
upon, there was little consensus among policy makers or regulators at the highest level on
the seriousness of the problem, or on the measures to be taken. There was little impact ofearly warning in terms of action – and most early warnings were feeble anyway.
31) Multilateral surveillance (IMF) did not function efficiently, as it did not lead to a timely
correction of macroeconomic imbalances and exchange rate misalignments. Nor did
concerns about the stability of the international financial system lead to sufficient
coordinated action, for example through the IMF, FSF, G8 or anywhere else.

The dynamics of the crisis32) The crisis eventually erupted when inflation pressures in the US economy required atightening of monetary policy from mid-2006 and it became apparent that the sub-prime
housing bubble in the US was going to burst amid rising interest rates. Starting in July
2007, accumulating losses on US sub-prime mortgages triggered widespread disruption of
credit markets, as uncertainty about the ultimate size and location of credit losses
undermined investor confidence. Exposure to these losses had been spread among
financial institutions around the world, including Europe, inter alia via credit derivative
markets.
33) The pro-cyclical nature of some aspects of the regulatory framework was then brought
into sharp relief. Financial institutions understandably tried to dispose of assets once theyrealised that they had overstretched their leverage, thus lowering market prices for theseassets. Regulatory requirements (accounting rules and capital requirements) helped triggera negative feed-back loop amplified by major impacts in the credit markets.
34) Financial institutions, required to value their trading book according to mark-to-market
principles, (which pushed up profits and reserves during the bull-run) were required towrite down the assets in their balance sheet as markets deleveraged. Already excessively
leveraged, they were required to either sell further assets to maintain capital levels, or to
reduce their loan volume. "Fire sales" made by one financial institution in turn forced allother financial institutions holding similar assets to mark the value of these assets down

11

"to market". Many hedge funds acted similarly and margin calls intensified liquidity
problems.
35) Once credit rating agencies started to revise their credit ratings for CDOs downwards,
banks were required to adjust their risk-weighted capital requirements upwards. Onceagain, already highly leveraged, and faced with increasing difficulties in raising equity, arange of financial institutions hastened to dispose of assets, putting further pressure on
asset prices. When, despite the fear of possible negative signalling effects, banks tried toraise fresh capital, more or less at the same time, they were faced by weakening equity
markets. This obliged them to look for funding from sovereign wealth funds and, in due
course, from heavy state intervention. What was initially a liquidity problem rapidly, for anumber of institutions, turned into a solvency problem.
36) The lack of market transparency, combined with the sudden downgrade of credit ratings,
and the US Government's decision not to save Lehman Brothers led to a wide-spread
breakdown of trust and a crisis of confidence that, in autumn 2008, practically shut downinter-bank money markets, thus creating a large-scale liquidity crisis, which still weighsheavily on financial markets in the EU and beyond. The complexity of a number offinancial instruments and the intrinsic vulnerability of the underlying assets also explain
why problems in the relatively small US sub-prime market brought the global financial
system to the verge of a full-scale dislocation. The longer it took to reveal the true amountof losses, the more widespread and entrenched the crisis of confidence has become. And it
remains largely unresolved to this day.
37) The regulatory response to this worsening situation was weakened by an inadequate crisis
management infrastructure in the EU, both in terms of the cooperation between national
supervisors and between public authorities. The ECB was among the first to react swiftly
by provide liquidity to the inter-bank market. In the absence of a common framework forcrisis management, Member States were faced with a very difficult situation. Especiallyfor the larger financial institutions they had to react quickly and pragmatically to avoid abanking failure. These actions, given the speed of events, for obvious reasons were notfully coordinated and led sometimes to negative spill-over effects on other Member
States.

12

CHAPTER II: POLICY AND REGULATORY REPAIRI.

INTRODUCTION

The present report draws a distinction between financial regulation and supervision.
38) Regulation is the set of rules and standards that govern financial institutions; their main
objective is to foster financial stability and to protect the customers of financial services.
Regulation can take different forms, ranging from information requirements to strictmeasures such as capital requirements. On the other hand, supervision is the process
designed to oversee financial institutions in order to ensure that rules and standards areproperly applied. This being said, in practice, regulation and supervision are intertwined
and will therefore, in some instances, have to be assessed together in this chapter and thefollowing one.
39) As underlined in the previous chapter, the present crisis results from the complex
interaction of market failures, global financial and monetary imbalances, inappropriate
regulation, weak supervision and poor macro-prudential oversight. It would be simplistic
to believe therefore that these problems can be "resolved" just by more regulation.
Nevertheless, it remains the case that good regulation is a necessary condition for thepreservation of financial stability.
40) A robust and competitive financial system should facilitate intermediation between thosewith financial resources and those with investment needs. This process relies on
confidence in the integrity of institutions and the continuity of markets. "This confidence,
taken for granted in well-functioning financial systems, has been lost in the present crisis
in substantial part due to its recent complexity and opacity,…weak credit standards,
mis-judged maturity mismatches, wildly excessive use of leverage on and off-balance
sheet, gaps in regulatory oversight, accounting and risk management practices thatexaggerated cycles, a flawed system of credit ratings and weakness of governance 2".
All must be addressed.
41) This chapter outlines some changes in regulation that are required to strengthen financial
stability and the protection of customers so to avoid – if not the occurrence of crises,
which are unavoidable – at least a repetition of the extraordinary type of systemic
breakdown that we are now witnessing. Most of the issues are global in nature, and notjust specific to the EU.
42) What should be the right focus when designing regulation? It should concentrate on the
major sources of weaknesses of the present set-up (e.g. dealing with financial bubbles,
strengthening regulatory oversight on institutions that have proven to be poorly regulated,
adapting regulatory and accounting practices that have aggravated pro-cyclicality,
promoting correct incentives to good governance and transparency, ensuring international
consistency in standards and rules as well as much stronger coordination between
regulators and supervisors). Over-regulation, of course, should be avoided because it2

G30 report, Washington, January 2009.

13

slows down financial innovation and thereby undermines economic growth in the wider
economy. Furthermore, the enforcement of existing regulation, when adequate (orimproving it where necessary), and better supervision, can be as important as creating new
regulation.

II. THE LINK BETWEEN MACROECONOMIC AND REGULATORYPOLICY43) The fundamental underlying factor which made the crisis possible was the ample liquidity
and the related low interest rate conditions which prevailed globally since the midnineties. These conditions fuelled risk taking by investors, banks and other financial
institutions, leading ultimately to the crisis.
44) The low level of long term interest rate over the last five years – period of sustained
growth – is an important factor that contrasts with previous expansionary periods.
45) As industrial economies recovered during this period, corporate investment did not pickup as would have been expected. "As a result, the worldwide excess of desired savings
over actual investment … pushed its way into the main markets that were opened toinvestment, housing in industrial countries, lifting house prices and rising residential
construction3". This phenomenon, which affected also financial assets, took place in the
US but also in the EU, where significant housing bubbles developed in the UK, Irelandand Spain.
46) This explanation is not inconsistent with the one focusing on excessive liquidity fuelled
by too loose monetary policy. Actually the two lines of reasoning complement each other:
too low interest rates encouraged investment in housing and financial assets, but hadmonetary policy been stricter, there would have been somewhat less expansion in the US,
more limited house prices increases and smaller current account deficits. By the same
token, if countries with big surpluses had allowed their currencies to appreciate, smaller
current account deficits and surpluses would have been the consequence. This raises thequestion of what competent authorities can do in order to at least mitigate the risks ofbubbles building up, instead of simply intervening ex-post by injecting liquidity to limit
the damage from a macro-economic standpoint.
47) The lack of precise and credible information on whether a given state of asset markets isalready a bubble is not a sufficient argument against trying to prevent a serious bubble.
48) It is commonly agreed today that monetary authorities cannot avoid the creation of
bubbles by targeting asset prices and they should not try to prick bubbles. However, they
can and should adequately communicate their concerns on the sustainability of strong
increases in asset prices and contribute to a more objective assessment of systemic risks.
Equally, they can and should implement a monetary policy that looks not only at
consumer prices, but also at overall monetary and credit developments, and they should beready to gradually tighten monetary policy when money or credit grow in an excessive
and unsustainable manner. Other competent authorities can also use certain tools tocontain money and credit growth. These are of particular importance in the context of the3

See "the global roots of the current financial crisis and its implications for regulation" by Kashyap, Raghuram Rajan andStein.

14

euro zone, where country-specific monetary policies tailored to countries' positions in theeconomic cycle, and especially in the asset market cycle, cannot be implemented. The
following are examples of regulatory tools which can help meet counter-cyclicalobjectives:-

introducing dynamic provisioning or counter-cyclical reserves on banks in "goodtimes" to limit credit expansion and so alleviate pro-cyclicality effects in the "badtimes";-

making rules on loans to value more restrictive;-

modifying tax rules that excessively stimulate the demand for assets.

49) These tools were not, or were hardly, used by monetary and regulatory authorities in the
run-up to the present crisis. This should be a lesson for the future. Overall cooperation
between monetary and regulatory authorities will have to be strengthened, with a view todefining and implementing the policy-mix that can best maintain a stable and balanced
macro-economic framework. In this context, it will be important for the ECB to become
more involved in over-seeing the macro-prudential aspects of banking activities (see next
chapter on supervision). Banks should be subject to more and more intense scrutiny as the
bubble builds up.
50) Finally, a far more effective and symmetric "multilateral surveillance" by the IMF
covering exchange rates and underlying economic policies is called for if one wants toavoid the continuation of unsustainable deficits (see chapter on global issues).

III. CORRECTING REGULATORY WEAKNESSES
Reforming certain key-aspects of the present regulatory framework51) Although the relative importance assigned to regulation (versus institutional incentives such as governance and risk assessment, - or monetary conditions…) can be discussed, it
is a fact that global financial services regulation did not prevent or at least contain thecrisis as well as market aberrations. A profound review of regulatory policy is therefore
needed. A consensus, both in Europe and internationally, needs to be developed on which
financial services regulatory measures are needed for the protection of customers, thesafeguarding of financial stability, and the sustainability of economic growth.
52) This should be done being mindful of the usefulness of self-regulation by the private
sector. Public and self-regulation should complement each other and supervisors should
check that where there is self-regulation it is being properly implemented. This was not
sufficiently carried out in the recent past.
The following issues must be addressed as a matter of urgency.
a) The Basel 2 framework53) It is wrong to blame the Basel 2 rules per se for being one of the major causes of thecrisis. These rules entered into force only on 1 January 2008 in the EU and will only be
15

applicable in the US on 1 April 2010. Furthermore, the Basel 2 framework contains
several improvements which would have helped mitigate to some extent the emergence ofthe crisis had they been fully applied in the preceding years. For example, had the capitaltreatment for liquidity lines given to special purpose vehicles been in application then theymight have mitigated some of the difficulties. In this regard Basel 2 is an improvement
relative to the previous "leverage ratios" that failed to deal effectively with off-balance
sheet operations.
54) The Basel 2 framework nevertheless needs fundamental review. It underestimated some
important risks and over-estimated banks' ability to handle them. The perceived wisdomthat distribution of risks through securitisation took risk away from the banks turned out,
on a global basis, also to be incorrect. These mistakes led to too little capital being
required. This must be changed. The Basel methodology seems to have been too muchbased on recent past economic data and good liquidity conditions.
55) Liquidity issues are important in the context both of individual financial firms and of theregulatory system. The Group believes that both require greater attention than they have
hitherto been afforded. Supervisors need to pay greater attention to the specific maturity
mismatches of the firms they supervise, and those drawing up capital regulations need toincorporate more fully the impact on capital of liquidity pressures on banks' behaviour.
56) A reflection is also needed with regard to the reliance of Basel 2 on external ratings. There
has undoubtedly been excessive reliance by many buy-side firms on ratings provided by
CRAs. If CRAs perform to a proper level of competence and of integrity, their services
will be of significant value and should form a helpful part of financial markets. Thesearguments support Recommendation 3. But the use of ratings should never eliminate theneed for those making investment decisions to apply their own judgement. A particularfailing has been the acceptance by investors of ratings of structured products without
understanding the basis on which those products were provided.
57) The use by sophisticated banks of internal risk models for trading and banking book
exposures has been another fundamental problem. These models were often not properly
understood by board members (even though the Basel 2 rules increased the demands onboards to understand the risk management of the institutions). Whilst the models may pass
the test for normal conditions, they were clearly based on too short statistical horizons andthis proved inadequate for the recent exceptional circumstances.
58) Future rules will have to be better complemented by more reliance on judgement, insteadof being exclusively based on internal risk models. Supervisors, board members andmanagers should understand fully new financial products and the nature and extent of therisks that are being taken; stress testing should be undertaken without undue constraints;
professional due diligence should be put right at the centre of their daily work.
59) Against this background, the Group is of the view that the review of the Basel 2
framework should be articulated around the following elements:-

The crisis has shown that there should be more capital, and more high quality capital,in the banking system, over and above the present regulatory minimum levels. Banks
should hold more capital, especially in good times, not only to cover idiosyncraticrisks but also to incorporate the broader macro-prudential risks. The goal should be to16

increase minimum requirements. This should be done gradually in order to avoid procyclical drawbacks and an aggravation of the present credit crunch.
-

The crisis has revealed the strong pro-cyclical impact of the current regulatory
framework, stemming in particular from the interaction of risk-sensitive capitalrequirements and the application of the mark-to-market principle in distressed market
conditions. Instead of having a dampening effect, the rules have amplified market
trends upwards and downwards - both in the banking and insurance sectors.

60) How to reduce the pro-cyclical effect of Basel 2? Of course, it is inevitable that a system
based on risk-sensitivity is to some extent pro-cyclical: during a recession, the quality ofcredit deteriorates and capital requirements rise. The opposite happens during an upswing.
But there is a significant measure of "excessive" pro-cyclicality in the Basel frameworkthat must be reduced by using several methods4.
-

concerning the banking book, it is important that banks, as is the present rule,effectively assess risks using "through the cycle" approaches which would reduce thepro-cyclicality of the present measurement of probability of losses and default;-

more generally, regulation should introduce specific counter-cyclical measures. The
general principle should be to slow down the inherent tendency to build up risk-taking
and over-extension in times of high growth in demand for credit and expanding bankprofits. In this respect, the "dynamic provisioning" introduced by the Bank of Spain
appears as a practical way of dealing with this issue: building up counter-cyclicalbuffers, which rise during expansions and allow them under certain circumstances tobe drawn down in recessions. This would be facilitated if fiscal authorities would treat
reserves taken against future expected losses in a sensible way. Another method would
be to move capital requirements in a similar anti-cyclical way;-

this approach makes sense from a micro-prudential point of view because it reduces
the risk of bank failures. But it is also desirable from a macro-prudential and macroeconomic perspective. Indeed, such a measure would tend to place some restraint onover rapid credit expansion and reduce the dangers of market over-reactions during
recessionary times;-

with respect to the trading book of banks, there is a need to reduce pro-cyclicality andto increase capital requirements. The present statistical VaR models are clearly procyclical (too often derived, as they are, from observations of too short time periods tocapture fully market prices movements and from other questionable assumptions). If
volatility goes down in a year, the models combined with the accounting rules tend tounderstate the risks involved (often low volatility and credit growth are signs ofirrational low risk aversion and hence of upcoming reversals). More generally, thelevel of capital required against trading books has been well too low relative to therisks being taken in a system where banks heavily relied on liquidity through"marketable instruments" which eventually, when liquidity evaporated, proved not to
be marketable. If banks engage in proprietary activities for a significant part of their
total activities, much higher capital requirements will be needed.

4

See Lord Turner, The Financial Crisis and the Future of Financial Regulation, Economoist's inaugural city Lecture,
21 January 2009.

17

It is important that such recommendations be quickly adopted at international level by theBasel committee and the FSF who should define the appropriate details.
61) Measuring and limiting liquidity risk is crucial, but cannot be achieved merely throughquantitative criteria. Indeed the "originate-and-distribute" model which has developed
hand in hand with securitisation has introduced a new dimension to the liquidity issue.
That dimension has not sufficiently been taken into account by the existing framework.
The assessment by institutions and regulators of the "right" liquidity levels is difficult
because it much depends on the assumptions made on the liquidity of specific assets andcomplex securities as well as secured funding. Therefore the assets of the banking systemshould be examined in terms not only of their levels, but also of their quality (counterparty
risk, transparency of complex instruments…) and of their maturity transformation risk(e.g. dependence on short term funding). These liquidity constraints should be carefully
assessed by supervisors. Indeed a "mismatch ratio" or increases in liquidity ratios must be
consistent with the nature of assets and the time horizons of their holdings by banks.
The Basel committee should in the future concentrate more on liquidity risk management.
Even though this is a very difficult task, it should come forward with a set of norms tocomplement the existing qualitative criteria (these norms should cover the need tomaintain, given the nature of the risk portfolio, an appropriate mix of long term funding
and liquid assets).
62) There should be stricter rules (as has been recommended by the FSF) for off-balance sheet
vehicles. This means clarifying the scope of prudential regulation applicable to thesevehicles and determining, if needed, higher capital requirements. Better transparency
should also be ensured.
63) The EU should agree on a clear, common and comprehensive definition of own funds.
This definition should in particular clarify whether, and if so which, hybrid instruments
should be considered as Tier 1. This definition would have to be confirmed atinternational level by the Basel committee and applied globally. Consideration should
also be given to the possibility of limiting Tier 1 instruments in the future to equity andreserves.
64) In order to ensure that management and banks' board members possess the necessarycompetence to fully understand complex instruments and methods, the "fit and proper"
criteria should be reviewed and strengthened. Also, internationally harmonized rules
should be implemented for strengthening the mandates and resources for banks’ internal
control and audit functions. Regulators and supervisors should also be better trained tounderstand risk assessment models.
65) The Group supports the work initiated by the Basel committee on the above issues. It will
however be important that the Basel committee works as expeditiously as possible. It took
8 years to revise Basel 1. This is far too long, especially given the speed at which thebanking sector evolves. It will be important for the Basel committee to find ways to agree
on the details of the above reforms far more quickly.

18

Recommendation 1: The Group sees the need for a fundamental review of the Basel 2
rules. The Basel Committee of Banking Supervisors should therefore be invited to urgently
amend the rules with a view to:-gradually increase minimum capital requirements;
reduce pro-cyclicality, by e.g. encouraging dynamic provisioning or capital buffers;
introduce stricter rules for off-balance sheet items;tighten norms on liquidity management; andstrengthen the rules for bank’s internal control and risk management, notably by
reinforcing the "fit and proper" criteria for management and board members.

Furthermore, it is essential that rules are complemented by more reliance on judgement.

Recommendation 2: In the EU, a common definition of regulatory capital should be
adopted, clarifying whether, and if so which, hybrid instruments should be considered astier 1 capital. This definition should be confirmed by the Basel Committee.

b) Credit Rating Agencies
66) Given the pivotal and quasi-regulatory role that they play in today's financial markets,
Credit Rating Agencies must be regulated effectively to ensure that their ratings are
independent, objective and of the highest possible quality. This is all the more true given
the oligopolistic nature of this business. The stability and functioning of financial markets
should not depend on the opinions of a small number of agencies – whose opinions often
were proven wrong, and who have much too frequently substituted for rigorous due
diligence by firms.
67) The Commission has made a proposal for a Regulation on CRAs. However, the system oflicensing and oversight contained in this proposal is too cumbersome. The allocation ofwork between the home and host authorities, in particular, is likely to lack effectivenessand efficiency. The Group is of the view that it would be far more rational to entrust theCommittee of European Securities Regulators (CESR) with the task of licensing CRAs in
the EU, monitoring their performance, and in the light of this imposing changes (as is
proposed in the new supervisory framework proposed in the next chapter).
68) Beyond this proposal for a Regulation, a fundamental review of CRAs economic model
should be conducted, notably in order to eliminate the conflicts of interests that currently
exist. One drawback of the present model is that CRAs are entirely financed by the issuersand not by the users, which is a source of conflict of interest. The modalities of a switchfrom the current "issuer pays" model to a "buyer pays" model should be considered atinternational level. Furthermore, and even though this may well be a difficult task inpractice, consideration should be given to the ways in which the formulation of ratings
could be completely separated from the advice given to issuers on the engineering ofcomplex products.

1969) The use of ratings required by some financial regulations raises a number of problems, but
is probably unavoidable at this stage. However, it should be significantly reduced overtime.
70) Regulators should have a close eye on the performance of CRAs with the recognition andallowable use of their ratings made dependent on their performance. This role should be
entrusted to CESR, who should on an annual basis approve those CRAs whose ratings canbe used for regulatory purposes. Should the performance of a given CRA be insufficient,
its activities could be restricted or its licence withdrawn by CESR.
71) Finally, the rating of structured products should be transformed with a new, distinct code
alerting investors about the complexity of the instrument.
72) These recommendations will of course have to dovetail with increased due diligence fromthe buy-side. Supervisors should check that financial institutions have the capacity tocomplement the use of external ratings (on which they should no longer excessively relyupon) with sound independent evaluations.
Recommendation 3: Concerning the regulation of Credit Rating Agencies (CRAs), theGroup recommends that:-within the EU, a strengthened CESR should be in charge of registering and supervising
CRAs;
a fundamental review of CRAs' business model, its financing and of the scope forseparating rating and advisory activities should be undertaken;
the use of ratings in financial regulations should be significantly reduced over time;
the rating for structured products should be transformed by introducing distinct codesfor such products.

It is crucial that these regulatory changes are accompanied by increased due diligence andjudgement by investors and improved supervision.

c) The mark-to-market principle73) The crisis has brought into relief the difficulty to apply the mark-to-market principle incertain market conditions as well as the strong pro-cyclical impact that this principle canhave. The Group considers that a wide reflection is needed on the mark-to-market
principle. Whilst in general this principle makes sense, there may be specific conditions
where this principle should not apply because it can mislead investors and distortmanagers' policies.
74) It is particularly important that banks can retain the possibility to keep assets, accounted
for amortised cost at historical or original fair value (corrected, of course, for future
impairments), over a long period in the banking book - which does not mean that banks
should have the discretion to switch assets at will from the banking to the trading book.
The swift October 2008 decision by the EU to modify IAS-39, thereby introducing more
flexibility as well as convergence with US GAAP, is to be commended. It is irrelevant to20

mark-to-market, on a daily basis, assets that are intended to be held and managed on along-term horizon provided that they are reasonably matched by financing.
75) Differences between business models must also be taken into account. For example,
intermediation of credit and liquidity requires disclosure and transparency but notnecessarily mark-to-market rules which, while being appropriate for investment banks andtrading activities, are not consistent with the traditional loan activity and the policy ofholding long term investments. Long-term economic value should be central to any
valuation method: it may be based, for instance, on an assessment of the future cash flows
deriving from the security as long as there is an explicit minimum holding period and aslong as the cash flows can be considered as sustainable over a long period.
76) Another matter to be addressed relates to situations where assets can no longer be markedto-market because there is no active market for the assets concerned. Financial institutions
in such circumstances have no other solution than to use internal modelling processes. The
quality and adequacy of these processes should of course be assessed by auditors. The
methodologies used should be transparent. Furthermore internal modelling processes
should also be overseen by the level 3 committees, in order to ensure consistency andavoid competitive distortions.
77) To ensure convergence of accounting practices and a level playing-field at the global
level, it should be the role of the International Accounting Standard Board (IASB) tofoster the emergence of a consensus as to where and how the mark-to-market principle
should apply – and where it should not. The IASB must, to this end, open itself up more to
the views of the regulatory, supervisory and business communities. This should becoupled with developing a far more responsive, open, accountable and balanced
governance structure. If such a consensus does not emerge, it should be the role of theinternational community to set limits to the application of the mark-to-market principle.
78) The valuation of impaired assets is now at the centre of the political debate. It is of crucial
importance that valuation of these assets is carried-out on the basis of common
methodologies at international level. The Group encourages all parties to arrive at asolution which will minimise competition distortions and costs for taxpayers. If there arewidely variant solutions – market uncertainty will not be improved.
79) Regarding the issue of pro-cylicality, as a matter of principle, the accounting systemshould be neutral and not be allowed to change business models – which it has been doingin the past by "incentivising" banks to act short term. The public good of financial
stability must be embedded in accounting standard setting. This would be facilitated if theregulatory community would have a permanent seat in the IASB (see chapter on global
repair).
Recommendation 4: With respect to accounting rules the Group considers that a wider
reflection on the mark-to-market principle is needed and in particular recommends that:-

expeditious solutions should be found to the remaining accounting issues concerningcomplex products;
accounting standards should not bias business models, promote pro-cyclical behaviour
or discourage long-term investment;

21

-

-

the IASB and other accounting standard setters should clarify and agree on a common,transparent methodology for the valuation of assets in illiquid markets where mark-tomarket cannot be applied;the IASB further opens its standard-setting process to the regulatory, supervisory andbusiness communities;
the oversight and governance structure of the IASB be strengthened.

d) Insurance80) The crisis originated and developed in the banking sector. But the insurance sector has
been far from immune. The largest insurance company in the world has had to be bailed
out because of its entanglement with the entire financial sector, inter alia through credit
default swaps activities. In addition, the failure of the business models of monoline
insurers has created significant market and regulatory concern. It is therefore important,especially at a time where Europe is in the process of overhauling its regulatory
framework for the entire insurance sector, to draw the lessons from the crisis in the US
insurance sector. Insurance companies can in particular be subject to major market andconcentration risks. Compared to banks, insurance companies tend to be more sensitive tostock market developments (and less to liquidity and credit risks, even if the crisis has
shown that they are not immune to those risks either).
81) Solvency 2 is an important step forward in the effort to improve insurance regulation, tofoster risk assessments and to rationalise the management of large firms. Solvency 2should therefore be adopted urgently. The directive, especially if complemented bymeasures which draw the lessons from the crisis, would remedy the present fragmentationof rules in the EU and allow for a more comprehensive, qualitative and economic
assessment of the risks mentioned above. The directive would also facilitate themanagement and supervision of large insurance groups. With colleges of supervisors for
all cross-border groups the directive would strengthen and organise better supervisory
cooperation – something lacking up to now in spite of the efforts made by the Committeeof European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Supervisors (CEIOPS). The AIG casein the US has illustrated in dramatic terms what happens when there is a lack ofsupervisory cooperation.
82) Differences of views between "home" and "host" Member States on the operation of thegroup support regime have so far prevented a successful conclusion of the negotiation of
the directive. This should be addressed by providing adequate safeguards for host Member
States. In addition, the Group believes that the new supervisory framework proposed in
the chapter on supervision (and in particular, the setting up of a binding mediation
mechanism between home and host supervisors) plus the development of harmonised
insurance guarantees schemes could contribute to finding a solution for the current
deadlock. All the above measures (safeguards, binding mediation, insurance guarantee
schemes) should be implemented together concurrently with Solvency 2. It would behighly desirable to agree the above package by May 2009 when the European Parliament
breaks for its elections.

22

Recommendation 5: The Group considers that the Solvency 2 directive must be adopted andinclude a balanced group support regime, coupled with sufficient safeguards for host
Member States, a binding mediation process between supervisors and the setting-up of
harmonised insurance guarantee schemes.

e) Supervisory and sanctioning powers83) A sound prudential and conduct of business framework for the financial sector must reston strong supervisory and sanctioning regimes. Supervisory authorities must be equippedwith sufficient powers to act when financial institutions have inadequate risk management
and control mechanisms as well as inadequate solvency of liquidity positions. There
should also be equal, strong and deterrent sanctions regimes against all financial crimes sanctions which should be enforced effectively.
84) Neither of these exist for the time being in the EU. Member States sanctioning regimes arein general weak and heterogeneous. Sanctions for insider trading range from a few
thousands of euros in one Member State to millions of euros or jail in another. This can
induce regulatory arbitrage in a single market. Sanctions should therefore be urgently
strengthened and harmonised. The huge pecuniary differences between the level of finesthat can be levied in the competition area and financial fraud penalties is striking.
Furthermore, Member States should review their capacity to adequately detect financial
crimes when they occur. Where needed, more resources and more sophisticated detection
processes should be deployed.
Recommendation 6: The Group considers that:-

Competent authorities in all Member States must have sufficient supervisory powers,
including sanctions, to ensure the compliance of financial institutions with theapplicable rules;-

Competent authorities should also be equipped with strong, equivalent and deterrent
sanction regimes to counter all types of financial crime.

Closing the gaps in regulationa) The "parallel banking system"85) In addition to the weaknesses identified in the present regulatory framework, and inparticular in the Basel 2 framework, it is advisable to look into the activities of the"parallel banking system" (encompassing hedge funds, investment banks, other funds,various off-balance sheet items, mortgage brokers in some jurisdictions). The Groupconsiders that appropriate regulation must be extended, in a proportionate manner, to all
firms or entities conducting financial activities which may have a systemic impact (i.e. in
the form of counterparty, maturity, interest rate risks…) even if they have no direct links
with the public at large. This is all the more important since such institutions, having nodeposit base, can be very vulnerable when liquidity evaporates – resulting in major
impacts in the real economy.
2386) Concerning hedge funds, the Group considers they did not play a major role in theemergence of the crisis. Their role has largely been limited to a transmission function,
notably through massive selling of shares and short-selling transactions. We should also
recognise that in the EU, unlike the US, the great bulk of hedge fund managers areregistered and subject to information requirements. This is the case in particular in theUK, where all hedge funds managers are subject to registration and regulation, as all fundmanagers are, and where the largest 30 are subject to direct information requirements
often obtained on a global basis as well as to indirect monitoring via the banks and prime
brokers.
87) It would be desirable that all other Member States as well as the US adopt a comparable
set of measures. Indeed, hedge funds can add to the leverage of the system and, given thescale at which they can operate, should a problem arise, the concentrated unwinding of
their positions could cause major dislocation.
88) There is a need for greater transparency since banks, the main lenders to hedge funds, andtheir supervisors have not been able to obtain a global view of the risks they were
engaging in. At the very least, supervisors need to know which hedge funds are ofsystemic importance. And they should have a clear on-going view on the strategies, risk
structure and leverage of these systemically important funds. This need for supervisory
information requires the introduction of a formal authority to register these funds, toassess their strategies, their methods and their leverage. This is necessary for the exercise
of macro-prudential oversight and therefore essential for financial stability.
89) Appropriate regulation in the US must also be redesigned for large investment banks andbroker dealers when they are not organised as bank holding companies.
90) In this context, particular attention has to be paid to institutions which engage inproprietary trading to create value for their shareholders, i.e. investment banks andcommercial banks who have engaged in these activities (that are not essentially different
from some hedge funds). The conventional wisdom has been that light regulatory
principles could apply to these because they were trading "at their own risk". Evidence has
shown that the investment banks were subject to very thin capital requirements, became
highly leveraged and then created severe systemic problems. Furthermore, it turned outthat these institutions were subject to only very weak supervision by the Securities andExchange Commission (SEC), which meant that no one had a precise view on theirinvolvement with hedge funds and SPVs; nor had the competent authorities a view on themagnitude of the proprietary investments of these institutions, in particular in the US realestate sector.
91) While these institutions should not be controlled like ordinary banks, adequate capitalrequirements should be set for proprietary trading and reporting obligations should beapplied in order to assess their degree of leverage. Furthermore, the wrong incentives thatinduced excessive risk taking (in particular because of the way in which bonuses are
structured) must be rectified.
92) Where a bank actually owns a hedge fund (or a private equity fund), the Group does notbelieve that such ownership should be necessarily prohibited. It believes however that thissituation should induce very strict capital requirements and very close monitoring by thesupervisory authorities.

24Recommendation 7: Concerning the "parallel banking system" the Group recommends to:-extend appropriate regulation, in a proportionate manner, to all firms or entities
conducting financial activities of a potentially systemic nature, even if they have no
direct dealings with the public at large;-

improve transparency in all financial markets - and notably for systemically important
hedge funds - by imposing, in all EU Member States and internationally, registrationand information requirements on hedge fund managers, concerning their strategies,
methods and leverage, including their worldwide activities;-

introduce appropriate capital requirements on banks owning or operating a hedge fundor being otherwise engaged in significant proprietary trading and to closely monitor
them.

b) Securitised products and derivatives markets93) The crisis has revealed that there will be a need to take a wide look at the functioning ofderivative markets. The simplification and standardisation of most over-the-counter(OTC) derivatives and the development of appropriate risk-mitigation techniques plustransparency measures could go a long way towards restoring trust in the functioning ofthese markets. It might also be worth considering whether there are any benefits inextending the relevant parts of the current code of conduct on clearing and settlementfrom cash equities to derivatives.
94) In the short-run, an important goal should be to reduce the counterparty risks that exist in
the system. This should be done by the creation in the EU of at least one well-capitalised
central clearing house for over-the-counter credit-default swaps (CDS), which would haveto be simplified and standardized. This clearing house should be supervised by CESR andby the relevant monetary authorities, and notably the ECB (about 80% of the CDS market
is denominated in euros5). This is vital to realize the highly needed reduction from grossto net positions in counterparty risks, particularly in cases of default such as Lehman
Brothers.
95) To restore confidence in securitized markets, it is important to oblige at the international
level issuers of complex securities to retain on their books for the life of the instrument ameaningful amount of the underlying risk (non-hedged).
Recommendation 8: Concerning securitised products and derivatives markets, the Group
recommends to:-

simplify and standardise over-the-counter derivatives;-

introduce and require the use of at least one well-capitalised central clearing house for
credit default swaps in the EU;-

guarantee that issuers of securitised products retain on their books for the life of the
instrument a meaningful amount of the underlying risk (non-hedged).

5

Use of central bank money should be made for securities settlement, as proposed by Target 2 securities.

25c) Investment fundsi) Money market funds issues96) Another area which deserves attention is the regulation of the investment fund industry. A
small number of investment funds in the EU have faced temporary difficulties in meetinginvestor redemption demands because of the unexpected contraction of liquidity inpreviously highly liquid markets (e.g. asset backed commercial paper, short-term banking
paper).
97) This highlights in particular the need for a common EU definition of money market funds,
and a stricter codification of the assets in which they can invest in order to limit exposure
to credit, market and liquidity risks.
ii) Depository issues
98) The Madoff case has illustrated the importance of better controlling the quality ofprocesses and functions in the case of funds, funds of funds and delegations ofresponsibilities. Several measures seem appropriate:-delegation of investment management functions should only take place after properdue diligence and continuous monitoring by the "delegator";-

an independent depository should be appointed, preferably a third party;-

The depository institution, as custodians, should remain responsible for safe-keeping
duties of all the funds assets at all times, in order to be able to perform effectively its
compliance-control functions. Delegation of depository functions to a third party
should therefore be forbidden. Nevertheless, the depositary institution may have to use
sub-custodians to safe-keep foreign assets. Sub-custodians must be completely
independent of the fund or the manager. The depositary must continue to perform
effective duties as is presently requested. The quality of this duties should be theobject of supervision;-delegation practices to institutions outside of the EU should not be used to pervert EU
legislation (UCITS provides strict "Chinese walls" between asset management
functions and depositary-safe-keeping functions. This segregation should be respected
whatever the delegation model is used).

Recommendation 9: With respect to investment funds, the Group proposes to further
develop common rules for investment funds in the EU, notably concerning definitions,codification of assets and rules for delegation. This should be accompanied by a tighter
supervisory control over the independent role of depositories and custodians.

26

IV. EQUIPPING EUROPE WITH A CONSISTENT SET OF RULES
99) While the above areas for regulatory repair are relevant for all major jurisdictions in theworld, and should be addressed internationally, Europe suffers from an additional
problem in comparison to all single jurisdictions: the lack of a consistent set of rules.
100) An efficient Single Market should have a harmonised set of core rules.
101) There are at least four reasons for this:-a single financial market - which is one of the key-features of the Union - cannot
function properly if national rules and regulations are significantly different fromone country to the other;-such a diversity is bound to lead to competitive distortions among financial
institutions and encourage regulatory arbitrage;-

for cross-border groups, regulatory diversity goes against efficiency and the normalgroup approaches to risk management and capital allocation;-in cases of institutional failures, the management of crises in case of cross-border
institutions is made all the more difficult.

102) The present regulatory framework in Europe lacks cohesiveness. The main cause of thissituation stems from the options provided to EU members in the enforcement ofcommon directives. These options lead to a wide diversity of national transpositions
related to local traditions, legislations and practices.
103) This problem has been well-identified since the very beginning of the single financial
market process. But the solutions have not always met the challenges. The fundamental
cause for this lack of harmonisation is that the level 1directives have too often left, as apolitical choice, a range of national options. In these circumstances, it is unreasonable toexpect the level 3 committees to be able to impose a single solution. Even when adirective does not include national options, it can lead to diverse interpretations whichcannot be eliminated at level 3 in the present legal set-up.
104) As has been pointed out above, most of these issues relate to the effectiveness of thesingle financial market more than to the crisis. But three observations can be made here:
firstly, the mandate of this Group is not limited to recommendations directly related tothe issues that have arisen in the crisis; secondly, a number of important differences
between Member States (different bankruptcy laws, different reporting obligations,different definitions of economic capital…) have compounded the problems of crisis
prevention and management; thirdly, the crisis has shown that financial policy actions in
one country can have detrimental effects on other countries. To avoid as much as
possible spill-over effects and build the necessary trust, some institutionalised andbinding arrangements are needed.

27

a)

Examples of current regulatory inconsistencies

105) A few examples of excessive diversity can be stressed:-

the differences regarding the sectoral extent of EU supervision. Some EU countries
have an extended definition of credit institutions (i.e. "établissements de crédit"),while other members have much more limited definitions. This is a source ofproblematic divergences between members that can lead to laxer supervision andregulatory arbitrage;-

reporting obligations are very diverse in the EU, some institutions -especially the
non-listed ones- have no obligation to issue accounting reports. The transparency ofthe system is negatively affected by such differences;-the definition of core capital differs from one Member State to another, with an
impact in terms of communication. Some companies do not subtract goodwill fromthe definition of core capital;-

there are different accounting practices for provisions related to pensions. These
differences create serious distortions in the calculation of prudential own funds in
different nations;-the directive on insurance mediation has led to highly divergent transpositions in theMember States. Some Member States have transposed the directive as it is withalmost no national additions, while others have complemented the directive withvery extensive national rules. Given that the directive grants a single passport toinsurance intermediaries, these different transpositions induce competition
distortions;-

there is limited harmonisation of the way in which insurance companies have tocalculate their technical provisions, which makes it difficult to compare the solvency
standing of insurance companies across the Community;-

the differences in the definition of regulatory capital regarding financial institutions
are striking within the EU (for example, the treatment of subordinated debt as coretier 1 is the object of different adaptations). This goes at the heart of the efficiency
and the enforcement of the Basel directive on capital requirements;-

there is no single agreed methodology to validate risks assessments by financial
institutions;-

there are still substantial differences in the modalities related to deposit insurance;-

there is no harmonisation whatsoever for insurance guarantee schemes.

106) This brief analysis, based on concrete examples, leads to the conclusion that keeping
intact the "present arrangements" is not the best option in the context of the Single
Market.
b)

The way forward107) How to correct such a situation?
First of all, it must be noted that harmonisation is not an end in itself and thatconsistency does not need identical rules everywhere. There are national approaches that28

can be beneficial to the interested countries while not falling into the drawbacks
mentioned above. National exceptions should be looked at with this in mind.
108) Furthermore, allowing a country, under appropriate circumstances, to adopt safeguards
or regulatory measures stricter than the common framework should not be rejected. Aslong as agreed minimum core standards are harmonized and enforced, a country could
take more restrictive measures if it considers they are domestically appropriate tosafeguard financial stability. This should of course be done while respecting theprinciples of the internal market.
109) This being said the problem of regulatory inconsistencies must be solved at two
different levels:-

the global level. The EU participates in a number of international arrangements (e.g.
Basel committee, FSF) and multilateral institutions (e.g. IMF) that cannot be
unilaterally changed by the EU. If and when some changes in those global rules
appeared necessary, Europe should "speak with one voice" as we will mention in the
global chapter;-the European level. The European Institutions and the level 3 committees shouldequip the EU financial sector with a set of consistent core rules. Future legislation
should be based, wherever possible, on regulations (which are of direct application).
When directives are used, the co-legislator should strive to achieve maximum
harmonisation of the core issues. Furthermore, a process should be launched toremove key-differences stemming from the derogations, exceptions and vague
provisions currently contained in some directives (see chapter on supervision).

Recommendation 10: In order to tackle the current absence of a truly harmonised set ofcore rules in the EU, the Group recommends that:-

Member States and the European Parliament should avoid in the future legislation that
permits inconsistent transposition and application;-

the Commission and the level 3 Committees should identify those national exceptions,the removal of which would improve the functioning of the single financial market;
reduce distortions of competition and regulatory arbitrage; or improve the efficiency of
cross-border financial activity in the EU. Notwithstanding, a Member State should be
able to adopt more stringent national regulatory measures considered to be domesticallyappropriate for safeguarding financial stability as long as the principles of the internalmarket and agreed minimum core standards are respected.

V. CORPORATE GOVERNANCE
110) This is one of the most important failures of the present crisis.
111) Corporate governance has never been spoken about as much as over the last decade.
Procedural progress has no doubt been achieved (establishment of board committees,
standards set by the banking supervision committee) but looking back at the causes of29the crisis, it is clear that the financial system at large did not carry out its tasks withenough consideration for the long-term interest of its stakeholders. Most of the
incentives – many of them being the result of official action – encouraged financial
institutions to act in a short-term perspective and to make as much profit as possible tothe detriment of credit quality and prudence; interest rates were low and funding
plentiful; the new accounting rules were systematically biased towards short-term
performance (indeed these rules led to immediate mark-to-market recognition of profit
without allowing a discount for future potential losses). As a result of all this, the longterm, "through the cycle" perspective has been neglected.
112) In such an environment, investors and shareholders became accustomed to higher andhigher revenues and returns on equity which hugely outpaced for many years real
economic growth rates. Few managers avoided the "herd instinct" – leading them to join
the competitive race even if they might have suspected (or should have known) that risk
premia were falling and that securitisation as it was applied could not shield thefinancial system against bad risks.
113) This is a sombre picture and not an easy one to correct; much of this behaviour was
ingrained in the incentive structure mentioned above.
114) There should be no illusion that regulation alone can solve all these problems andtransform the mindset that presided over the functioning (and downward spiral) of thesystem.
115) However, good, well-targeted measures could help mitigate or eliminate a number ofmisled incentives; the Group believes that several recommendations put forward in thisreport would be useful in this respect. They are:-reform of the accounting system;-a building-up of buffers in the form of dynamic provisioning or higher capitalrequirements in the good times;-

closing of regulatory gaps (e.g. off-balance sheet operations, oversight of hedge
funds).

116) The Group however wishes to stress two further aspects of corporate governance that
require specific attention: remuneration and risk management.

Remuneration issues
117) The crisis has launched a debate on remuneration in the financial services industry.
There are two dimensions to this problem: one is the often excessive level of
remuneration in the financial sector; the other one is the structure of this remuneration,
notably the fact that they induce too high risk-taking and encourage short-termism to thedetriment of long-term performance. Social-political dissatisfaction has tended recently
to focus, for understandable reasons, on the former. However, it is primarily the latterissue which has had an adverse impact on risk management and has thereby contributed
to the crisis. It is therefore on the structure of remuneration that policy-makers should
concentrate reforms going forward.

30118) It is extremely important to re-align compensation incentives with shareholder interestsand long-term, firm-wide profitability. Compensation schemes must become fullytransparent. Industry has already come up with various sets of useful principles to try
and achieve this. The principles agreed in 2008 by the Institute of International Finance,
for example, are a first step.
119) Without dealing with remuneration in financial institutions that have received public
support, nor impinging on the responsibility of financial institutions in this field, it
seems appropriate to outline a few principles that should guide compensation policies.
Such principles include:-

the assessment of bonuses should be set in a multi-year framework. This would
allow, say over five years, to spread out the actual payment of the bonus pool ofeach trading unit through the cycle and to deduct any potential losses occurring
during the period. This would be a more realistic and less short-term incentivised
method than present practice;-these standards should apply not only to proprietary trading but also to asset
managers;-

bonuses should reflect actual performance and therefore should not be "guaranteed"in advance.

120) Supervisors should oversee the adequacy of financial institutions' compensation
policies. And if they consider that these policies conflict with sound underwriting
practice, adequate risk management or are systematically encouraging short-term risktaking, they should require the institutions concerned to reassess their remuneration
policies. If supervisors are not satisfied by the measures taken they should use thepossibility opened by pillar 2 of the Basel framework to require the financial institutions
concerned to provide additional capital.
121) Of course the same guidelines should apply in relation to other financial institutions inorder to avoid competitive distortions and loopholes. As suggested in the "global repair"chapter of this report, consistent enforcement of these measures at global level should beensured to avoid excessive risk-taking.
Recommendation 11: In view of the corporate governance failures revealed by the current
financial crisis, the Group considers that compensation incentives must be better alignedwith shareholder interests and long-term firm-wide profitability by basing the structure offinancial sector compensation schemes on the following principles:- the assessment of bonuses should be set in a multi-year framework, spreading bonus
payments over the cycle;- the same principles should apply to proprietary traders and asset managers;- bonuses should reflect actual performance and not be guaranteed in advance.
Supervisors should oversee the suitability of financial institutions' compensation policies,
require changes where compensation policies encourage excessive risk-taking and, where
necessary, impose additional capital requirements under pillar 2 of Basel 2 in case noadequate remedial action is being taken.
31Internal risk management122) In many cases, risk monitoring and management practices within financial institutions
have dramatically failed in the crisis.
123) In the future, the risk management function must be fully independent within the firms
and it should carry out effective and not arbitrarily constrained stress testing exercises.
Firms should organise themselves internally so that incentives are not too much tilted
towards risk taking – neglecting risk control. To contribute to this, the Senior Risk
Officer in an institution should hold a very high rank in the hierarchy (at senior
management level with direct access to the board). Changes to remuneration structures
will also be needed: effective checks and balances are indeed unlikely to work if those
who are supposed to control risk remain under-paid compared to those whose job it is totake risks.
124) But all this must not be construed as exonerating issuers and investors from their duties.
For issuers, transparency and clarity in the description of assets put on the market is of
the essence as this report has often stressed; but investors and in particular asset
managers must not rely (as has too often been the case) on credit rating agencies
assessments; they must exercise informed judgement; penalties should be enforced bysupervisors when this is not applied. Supervisory control of firms' risk management
should be considerably reinforced through rigorous and frequent inspection regimes.
Recommendation 12: With respect to internal risk management, the Group recommends
that:-

the risk management function within financial institutions must be made independentand responsible for effective, independent stress testing;senior risk officers should hold a very high rank in the company hierarchy, andinternal risk assessment and proper due diligence must not be neglected by overreliance on external ratings.

Supervisors are called upon to frequently inspect financial institutions' internal risk
management systems.

VI. CRISIS MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION
125) As a general observation, it has been clearly demonstrated that the stakes in a banking
crisis are high for Governments and society at large because such a situation has thepotential to jeopardise financial stability and the real economy. The crisis has also
shown that crisis prevention, crisis management and crisis resolution tools should all behandled in a consistent regulatory framework.
126) Of course, crisis prevention should be the first preoccupation of national and EU
authorities (see chapter on supervision). Supervisors should act as early as possible inorder to address the vulnerabilities identified in a given institution, and use all means
available to them to this effect (e.g. calling on contributions from shareholders, fostering

32the acquisition of the institution concerned by a stronger one). In this respect, the role ofcentral banks which are by essence well placed to observe the first signs of vulnerabilityof a bank is of crucial importance. Therefore in countries where supervision is not in thehands of the central bank, a close collaboration must be ensured between supervisorsand central banks. But crises will always occur and recent experiences in managing
crises have shown that many improvements to the present system are called for.
a) Dealing with the moral hazard issue127) “Constructive ambiguity” regarding decisions whether or not public sector support will
be made available can be useful to contain moral hazard. However, the cure for moral
hazard is not to be ambiguous on the issue of public sector involvement as such in crisis
management. Two aspects need to be distinguished and require different treatment. On
the one hand, a clear and consistent framework for crisis management is required withfull transparency and certainty that the authorities have developed concrete crisis
management plans to be used in cases where absence of such public sector support is
likely to create uncertainty and threaten financial stability. On the other hand,constructive ambiguity and uncertainty is appropriate in the application of thesearrangements in future individual cases of distressed banks6.
b) Framework for dealing with distressed banks
128) In the management of a crisis, priority should always be given to private-sector
solutions (e.g. restructuring). When these solutions appear insufficient, then publicauthorities have to play a more prominent role and the injection of public money
becomes often inevitable.
129) As far as domestic national banks are concerned, crisis management should be kept at
the national level. National supervisors know the banks well, the political authorities
have at their disposal a consistent legal framework and taxpayers' concerns can be dealt
with in the democratic framework of an elected government. For cross-border
institutions at EU level, because of different supervisory, crisis management andresolution tools as well as different company and insolvency laws, the situation is much
more complex to handle. There are inconsistencies between national legislation
preventing an orderly and efficient handling of an institution in difficulty.
130) For example, company law provisions in some countries prevent in times of crisis thetransfer of assets from one legal entity to another within the same group. This makes it
impossible to transfer assets where they are needed, even though this may be crucial tosafeguard the viability of the group as a whole. Another problem is that some countries
place, in their national laws, emphasis on the protection of the institution while othercountries attach a greater priority to the protection of creditors. In the crisis resolution
phase, other problems appear: for example, the ranks of creditors are different from one
Member State to the other.

6

This approach is recommended by Charles Goodhart and Dirk Schoenmaker, “Fiscal Burden Sharing in Cross Border
Banking Crises”, in International Journal of Central Banking, to be published early 2009.

33131) The lack of consistent crisis management and resolution tools across the Single Market
places Europe at a disadvantage vis-à-vis the US and these issues should be addressedby the adoption at EU level of adequate measures.
c) Deposit Guarantee Schemes (DGS)132) The crisis has demonstrated that the current organisation of DGSs in the Member States
was a major weakness in the EU banking regulatory framework7. The Commission
recent proposal is an important step to improve the current regime, as it will improve theprotection of depositors.
133) A critical element of this proposal is the requirement that all Member States apply thesame amount of DGS protection for each depositor. The EU cannot indeed continue torely on the principle of a minimum coverage level, which can be topped-up at national
level. This principle presents two major flaws: first, in a situation where a nationalbanking sector is perceived as becoming fragile, there is the risk that deposits would be
moved to the countries with the most protective regime (thus weakening banks in thefirst country even further); second, it would mean that in the same Member State thecustomers of a local bank and those using the services of a third country branch could
enjoy different coverage levels. As the crisis has shown, this cannot be reconciled with
the notion of a well-functioning Single Market.
134) Another important element to be taken into account is the way in which the DGSs are
funded. In this respect, the Group is of the view that preference should be given toschemes which are pre-funded by the financial sector. Such schemes are better to foster
confidence and help avoiding pro-cyclical effects resulting from banks having to pay
into the schemes at a time where they are already in difficulty.
135) Normally, pre-funded DGSs should take care in the future of losses incurred bydepositors. Nonetheless, it is probable that for very large and cross border institutions,pre-funded mechanisms might not be sufficient to cover these guarantees. In order topreserve trust in the system, it should be made clear that in those cases pre-funded
schemes would have to be topped-up by the State.
7

The Commission's recent proposal is an important step to improve the current DGS-regime, as it strengthens harmonisationand improves the protection of depositors. However, the directive still leaves a large degree of discretion to member states,
particularly in relation to funding arrangements, administrative responsibility and the role of DGS in the overall crisis
management framework. Leaving these issues unresolved at EU-level implies that significant weaknesses remain in the DGSframework, including inter alia:−

Unsustainable funding – the current lack of sophisticated and risk sensitive funding arrangements involves a significant
risk that governments will have to carry the financial burden indented for the banks, or worse, that the DGS fails on theircommitments (both of which illustrated by the Icelandic case). In particular, in relation to the any of the 43 European
LFCIs identified earlier in the chapter, no current scheme can be expected to have the capacity to make reimbursements
without involving public funds.

−

Limited use in crisis management – Even if DGS’ had that capacity, the pay box nature of most schemes makes it
unlikely that they ever will be utilised for LFCIs, because of the large externalities associated with letting suchinstitutions fail.

−Negative effects on financial stability – reliance on ex-post funding and lack of risk sensitive premiums weakens market
discipline (moral hazard), distort the efficient allocation of deposits, as well as it may be a source of pro-cyclicality.

Obstacle to efficient crisis management – due to incompatible schemes (trigger points, early intervention powers etc.) anddiverging incentives among member.

34136) The idea of a pooled EU fund, composed of the national deposit guarantee funds, hasbeen discussed by the Group, but has not been supported. The setting-up andmanagement of such a fund would raise numerous political and practical problems.
Furthermore, one fails to see the added-value that such a fund would have in comparison
to national funds operating under well-harmonised rules (notably for coverage levels
and the triggering of the scheme).
EU harmonization should not go as far either as laying down rules on the possible use of
DGSs in the management of a crisis. It should not prohibit additional roles beyond thebase task for a DGS to act ex post, in the crisis resolution phase, as a pay box byreimbursing the guaranteed amount to depositors in a defaulted bank. Most member
countries limit their national DGS to this pay box function. Some countries, however,extend the activities by giving their DGS also a rescue function. The Group did not see
any need for EU harmonization in this respect.
137) There is a specific case (of the Icelandic type) when a supervisory authority allows someof its banks to mushroom large branches in other EU countries, whilst the home
Member State is not able to honour the deposit guarantee schemes which are inadequate
for such exposures. The guarantee responsibilities then de facto fall into the jurisdictionof the host country. This is not acceptable and should at least be addressed, for example,
in the following way: the host Member State should have the right to inquire whether
the funds available in the DGS of the home Member State are indeed sufficient toprotect fully the depositors in the host Member State. Should the host Member State nothave sufficient guarantees that this is indeed the case, the only way to address this kindof problem is to give sufficient powers to the host supervisory authorities to takemeasures that would at the very beginning curtail the expansive trends observed.
138) The Group has not entered into the specifics of the protection of policy-holders andinvestors. It nevertheless considers that the above general principles, and in particular
the equal protection of all customers in the Single Market, should also be implemented
in the insurance and investment sectors.
d) Burden sharing
139) The issue of burden sharing in cases of crisis resolution is extremely complicated for
two reasons. First, cases where financial support from both public sector and private
sector is needed to reach an acceptable solution are more complex than rescues where
either private or public money is involved. Second, agreement on burden sharing on an
ex post basis, at the moment of the rescue operation, is more difficult to reach than when
one can rely on predetermined, ex ante arrangements.
140) As noted above, the current lack of pan-EU mechanism to resolve a crisis affecting across-border group implies that there is no choice but to resolve this crisis at national
entity-level or to agree on improvised, ad hoc cross-border solutions. The lack of afinancing mechanism to support the resolution of a cross-border group further
complicates the situation.
141) On the basis of the experiences learnt from the crisis, the Group believes that theMember States should become able to manage a crisis in a more adequate way than is
feasible today. There would be merit, in order to achieve this, in developing more35

detailed criteria on burden sharing than the principles established in the current
Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), which limits the sharing of a fiscal burden to
two main principles: the economic impact of the crisis on the Member States concerned(equity principle) and the allocation of home/host supervisory powers (accountability
principle).
142) Burden sharing arrangements could, in addition, include one of the following criteria, or
a combination thereof:-

the deposits of the institution;-

the assets (either in terms of accounting values, market values or risk-weighted
values) of the institution;-

the revenue flows of the institution;-

the share of payment system flows of the institution;-

the division of supervisory responsibility; the party responsible for supervisory
work, analysis and decision being also responsible for an appropriately larger shareof the costs.

143) These criteria would preferably be implemented by amending the 2008 MoU. Where
needed, additional criteria could be agreed.
Recommendation 13: The Group calls for a coherent and workable regulatory framework
for crisis management in the EU:--

without pre-judging the intervention in future individual cases of distressed financial
institutions, a transparent and clear framework for managing crises should be
developed;
all relevant authorities in the EU should be equipped with appropriate and equivalentcrisis prevention and crisis intervention tools;
legal obstacles which stand in the way of using these tools in a cross-border context
should be removed, with adequate measures to be adopted at EU level.

Recommendation 14: Deposit Guarantee Schemes (DGS) in the EU should be harmonised
and preferably be pre-funded by the private sector (in exceptional cases topped up by theState) and provide high, equal protection to all bank customers throughout the EU.
The principle of high, equal protection of all customers should also be implemented in theinsurance and investment sectors.
The Group recognises that the present arrangements for safeguarding the interests ofdepositors in host countries have not proved robust in all cases, and recommends that theexisting powers of host countries in respect of branches be reviewed to deal with the
problems which have occurred in this context.

36

Recommendation 15: In view of the absence of an EU-level mechanisms for financing
cross-border crisis resolution efforts, Member States should agree on more detailed criteria
for burden sharing than those contained in the existing Memorandum of Understanding(MoU) and amend the MoU accordingly.

37

CHAPTER III: EU SUPERVISORY REPAIRI.

INTRODUCTION

144) The previous chapter proposed changes to the European regulation of financial services.
This chapter examines the policies and practices of supervision of financial services
within the EU and proposes both short and longer term changes. Regulation andsupervision are interdependent: competent supervision cannot make good failures infinancial regulatory policy; but without competent and well designed supervision good
regulatory policies will be ineffective. High standards in both are therefore required.

Macro and Micro prudential supervision145) The experience of the past few years has brought to the fore the important distinction
between micro-prudential and macro-prudential supervision. Both are clearlyintertwined, in substance as well as in operational terms. Both are necessary and will becovered in this chapter.
146) Micro-prudential supervision has traditionally been the centre of the attention ofsupervisors around the world. The main objective of micro-prudential supervision is tosupervise and limit the distress of individual financial institutions, thus protecting thecustomers of the institution in question. The fact that the financial system as a whole
may be exposed to common risks is not always fully taken into account. However, by
preventing the failure of individual financial institutions, micro-prudential supervisionattempts to prevent (or at least mitigate) the risk of contagion and the subsequent
negative externalities in terms of confidence in the overall financial system.
147) The objective of macro-prudential supervision is to limit the distress of the financial
system as a whole in order to protect the overall economy from significant losses in real
output. While risks to the financial system can in principle arise from the failure of one
financial institution alone if it is large enough in relation to the country concerned
and/or with multiple branches/subsidiaries in other countries, the much more important
global systemic risk arises from a common exposure of many financial institutions to thesame risk factors. Macro-prudential analysis therefore must pay particular attention tocommon or correlated shocks and to shocks to those parts of the financial system thattrigger contagious knock-on or feedback effects.
148) Macro-prudential supervision cannot be meaningful unless it can somehow impact onsupervision at the micro-level; whilst micro-prudential supervision cannot effectively
safeguard financial stability without adequately taking account of macro-level
developments.

The objective of supervision
149) The prime objective of supervision is to ensure that the rules applicable to the financial
sector are adequately implemented, in order to preserve financial stability and thereby toensure confidence in the financial system as a whole and sufficient protection for the38

customers of financial services. One function of supervisors is to detect problems at an
early stage to prevent crises from occurring. However, it is inevitable that there will be
failures from time to time, and the arrangements for supervision have to be seen withthis in mind. But once a crisis has broken out, supervisors have a critical role to play
(together with central banks and finance ministries) to manage the crisis as effectively as
possible to limit the damage to the wider economy and society as a whole.
150) Supervision must ensure that all supervised entities are subject to a high minimum set ofcore standards. When carrying-out their duties, supervisors should not favour aparticular institution, or type of institution, to the detriment of others. Competition
distortions and regulatory arbitrage stemming from different supervisory practices must
be avoided, because they have the potential of undermining financial stability – interalia by encouraging a shift of financial activity to countries with lax supervision. The
supervisory system has to be perceived as fair and balanced. Furthermore, a levelplaying field is vital for the credibility of supervisory arrangements, their acceptance bymarket operators big and small and for generating optimal cooperation between
supervisors and financial institutions. This is of particular importance in the context of
the Single Market, built as it is, inter alia, on the principles of undistorted competition,
freedom of establishment and the free flow of capital. Confidence will be gained in theEuropean Union from common approaches by all Member States.
151) The supervisory objective of maintaining financial stability must take into account an
important constraint which is to allow the financial industry to perform its allocative
economic function with the greatest possible efficiency, and thereby contribute tosustainable economic growth. Supervision should aim to encourage the smoothfunctioning of markets and the development of a competitive industry. Poor supervisoryorganisation or unduly intrusive supervisory rules and practices will translate into costs
for the financial sector and, in turn, for customers, taxpayers and the wider economy.
Therefore supervision should be carried-out as effectively as possible and at the lowest
possible cost. This, again, is crucial if the Single Market is to deliver all its benefits tocustomers and companies.

II. LESSONS FROM THE CRISIS: WHAT WENT WRONG?
152) Chapter 1 examined in detail the causes of the crisis. These were many; often with a
global dimension. Although the way in which the financial sector has been supervisedin the EU has not been one of the primary causes behind the crisis, there have been realand important supervisory failures, from both a macro and micro-prudential standpoint.
The following significant problems have come to light:a)Lack of adequate macro-prudential supervision

153) The present EU supervisory arrangements place too much emphasis on the supervisionof individual firms, and too little on the macro-prudential side. The fact that this failingis duplicated elsewhere in the world makes it a greater, not a lesser, issue. The Group
believes that to be effective macro-prudential supervision must encompass all sectors offinance and not be confined to banks, as well as the wider macro-economic context.
This oversight also should take account of global issues. Macro-prudential supervision
requires, in addition to the judgements made by individual Member States, a judgement39

to be taken at EU level. The Group believes that this requires that an Institution at EU
level be entrusted with this task. It recommends that the ECB/ESCB8 be explicitly andformally charged with this responsibility in the European Union.
b)

Ineffective Early Warning mechanisms

154) Insofar as macro-prudential risks were identified (and there was no shortage ofcomments about worrying developments in both macroeconomic imbalances and thelowering price of risk, for example) there was no mechanism to ensure that thisassessment of risk was translated into action. The Group believes, if the responsibility it
proposes to be given to the ECB/ESCB is to work, that there must be an effective andenforceable mechanism to check that the risks identified by the macro-prudential
analysis have resulted in specific action by the new European Authorities (see below)
and national supervisors. The Group therefore recommends a formal process to giveteeth to this.
c)Problems of competences

155) There have been a significant number of instances of different types of failure in the
supervision, by national supervisors, of particular institutions, i.e. in their oversight
duties supervisors failed to perform to an adequate standard their responsibilities. One ofthese instances – the supervision of Northern Rock by the UK Financial Services
Authority – has been examined in detail, but other, less well documented examples
abound (e.g. IKB, Fortis). The Group believes there is advantage in analysing andpublishing the circumstances of those failures, so that lessons can be learnt and future
supervisory behaviour improved. Although the Group does not believe that any system
can avoid errors of judgment occurring, it considers that the supervisory experience ofthe crisis points to the need for well staffed, experienced and well trained supervisors in
all Member States, and the Group accordingly makes recommendations designed toachieve this.
d)Failures to challenge supervisory practices on a cross-border basis156) The present processes and practices for challenging the decisions of a national
supervisor have proven to be inadequate; for example the embryonic peer review
arrangements being developed within the level 3 committees proved ineffective. At
present (and until any practical arrangements for supervision on an EU basis are both
agreed in principle and translated into practice), extensive reliance is and will be placedon the judgements and decisions of the home supervisor. This is particularly importantwhen a financial institution spreads its activities into countries other than its home baseby branching from its home country. This can, as occurred with the Icelandic banks,
create significant risks in countries other than that of the home regulator, yet the abilityof the host countries affected to challenge the decisions of the home regulator do not
sufficiently recognise these risks.
157) The Group believes that an effective means of challenging the decisions of the homeregulator is needed, and therefore makes recommendations designed both to achieve a
step change in the speed and effectiveness of the present arrangements for peer review
8

ESCB is the European System of Central Banks. It includes all the national central banks of the EU.

40

(which are at a very early stage of development), and to give force to a considereddecision (if arrived at), that a home regulator has not met the necessary supervisory
standards. The Group considers that a binding mediation mechanism is required to deal
with such cross-border supervisory problems. Without such an effective and binding
mechanism, pressure will build up and some Member States might in the future try tolimit the branching activities of any firm supervised by a supervisor which has been
judged to have failed to meet the standards. Such fragmentation would represent a major
step backwards for the Single Market.
158) Equally, the Group believes that an effective mechanism is needed to allow homesupervisors to challenge decisions made by host supervisors.
e)Lack of frankness and cooperation between supervisors

159) As the crisis developed, in too many instances supervisors in Member States were notprepared to discuss with appropriate frankness and at an early stage the vulnerabilities offinancial institutions which they supervised. Information flow among supervisors was
far from being optimal, especially in the build-up phase of the crisis. This has led to anerosion of mutual confidence among supervisors. Although the Group recognises theissues of commercial confidentiality and legal constraints involved in candid
discussions, it believes that much more frank exchange of information is called for andmakes recommendations to achieve this.
f)Lack of consistent supervisory powers across Member States160) There are substantial differences in the powers granted to national supervisors in
different Member States, both in respect of what they can do by way of supervision andin respect of the enforcement actions (including sanctions) open to them when a firm isin breach of its duties. The Group recommends an urgent review of these differences in
powers and subsequent action to bring all supervisors up to a high level minimum
standard. This will involve substantial increase in the powers of a number of Member
States supervisors.
g)

Lack of resources in the level 3 committees161) The resources available to the level 3 committees severely limited the work which they
could undertake, and their speed of reaction. This, combined with the heavy workload
required of them in implementing the Financial Services Action Plan, meant that they
were unable to perform very much either by way of peer review or by way ofidentifying sector wide risk issues. The Group therefore believes that the resources
available to the three committees should be significantly increased, and makes
recommendations to that end.
h)No means for supervisors to take common decisions

162) There are a number of reasons why the level 3 committees have been unable tocontribute to the effective management of the crisis, notably their inability to take urgent
decisions. For example, they were not able to agree and implement common decisions inrelation to money-market funds or short-selling. The basic reason for this problem isthat the level 3 committees do not have the legal powers to take decisions. As aconsequence, they understandably have failed to develop either the attitude or the41

procedures needed to respond rapidly to the emerging crisis. If their legal powers are
expanded, changes in both will be required.
163) The above diagnosis is of course easy to establish with hindsight. It is not the Group's
intention to blame the supervisory community in the EU for a crisis which is the resultof the interaction of a number of complex and global factors – many of which (i.e.
global imbalances, excess liquidity, too low interest rates…) were beyond the remit of
micro-prudential supervisors. We should also recognize that some regulation applied bysupervisors played a negative role in fuelling the crisis. In the previous chapter on
regulation, we noted that some "public" regulation may well have aggravated things,
generated perverse effects and contributed to the excesses of securitisation. In addition,
in some instances, the absence of clarity of some rules (e.g. pillar 2 of Basel) led
supervisors to be passive, rather than pro-active.
164) It remains however the case that the evidence clearly shows that the crisis preventionfunction of supervisors in the EU has not been performed well, and is not fit for
purpose9.
165) This chapter will not enter into the details of recent trends that have resulted in an
increasingly integrated European financial market (see annex 3) nor into the descriptionof the present supervisory arrangements (see annex 4).
166) What is proposed here is basically a new structure to make European supervision more
effective and so improve financial stability in all the member countries of the EU. There
are two elements to this: strengthening the quality of both national supervision andEuropean supervision. The evidence given to the" Group by the level 3 committees wasclear that, under their existing mandate as advisory committees to the Commission andwith their present working methods, their ability to develop their work further will beseverely constrained.

III. WHAT TO DO: BUILDING A EUROPEAN
SUPERVISION AND CRISIS MANAGEMENTa)

SYSTEMOF

The role of the ECB167) A number of people, including representatives of the ECB, have suggested that the ECB
could play a major role in a new European supervisory system in two respects: a role inmacro-prudential supervision and a role in micro-prudential supervision.
9This general statement does not reflect the fact that some banks in the EU fared better than others. Was this related todifferences in national supervision? It could be that some banks' supervisors had a more "prudent" approach than others (seefor example the Spanish approach to off-balance sheet transactions which was the most rigorous and also their requirementfor dynamic provisioning which provided cushions to the banks when the crisis erupted). It could be also that some financial
institutions had developed, by tradition, better internal controls and risk management which led, for example, to a morecautious behaviour to securitisation than had been the case in others (the US investment bank model was less used by EUbanks). Those European banks which held to the universal banking model have been to some extent better protected althougha number of them, in their investment capacities, were caught by buying toxic securities.
All this shows that the context in which the crisis developed is complex and that there is no single explanation.

42168) In the area of macro-prudential supervision, the suggested responsibilities could coverfinancial stability analysis; the development of early warning systems to signal theemergence of risks and vulnerabilities in the financial system; macro-stress testing
exercises to verify the degree of resilience of the financial sector to specific shocks andpropagation mechanisms with cross-border and cross-sector dimensions; as well as thedefinition of reporting and disclosure requirements relevant from a macro-prudential
standpoint.
169) In the area of micro-prudential supervision, the views have been put forward to theGroup that the ECB could become responsible for the direct supervision of cross-borderbanks in the EU or only in the euro zone. This could cover all cross-border banks or
only the systemically important ones. In such a scenario, the competences, currently
assigned to national supervisory authorities, would be transferred to the ECB which
would, inter alia, licence the institutions concerned, enforce capital requirements, carryout on-site inspections.
170) Alternatively, the ECB could be granted a leading oversight and coordination functionin the micro-supervision of cross-border banks in the EU. Whilst the colleges composedof national supervisors would continue to directly supervise cross-border banks, theECB could play a binding mediation role to resolve conflicts between national
supervisors, define supervisory practices and arrangements to promote supervisoryconvergence and become responsible for regulation related to issues such as procyclicality, leverage, risk concentration or liquidity mismatch.
171) These ideas have been carefully appraised by the Group. While the Group supports anextended role for the ECB in macro-prudential oversight (as discussed below), it does
not support any role for the ECB for micro-prudential supervision. The main reasons forthis are:-the ECB is primarily responsible for monetary stability. Adding micro-supervisory
duties could impinge on its fundamental mandate;-in case of a crisis, the supervisor will be heavily involved with the providers offinancial support (typically Ministries of Finance) given the likelihood that tax
payers money may be called upon. This could result in political pressure andinterference, thereby jeopardising the ECB's independence;-

giving a micro-prudential role to the ECB would be extremely complex because in
the case of a crisis the ECB would have to deal with a multiplicity of Member States
Treasuries and supervisors;-conferring micro-prudential duties to the ECB would be particularly difficult given
the fact that a number of ECB/ESCB members have no competence in terms ofsupervision;-

conferring responsibilities to the ECB/Eurosystem which is not responsible for themonetary policy of a number of European countries, would not resolve the issue ofthe need for a comprehensive, integrated system of supervision;-

finally, the ECB is not entitled by the Treaty to deal with insurance companies. In afinancial sector where transactions in banking and insurance activities can have very

43

comparable economic effects, a system of micro-prudential supervision which was
excluded from considering insurance activities would run severe risks of fragmented
supervision.
172) For all these reasons, the Group takes the view that the ECB should not become
responsible for the micro-supervision of financial institutions. However, the Groupconsiders that the ECB should be tasked with the role in ensuring adequate macroprudential supervision in the EU.
b)

Macro-prudential supervision: the case for reform

173) A key lesson to be drawn from the crisis, as noted above, is the urgent need to upgrade
macro-prudential supervision in the EU for all financial activities.
174) Central banks have a key role to play in a sound macro-prudential system. However, inorder for them, and in particular the ECB/ESCB, to be able to fully play their role inpreserving financial stability, they should receive an explicit formal mandate to assess
high-level macro-financial risks to the system and to issue warnings where required.
175) Within the EU, the ECB, as the heart of the ESCB, is uniquely placed for performing
this task: i.e. identifying those macro-prudential risks which all national supervisors
should take account of. The ECB/ESCB therefore should be able to require fromnational supervisors all the information necessary for the discharge of this
responsibility.
176) In view of the integrated financial market in the EU and the geographical distribution offinancial activities, it is essential that within the ESCB all national central banks areassociated to this process, not merely those of the euro area.
177) This could be achieved in the following way. A new group, replacing the current
Banking Supervision Committee (BSC) of the ECB, called the European Systemic Risk
Council (ESRC) should be set up under the auspices and with the logistical support of
the ECB. Its task will be to form judgements and make recommendations on macroprudential policy, issue risk warnings, compare observations on macro-economic andprudential developments and give direction on these issues.
178) As the responsibility for conducting macro-prudential supervision is proposed to beallocated to the ECB/ESCB, it is logical to compose the ESRC with the central banks ofthe ESCB. It would therefore be composed of the members of the ECB/ESCB General
Council (the President of the ECB, the vice-president of the ECB and the Governors ofthe 27 central banks), plus the Chairpersons of CEBS, CEIOPS and CESR and one
representative of European Commission. The President of the ECB would chair the
ESRC. The ESRC should be supported by a secretariat provided by the ECB.
179) But given the importance of having this group interact closely with those supervisors
who are not part of central banks, it should be clearly stated that whenever the subject
discussed justifies a wider presence of insurance and securities supervisors (as well asbanking supervisors for those countries where banking supervision is carried-out outside
the central bank), it would be assured. In such cases, a Governor could choose to be
represented by the Head of the appropriate national supervisory authority.

44180) For a new system of macro-prudential supervision to work effectively, two main
conditions must be met:-

A proper flow of information between national supervisors and the ECB/ESCB must
be mandatory. Appropriate procedures will have to be put in place so that all
relevant information can be transmitted to the ECB/ESCB in a way whichguarantees confidentiality. In this context, ECB/ESCB staff could be invited toattend meetings - and ask questions- between supervisors and the systemicallyimportant financial groups in order to receive first-hand relevant information.
ECB/ESCB staff could be invited to participate in the relevant colleges of microprudential supervisors. But the ECB/ESCB would not be responsible for microprudential supervision;-

It is crucial that there is an effective early warning mechanism as soon as signs of
weaknesses are detected in the financial system. And a graduated risk warning
framework for ensuring that, in the future, the identification of risks translates into
appropriate action.

181) Depending on the nature of the risks detected, a proper action has to be taken by therelevant EU authorities. Different types of actions could be required. For example:-

if credit expansion appeared to become excessive in one or several member
countries, the ESRC would liaise with the relevant central bank (and/or banking
supervisor), give advice on the appropriate measures to be taken (e.g. triggering
dynamic provisions). Central banks would be expected to take into account thefindings of the ESRC. If the ESRC has issued a specific risk warning calling for a
response by national supervisors, the ESRC should review their responses, and, if
necessary, indicate whether and what further action it judged necessary, by reportingto the Economic and Financial Committee (EFC), on the basis described below;-

if the issue is more related to a global dysfunction of the system (e.g. too highmaturity transformation, abuse of off-balance sheet transactions, abuse of regulatory
arbitrage by non-banks), the ESRC would have to warn the global supervisorysystem (see chapter 4 on global repair) in order to define appropriate and coherent
actions at both the EU and global levels. If the problems pertain to prudential issues
in the EU, then the level 3 committees should be required to address them;-

If the concerns were related to fiscal matters (e.g. excessive deficits or theaccumulation of debt), the ESRC would immediately relate to the EFC.

182) As soon as the risks detected would appear to have a potentially serious negative impact
on the financial sector or the economy as a whole, the ESRC should inform the
Chairman of EFC. In such circumstances, the EFC, working with the Commission,
could play an essential role by developing an action-oriented strategy to deal withserious risks requiring political or legislative action. It must be clear to everyone whoshould act and according to which timetable. Furthermore, a process should beestablished to regularly evaluate the effectiveness of the supervisory/regulatory actions
that have been agreed and decide whether other actions are necessary. A "rendez-vousclause" should be set to check that the actions taken have actually been effective. It
would be the responsibility of the Chairman of the EFC to decide if and when the EFC(in its full composition, i.e. with the central banks) and/or the ECOFIN Council should45

be informed or associated in the deliberations. The EFC should also advise on how to
relate with the European Parliament and on whether the information needs to be madepublic – which can be helpful in certain circumstances.
Recommendation 16: A new body called the European Systemic Risk Council (ESRC), tobe chaired by the ECB President, should be set up under the auspices and with thelogistical support of the ECB.
---

The ESRC should be composed of the members of the General Council of the ECB, thechairpersons of CEBS, CEIOPS and CESR as well as one representative of theEuropean Commission. Whenever the subject discussed justifies the presence of
insurance and securities supervisors, the Governor could choose to be represented by
the Head of the appropriate national supervisory authority;
The ESRC should pool and analyse all information, relevant for financial stability,
pertaining to macro-economic conditions and to macro-prudential developments in all
the financial sectors.
A proper flow of information between the ESRC and the micro-prudential supervisors
must be ensured.

Recommendation 17: an effective risk warning system shall be put in place under the
auspices of the ESRC and of the Economic and Financial Committee (EFC).
-

The ESRC should prioritise and issue macro-prudential risk warnings: there should be
mandatory follow up and, where appropriate, action shall be taken by the relevant
competent authorities in the EU.

-

If the risks are of a serious nature, potentially having a negative impact on the financial
sector or the economy as a whole, the ESRC shall inform the chairman of the EFC. The
EFC, working with the Commission, will then implement a strategy ensuring that therisks are effectively addressed.

-

If the risks identified relate to a global dysfunction of the monetary and financial
system, the ESRC will warn the IMF, the FSF and the BIS in order to define
appropriate action at both EU and global levels.

-

If the ESRC judges that the response of a national supervisor to a priority risk warning
is inadequate, it shall, after discussion with that supervisor, inform the chairman of the
EFC, with a view to further action being taken against that supervisor.

c)

Micro-supervision: moving towards a European System of Financial Supervision(ESFS)

183) After having examined the present arrangements and in particular the cooperation within
the level 3 committees, the Group considers that the structure and the role bestowed on
the existing committees are not sufficient to ensure financial stability in the EU and allits Member States. Although the level 3 committees have contributed significantly to theprocess of European financial integration, there are a number of inefficiencies which can
46

no longer be dealt with within their present legal structure (i.e. as advisory bodies to theCommission).
This is why the Group proposes the establishment of a European System of Financial
Supervision (ESFS).
184) The ESFS should constitute an integrated network of European financial supervisors,working with enhanced level 3 committees ("Authorities"). Therefore the ESFS would
be a largely decentralised structure, fully respecting the proportionality and subsidiarity
principles of the Treaty. So existing national supervisors, who are closest to the markets
and institutions they supervise, would continue to carry-out day-to-day supervision andpreserve the majority of their present competences (see annex 3).
185) But in order to be in a position to effectively supervise an increasingly integrated andconsolidated EU financial market (and especially the large cross-border institutions,which pose systemic risks), the Authorities will carry-out a defined number of tasks thatare better performed at the EU level. The supervisor of the home Member State willcontinue to function as the first point of contact for the firm, whilst the European centre
should coordinate the application of common high level supervisory standards,
guarantee strong cooperation with the other supervisors, and, as importantly, guaranteethat the interests of host supervisors are properly safeguarded.
186) As far as cross-border institutions are concerned, the ESFS should continue to rely
heavily on the colleges of supervisors to be introduced by the revised CRD and theSolvency 2 directives. However, these colleges of supervisors should be strengthened by
the participation of representatives of the secretariat of the level 3 committees as well asof ECB/ESCB observers.
187) The ESFS must be independent from possible political and industry influences, at both
EU and national level. This means that supervisors should have clear mandates andtasks as well as sufficient resources and powers. In order to strengthen legitimacy and asa counterpart for independence, proper accountability to the political authorities at the
EU and national levels should be ensured. In short, supervisory work must be
independent from the political authorities, but fully accountable to them10.

10Based on various internationally recognised standards and codes (i.e. the G10 Basel Core Principles for Effective Banking Supervision(BCP), the IAIS Insurance Core Principles and the IOSCO Objectives and Principles of Securities Regulation), supervisory independence
can be defined as a situation in which the supervisor is able to exercise its judgment and powers independently with respect to theenforcement of prudential and/or conduct of business rules, i.e. without being improperly influenced or overruled by the parties under
supervision, the government, the Parliament, or any other interested third party. As such, the supervisory authority must be empowered andable to make its own independent judgements (e.g. with respect to licensing, on-site inspections, off-site monitoring, sanctioning, andenforcement of the sanctions), without other authorities or the industry having the right or possibility to intervene. Moreover, the supervisor
itself must base its decisions on purely objective and non-discriminatory grounds. However, supervisory independence differs from central
bank independence (i.e. in relation to monetary policy), in the sense that the government (usually the Finance minister) remains politically
responsible for maintaining the stability of the financial system, and the failure of one or more financial institutions, markets or
infrastructures can have serious implications for the economy and tax payer's money10. Consequently, the supervisory authority should
operate within a certain scope of responsibilities and under an explicit delegation of powers in the form of legislation passed by
Parliament and the government should not exercise immediate powers on the supervisory authority and interfere directly in its day-to-day
activities. Independence should be balanced and strengthened by proper accountability arrangements and transparency of the regulatory andsupervisory process, consistent with confidentiality requirements. National authorities should however relinquish control mechanisms suchas having government representatives, chairing or actively participating in the management board of the supervisory authority, or giving thegovernment the right to intervene in the day-to-day operations of the supervisory authority. Their influence should be limited to thepossibility of amending the legal framework, imposing long-run strategic goals, and monitoring performance, on the condition that this isdone in an open and transparent manner.

47188) The ESFS must work with a common set of core harmonized rules and rely on highquality and consistent information. This means proper, primary, timely informationexchange among all supervisors to enable complete assessment – from the national toEuropean to global levels.
189) Finally, the ESFS should be neutral with respect to national supervisory structures:
national supervisory structures have been chosen for a variety of reasons and it would be
impractical to try to harmonise them – even though it may well be that the current trend
could continue towards the emergence of a dual "twin peaks" system (banks, insurancecompanies and other financial institutions being covered by the same authority andmarkets/conduct of business by another one).
Recommendation 18: A European System of Financial Supervisors (ESFS) should be setup. This ESFS should be a decentralised network:-

existing national supervisors would continue to carry-out day-to-day supervision;-

three new European Authorities would be set up, replacing CEBS, CEIOPS and CESR,
with the role coordinate the application of supervisory standards and guarantee strong
cooperation between the national supervisors;-colleges of supervisors would be set up for all major cross-border institutions.

The ESFS will need to be independent of the political authorities, but be accountable tothem.
It should rely on a common set of core harmonised rules and have access to high-quality
information.

IV. THE PROCESS LEADING TO THE CREATION OF A EUROPEANSYSTEM OF FINANCIAL SUPERVISION
190) The goal set out above is an ambitious one. It will require important institutional,
legislative and operational changes. It will also require the emergence of the broadest
possible political consensus on the necessity to move in this direction and the steps thatmust be taken to do so. The Group hopes that all Member States will aspire to thesechanges. If not, a variable geometry approach based on the mechanisms of Enhanced
Cooperation or an inter-governmental agreement provided for in the Treaty may berequired.
191) The Group proposes a two stage process, to strengthen the supervision of the European
financial sector, thereby rebuilding confidence in the market. The process should be as
swift as possible, whilst giving sufficient time to all stakeholders involved to converge
towards the goal of a strengthened and more integrated system.
192) Whilst the transformation of current EU supervisory arrangements lie at the very heartof this process, the Group considers that improvements in the organisation ofsupervision cannot be looked at in isolation from the rules which supervisors have toimplement and from the crisis management and resolution arrangements that they have48

to implement (together with finance ministries) when needed. Regulation, supervisionand crisis management/resolution arrangements are intertwined. They form acontinuum. There is no point in converging supervisory practices, if the basic financial
regulations remain fragmented. And it will be impossible to revamp the organisation ofEuropean supervision, without clarity as to how a crisis, should it break-out, will be
managed and resolved by the relevant authorities.
193) The two stage process proposed below therefore brings together regulation, supervisionand crisis management/resolution.

A) Stage 1 (2009-2010): Preparing for a European System of Financial
Supervisiona)

Preparing for the transformation of the level 3 committees into European
Authorities.

194) The Commission, the Council and the Parliament should immediately start the necessary
legislative work building a consensus to transform the level 3 committees into three
European Authorities: a European Banking Authority, a European Insurance Authority
and a European Securities Authority. The actual transformation should be completed at
the start of the second phase (see below).
Concurrently, work should start in the following areas:b)Upgrading the quality of supervision

195) The Member States and the level 3 committees should, as a matter of urgency, findpractical ways to strengthen the national supervisors. At national level, consideration
should be given to the following issues: aligning supervisors' competences and powers
on the most comprehensive system in the EU; increasing supervisors' remuneration;
facilitating exchanges of personnel between the private sector and supervisory
authorities; ensuring that all supervisory authorities implement a modern and attractive
personnel policy. At European level, the level 3 committees should intensify theirefforts in the areas of training and personnel exchanges to create a strong European
supervisory culture.
196) The European Commission should carry-out, in cooperation with the level 3
committees, an examination of the degree of independence of all national supervisors.
This examination should lead to concrete recommendations for improvement, including
the ways in which national supervisory authorities are funded.
197) The level 3 committees should prepare the modalities with the ESRC for a legallybinding mechanism, including for the transfer of information, whereby the identificationof risks by the ESRC translates into expeditious regulatory, supervisory or monetary
policy examination at EU level.

49

Recommendation 19: In the first stage (2009-2010), national supervisory authorities should
be strengthened with a view to upgrading the quality of supervision in the EU.
-

Member States should give consideration to the following reforms: aligningsupervisors' competences and powers on the most comprehensive system in the EU,
increasing supervisors' remuneration, facilitating exchanges of personnel between theprivate sector and supervisory authorities, ensuring that all supervisory authorities
implement a modern and attractive personnel policy.

-

The level 3 committees should intensify their efforts in the areas of training andpersonnel exchanges. They should also work towards the creation of a strong European
supervisory culture.

-

The European Commission should carry-out, in cooperation with the level 3
committees, an examination of the degree of independence of all national supervisors.
This should lead to concrete recommendations, including on the funding of national
authorities.

In this first stage, the European Commission should immediately begin the work to prepare
legal proposals to set up the new Authorities.

c)Moving towards harmonised rules, powers and sanctions

198) The European Institutions and the level 3 committees should initiate a determined andconcerted effort to equip the EU financial sector with a consistent set of core rules by
the beginning of 2013. A process should be set-up, whereby the key-differences innational legislation will be identified and removed.
199) These differences stem from exceptions, derogations, additions made at national level11,
or ambiguities contained in directives which have a material impact on the market; arelaxer than the minimum core standards; or which may induce competition distortions or
regulatory arbitrage will be identified and removed. In its efforts to remove thesedifferences, the European Commission should concentrate its first efforts on the main
problems.
200) This process may not lead to identical rules in every case. However, the coreharmonised rules should be sufficiently comprehensive. To that effect, the level 3
committees will examine the differences that exist and propose to the Commission new
or further developments of level 1 and level 2 rules (e.g. harmonisation of the sanctions
regimes, definition of core capital rules, harmonisation in the areas of short-selling,
controls for security settlement systems).
201) The European Institutions should also set in motion a process which will lead to far
more consistent sanctioning regimes across the Single Market. Supervision cannot beeffective with weak, highly variant sanctioning regimes. It is essential that within the
EU and elsewhere, all supervisors are able to deploy sanctions regimes that are
sufficiently convergent, strict, resulting in deterrence. This is far from being the case11

A practice sometimes referred to as "goldplating".

50

now. The same exercise should be initiated with respect to supervisory powers. Thesealso differ greatly from one Member State to another12. This cannot be conducive tocoherent and effective supervision in the Single Market.
Recommendation 20: In the first stage, EU should also develop a more harmonised set offinancial regulations, supervisory powers and sanctioning regimes.
-

The European Institutions and the level 3 committees should initiate a determinedeffort to equip the EU with a far more consistent set of rules by the beginning of 2013.
Key differences in national legislation stemming from exceptions, derogations,additions made at national level or ambiguities contained in current directives should
be identified and removed, so a harmonized core set of standards is defined and applied
throughout the EU.

-

The European Institutions should set in motion a process leading to far stronger andconsistent supervisory and sanctioning regimes in the Member States.

d)

Immediate strengthening of the level 3 committees202) The level 3 committees should be subject to a number of changes which should be
implemented rapidly:i) Reinforcement of the resources of the these committees, to be able to employ more
people, with a larger budget;ii) Development of the presently embryonic peer review processes within eachcommittee, with a view to becoming binding mediation processes;iii) Redefinition of their work and priorities to become more pro-active in identifying
problems and proposing solutions. The use of qualified majority voting should be
put into practice;iv) Cooperation between the level 3 committees should be further intensified andcodified.
e)Supervisory colleges203) The present relatively restricted use of supervisory colleges should be expanded
immediately. The Group believes that by the end of 2009 colleges for all major crossborder firms should be established in the EU13. By mid-2009, the level 3 committees
should make proposals for all major cross border financial firms within the EU to havesupervisory colleges and they should define clear supervisory norms for them.

12

For the time being, for example, only 10 insurance supervisors are empowered to approve internal risk models; only 6 ofthem can increase capital requirements within firms ; and 2 of them are not empowered to grant licences.

13

As an order of magnitude, this could encompass at least 50 financial institutions having a significant market share inanother Member State.

51

Recommendation 21: The Group recommends an immediate step-change in the working of
the level 3 committees which can be dealt with at once. The level 3 committees should
therefore:-f)benefit from, under the Community budget, a significant reinforcement of theirresources;
upgrade the quality and impact of their peer review processes;
prepare the ground, including through the adoption of adequate supervisory norms, forthe setting-up of supervisory colleges for all major cross-border financial firms in the
EU by the end of 2009.

Crisis management and resolution204) Legislative changes covering in particular aspects of company and insolvency laws (e.g.
winding-up, transferability of assets, bankruptcy), should be proposed by theCommission as soon as possible if the EU is to deal with future crises in a more
effective and cost-efficient manner (see section VI of chapter 2).

B) Stage 2 (2011-2012): Establishing the European System of Financial
Supervisiona)Role of the new European Authorities

205) As early as possible during this second phase, the level 3 committees would betransformed legally into the three Authorities mentioned above.
206) These Authorities would continue to perform all the current functions of the level 3
committees (advising the Commission on regulatory and other issues, defining overall
supervisory policies, convergence of supervisory rules and practices, financial stability
monitoring, oversight of colleges).
207) National authorities would continue to remain responsible for the supervision ofdomestic institutions. Cross-border institutions would continue to be supervised byhome and host supervisors. Disputes between home and host supervisors would be
subject to decisions by the relevant Authority.
208) But, in addition, the new Authorities would carry-out a number of new, specific tasks
which, in full conformity with the principle of subsidiarity, the Group considers would
be more effectively carried-out at the European level. These tasks would be thefollowing:i) In relation to cross-border institutions:-

A legally binding mediation role, allowing the new Authorities to solve disputes
between national supervisors. They should be able to, when no agreement can befound between the supervisors of a cross-border institution, take certain
supervisory decisions directly applicable to the institution concerned (e.g.
approval of risk internal models, capital add-ons, licence withdrawal, resolving

52

disputes aboutobligations…);

different

legalinterpretations

relating

tosupervisory-

The designation of Group supervisors (in cases where the process laid down in
the relevant directives has not led to an agreement on this question);-

The aggregation of all relevant information emanating from national supervisorsand pertaining to cross-border institutions;-Staff from the Authorities could take part in on-site inspections carried out by
national supervisors;-

The Authorities would ensure a true level playing-field for all cross-border
institutions and facilitate the monitoring of the systemic threats they pose;-

The Authorities would be tasked to ensure the consistency of prudential
supervision for all actors (and in particular between cross-border and smaller
institutions), thereby avoiding the risk of unfair competition between supervised
entities. To guarantee this, any financial institution (including purely domesticones) should be able to submit complaints to the Authority when they consider
that they suffer from any discrimination vis-à-vis a cross-border institution
which has its home supervisor in another Member State;-

The prudential assessment of pan-EU mergers and acquisitions (in combination
with the assessment made by the relevant Member States).

ii) In relation to specific EU-wide institutions:-

The Authority concerned would be responsible for the licensing and directsupervision of some specific EU-Wide institutions, such as Credit Rating
Agencies and post-trading infrastructures.

iii) In the area of regulation:-

The Authorities should play a decisive role in the technical level 3 interpretationof level 1 and level 2 measures and in the development of level 3 technicalstandards. A legal mechanism should be put in place so as to ensure that, once
an Authority has decided on a given interpretation (through guidance,
recommendations etc), this interpretation becomes legally valid throughout theEU.

iv) In relation to supervisory standards and practices:-

The Authorities would be responsible for defining common supervisory practices
and arrangements for the functioning of the colleges of supervisors;-

The Authorities should evaluate the organisation, processes, competences andindependence of the national supervisory authorities through peer reviews. Theseevaluations should lead to concrete recommendations for improvements andshould take place frequently, without any scruples;53-

The Authorities would have a significant new responsibility of ensuring that all
national supervisors meet necessary standards, by being able to challenge theperformance by any national supervisor of its supervisory responsibilities,
whether for domestic or cross-border firms, and to issue rulings aimed atensuring that national supervisors correct the weaknesses that have been
identified. In the event of the national supervisor failing to respond to this ruling,a series of graduated sanctions could be applied, including fines and the launchby the Commission of infringement procedures. In exceptional circumstances,where serious issues of financial stability are at stake, the Authorities should be
able on a temporary basis to acquire the duties which the national supervisor is
failing to discharge.

v) In relation to macro-prudential issues:-

The Authorities would have binding cooperation and information sharing
procedures with the ESRC to allow the latter to perform its macro-prudential
supervision task;-

The Authorities should create and lead groups of national supervisors to deal
with specific events affecting several Member States (e.g. bankruptcy of a third
country systemic group).

vi) In the area of crisis management:-

In crisis situations, the Authorities should have a strong coordinating role: theyshould facilitate cooperation and exchange of information between competentauthorities, act as mediator when that is needed, verify the reliability of theinformation that should be available to all parties and help the relevant
authorities to define and implement the right decisions.

-Annex 5 to this chapter shows how supervisory competences could be shared
between national supervisors and the Authorities.

vii) In relation to international matters:b)-

The Authorities would prepare (and in some cases could adopt) equivalence
decisions pertaining to the supervisory regimes of third countries;-

They would represent the EU interests in bilateral and multilateral discussions
with third countries relating to supervision.

Governance and budget of the new Authorities

209) From a governance standpoint, each Authority would have a board structure comprisedof the highest-level representatives from national authorities. Their chairpersons anddirector generals should be full-time independent professionals. These professionals
would be chosen and appointed by the board. This should not exclude recruiting an
independent external personality of the highest calibre. In addition, the appointment of
the chairs should be confirmed by the Commission, the Council of Ministers and theEuropean Parliament and should be valid for a period of 8 years.

54210) The Authorities' decisions would be taken collectively, through the board structurecomposed of the Heads of national supervisors, by qualified-majority. However, otherarrangements could be considered when dealing with binding mediation cases (e.g.
decisions by the chairpersons and director generals). The Authorities would have theirown autonomous budget, which could be financed by the industry and/or contributions
from the public sector (including the EU budget). These budgets would have to becommensurate with their responsibilities.
211) The Authorities would have the highest degree of independence vis-à-vis the European
institutions, which should in not interfere in the internal processes and decisions of the
Authorities. However, the Authorities would be accountable to the Council, theEuropean Parliament and the Commission. They should report formally to these three
institutions on a frequent basis.
c)

Crisis management and resolution212) As soon as possible in this second phase, the legislative changes recommended in theprevious chapter would need to enter into force. An equal and high level of protection
to all depositors, investors and policy-holders should be guaranteed, avoiding
competition distortions between institutions and between sectors.
213) The changes recommended above are ambitious and will be complex to implement. It isnevertheless vital to do so in order, in particular, to seriously tackle the issue ofconfidence that affects the present relationship between home and host countries. Recent
developments in this crisis have strengthened this distrust. Fears of most countries have
deepened in terms of the ability of their own supervisors to prevent crises, stop
withdrawals by parent companies of liquidity held in local subsidiaries or branches. The
Group believes that the reforms described above could do a lot to reduce suchsuspicions and provide effective, practical and legally binding mechanisms to resolve
disputes. We believe that this is probably the only way at this stage to combine theefficiency and needs of large groups on the one hand and the necessary safeguards forhost countries on the other.
Recommendation 22: In the second stage (2011-2012), the EU should establish an
integrated European System of Financial Supervision (ESFS).
- The level 3 Committees should be transformed into three European Authorities: aEuropean Banking Authority, a European Insurance Authority and a European
Securities Authority.
- The Authorities should be managed by a board comprised of the chairs of the national
supervisory authorities. The chairpersons and director generals of the Authorities should
be full-time independent professionals. The appointment of the chairpersons should be
confirmed by the Commission, the European Parliament and the Council and should bevalid for a period of 8 years.
- The Authorities should have their own autonomous budget, commensurate with their
responsibilities.

55

- In addition to the competences currently exercised by the level 3 committees, theAuthorities should have, inter alia, the following key-competences:i)

legally binding mediation between national supervisors;ii

adoption of binding supervisory standards;iii)

adoption of binding technical decisions applicable to individual financial
institutions;iv) oversight and coordination of colleges of supervisors;v) designation, where needed, of group supervisors;vi) licensing and supervision of specific EU-wide institutions (e.g. Credit Rating
Agencies, and post-trading infrastructures);vii) binding cooperation with the ESRC to ensure adequate macro-prudential
supervision.
- National supervisory authorities should continue to be fully responsible for the day-to-day
supervision of firms.

Recommendation 23: The Group recommends that planning for the 2 stages of the new
system be started immediately. To this effect, a group of high-level representatives of the
Finance Ministries, the European Parliament, the Level 3 Committees, and the ECB to bechaired by the Commission, should come forward before the end of 2009 with a detailed
implementation plan.
214)

The following diagram illustrates how the ESRC and the ESFS would interact witheach other.

56

A new European Framework for Safeguarding Financial Stability
European Systemic Risk Council (ESRC)[Chaired by President ECB]
Macro-prudential
supervision

Members of
ECB/ESCB
General Council(with alternates
where necessary)+

Chairs of
EBA, EIA&ESA

Information on micro-prudential
developments+

EuropeanCommission

Early risk warning

European System of Financial Supervision (ESFS)
Micro-prudential
supervision

Main tasks of the European Systemic Risk Council: decide on
macro-prudential policy, provide early risk warning to EU
supervisors, compare observations on macro-economic andprudential developments and give direction on these issues.

EuropeanBanking
Authority(EBA)

EuropeanInsurance
Authority(EIA)

EuropeanSecurities
Authority(ESA)

National
Banking
Supervisors

National
Insurance
Supervisors

National
Securities
Supervisors

Main tasks of the Authorities: in addition to the competences ofthe existing level 3 committees, the Authorities would have thefollowing key-competences: (i) legally binding mediation between
national supervisors, (ii) adoption of binding supervisory
standards, (iii) adoption of binding technical decisions applicable
to individual institutions, (iv) oversight and coordination ofcolleges of supervisors, (v) licensing and supervision of specificEU-wide institutions (e.g., Credit Rating Agencies and posttrading infrastructures), (vi) binding cooperation with the ESRC
to ensure adequate macro-prudential supervision, and (vii)strong coordinating role in crisis situations.
Main tasks of national supervisors: continue to be fully
responsible for day-to-day supervision of firms.

57

V. REVIEWINGAND
POSSIBLY
STRENGTHENINGTHE
EUROPEAN SYSTEM OF FINANCIAL SUPERVISION (ESFS)
215) The implementation of the arrangements described above will have to be monitored, andtheir effectiveness carefully assessed. A full-review should take place no later than three
years after the entry into force of stage 2. Whilst it would be premature at this stage tomake detailed recommendations as to how the ESFS could be strengthened beyond
stage 2, if stage 2 proves to be insufficient, the following observations can be made.
216) There may be merit, over time, in evolving towards a system which would rely on only
two Authorities: The first would be responsible for banking and insurance issues, aswell as any other issue which is relevant for financial stability (e.g. systemicallyimportant hedge funds, systemically important financial infrastructures). The second
Authority would be responsible for conduct of business and market issues, across thethree main financial sectors. Combining banking and insurance supervisory issues in thesame Authority could result in more effective supervision of financial conglomerates
and contribute to a simplification of the current extremely complex institutionallandscape.
217) Furthermore, given the speed at which financial markets evolve, it is important tomaintain a consistent set of technical rules applying to all financial firms. If it appeared,
after the review mentioned above, that wider regulatory powers of horizontal application
were needed, such a strengthening of the Authorities should be envisaged.
218) Concerning one idea, that often appears, suggesting the unification of all supervisory
activities for cross-border institutions at the pan-EU level, the Group considers that thismatter could only be considered if there were irrefutable arguments in favour of such a
proposal. The complexities and costs entailed by such a proposal (which would result ina two-tier supervisory system, one for cross-border institutions and one for domestic
institutions), its political implications and the difficulty of resolving cross-borderburden-sharing are such that the Group has doubts of it being implemented at thisjuncture. This scenario could become more viable, of course, should the EU decide tomove towards greater political integration.
Recommendation 24: The functioning of the ESFS should be reviewed no later than 3
years after its entry into force. In the light of this review, the following additional reforms
might be considered:-Moving towards a system which would rely on only two Authorities: the first Authority
would be responsible for banking and insurance prudential issues as well as for any
other issue relevant for financial stability; the second Authority would be responsible
for conduct of business and market issues;-

Granting the Authorities with wider regulatory powers of horizontal application;-

Examining the case for wider supervisory duties at the EU level.

58

CHAPTER IV: GLOBAL REPAIRI.

PROMOTING FINANCIAL STABILITY AT THE GLOBAL LEVEL

219) Although Europe was not at the root of the current financial crisis, it has neverthelessboth contributed to it and been hit severely by it. Global economic and financial
integration has by now reached a level where no country or region can any longer
insulate itself from developments elsewhere in the world. This points to the need for aco-ordinated, global policy response not only in the area of financial regulation andsupervision, but also in the macroeconomic and crisis management field.
220) Since the financial crisis has started to unfold, the EU has played a pro-active role ininternational efforts, trying to contain the economic fall-out from the financial crisis andto reform the international financial architecture. The EU was at the origin of the G20
process launched at the Washington Summit in November 2008 and is contributing to
the political orientations agreed at that summit. However, beyond managing the current
crisis, attention must now be devoted to drawing the lessons from the weaknesses of thecurrent international financial architecture that have been revealed by the recent events.
221) A variety of international institutions and informal groups currently deal with financial
regulatory and supervisory issues, often in a segmented way despite the interactions andrisk transfers between different parts of the financial system14. However, at present there
is an evident lack of a coherent framework for designing and enforcing minimum
regulatory standards, for identifying risks to financial stability and for coordinatingsupervisory policies at the global level. Moreover, there are practically no arrangements
for cross-border financial crisis management at the global level and for enforcement.
What is needed now is a strengthened, more coherent and streamlined international
financial regulatory and surveillance system, building on the better use of existing
international institutions.
222) A start in addressing the weaknesses of the existing international financial architecture
has been made at the G20 Summit in Washington on 15 November 2008. By agreeing
on an action plan based on the need to strengthen transparency, to enhance soundregulation, to promote integrity in financial markets and to reinforce international
cooperation, G20 leaders have set out the main priorities for the months and years tocome. However, international cooperation will not work without a proper representationof the main players and key emerging market economies in each internationalorganisation or body.
223) It is clearly in the EU's interest to try to shape the reform of the international financial
architecture. The EU should take the lead by improving its own regulatory andsupervisory system, which, necessary in its own right, is also required for international
convergence. In other words, international convergence and agreement on high14

These include the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, other Basel-based Committees such as the Committee on the
Global Financial System and the Committee on Payment and Settlement Systems, the Bank for International Settlements(BIS), the Financial Stability Forum (FSF) as well as bodies like the International Organisation of Securities Commissions(IOSCO), the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) and the International Association of Insurance Supervisors(IAIS).

59

standards needs strong EU enforceability through strong EU institutions. The EU has,
after all, a large share of world capital markets. The EU's policy development should
dovetail with international developments. Furthermore, convergence in international
regulatory and supervisory standards would ensure a level playing field for the highly
competitive globally integrated financial services sector.

II. REGULATORY CONSISTENCY224) Chapter 2 of this report has set out the Group's recommendations for regulatory reform.
While some of the required improvements specifically refer to the legislative frameworkin the EU, most of the recommended reforms either concern existing rules agreed at theinternational level (Basel 2; international accounting standards) or new initiatives thatshould preferably be implemented internationally (e.g. the regulation of credit rating
agencies, strengthened derivatives market rules or corporate governance rules). The EU
has a clear interest in promoting worldwide consistency of regulatory standards towards
the high level benchmarks.
225) Such moves towards to international consistency of regulatory standards will also avoid
unacceptable regulatory loopholes and regulatory arbitrage which could undermine
financial stability. It would moreover reduce the compliance burden associated withcross-border economic activity and avoid distortions of competition. Finally, seen fromthe point of view of public authorities, enhanced regulatory convergence would avoid
regulatory friction between jurisdictions and facilitate the supervision of globally active
firms.
226) International regulatory convergence towards a consistent set of rules could be promoted
by pursuing two parallel avenues. Firstly, a strengthening and broadening of bilateralregulatory dialogues between the main financial centres. Secondly, a clear mandate,including precise objectives and timetables, for international standard-setters as
currently discussed in the G20 context.
227) Who should be in charge of coordinating the international standard setting process?
Given its experience and track record as a standard-setter in the field of banking, theBasel Committee would seem well placed to play an important role in developing
adequate standards in some of the above-mentioned areas. However, as a number ofinternational standard setters other than central banks are concerned by the regulation of
the different aspects of financial activity, the Group considers that a reformed FSF
would, in view of the broader range of its participants and expertise, be in the best
position for coordinating the work of the various international standard setters inachieving international regulatory consistency.
228) However, the FSF in its current form would not be able to fulfil this task. It is therefore
proposed to strengthen the FSF by providing it with more resources and a stronger
governance structure (including a full-time chairperson). Moreover, the FSF should
become more accountable by reporting to the IMF and, like other international standardsetters (e.g. Basel Committee) should swiftly enlarge its membership to all systemicallyimportant countries. Clearly, all international standard-setters will need to combine
independence from political interference with political accountability. Furthermore, itwill be essential to prepare such international financial standards transparently and in60

close cooperation with market participants in order to be sufficiently close to market
realities.
229) It would also be important to report regularly (at least once or twice a year) to the IMF's
International Monetary and Finance Committee (IMFC) in order to maintain thepolitical momentum and to ensure accountability. In this context, it would be advisable
to activate the Articles of Agreement of the IMF in order to transform the IMFC into a
decision making Council.
230) Over the medium term, thought might be given to establishing a full international
standard-setting authority, established by a treaty. The objective should be to put inplace an international standard setting process which would be binding on jurisdictions
and which would ensure implementation and enforcement of international standards.
This would have to be supplemented by providing the IMF with the tasks of surveying(in the framework of Article IV Reviews) the enforcement of these standards.
Recommendation 25: The Group recommends that, based on clear objectives andtimetables, the Financial Stability Forum (FSF), in conjunction with international
standard setters like the Basel Committee of Banking Supervisors, is put in charge ofpromoting the convergence of international financial regulation to the highest level
benchmarks.
In view of the heightened role proposed in this report for the FSF, it is important that the
FSF is enlarged to include all systemically important countries and the European
Commission. It should receive more resources and its accountability and governanceshould be reformed by more closely linking it to the IMF.
The FSF should regularly report to the IMF's International Monetary and Financial
Committee (IMFC) about the progress made in regulatory reform implementing the lessons
from the current financial crisis.
The IMFC should be transformed into a decision-making Council, in line with the Articlesof the IMF agreement.

III. ENHANCING COOPERATION AMONG SUPERVISORS
231) In order to address the serious supervisory failures experienced in the past, strengthened
international collaboration in the supervision of large complex cross-border financialgroups is of crucial importance. For this purpose, international colleges of supervisors
should be set up before summer 2009 for all the largest financial institutions along thelines prepared by the FSF. Pragmatic solutions must be found on host supervisor
involvement, striking the right balance between efficiency and adequate representations
and information. As agreed by the G20 summit, major global banks should meet
regularly and at least once per year with their supervisory college for comprehensive
discussions on the assessment of their risks.
232) With a view to ensuring consistency and to identify potential systemic risks, in addition
to the participation of macro- and micro-prudential authorities, the participation of an61

official from an international body like the Basel Committee in these colleges would behighly desirable. On this basis, best practices could also be identified and promoted andcoherence could be ensured.
233) The emergence over the last few years of financial conglomerates who are very large insize and active in many different business segments (including in proprietary trading)throughout the world represents a particular supervisory challenge. There is a risk that
this trend will intensify as a result of the crisis (e.g. the merger between commercial
banks and investment banks), as ailing institutions are being acquired by others. If thesystem is not going to move towards a clear separation between pure commercial
banking activities (and some investment activities carried-out for the clients) and banks
that basically act like an investment fund, then the world is moving towards a more
complex setting where both activities will be mingled.
234) Such complex institutions, as well as conglomerates combining banking and insurance,pose indeed specific challenges both for their managers and their supervisors: mostfrequently, increasing size goes hand in hand with increased complexity and increased
cross-border activity. Such financial giants are so vast and complex that it is a hugechallenge to assess in an adequate way the risks to which they are exposed or the risks
that they may represent for the wider economy. Given their size and the structuralfunction they have for the financial system as a whole, they are, to some extent, "too big
to manage" and "too big to fail" – which means that they can expose the rest of society
to major costs and are subject to acute moral hazard; in some instances, these
institutions can even be "too big to save", for example when they are head-quartered in a
relatively small country or when the organisation of a rescue package is simply toocomplex to implement. However, although this may be desirable in instances ofexcessive market dominance under anti-trust law, it is unlikely that large financial
institutions will be broken up into component parts.
235) All this calls for a particularly stringent supervision of these institutions. Supervisors
should be particularly attentive to them, step up international cooperation to ensure thebest possible oversight and carry-out robust comprehensive risk assessments. The
extent to which these institutions are leveraged and how they are funded should inparticular be closely scrutinised on an on-going basis. The way in which they allocate
and price capital within the firm is crucial to their risk management. Anti-trust
authorities will also have to enhance their vigilance in relation to these institutions andbe ready to take any appropriate measure.
236) Faulty risk management has played a key role in the run-up to the current crisis.
International firm supervisors should therefore pay greater attention to banks' internalrisk management practices and insist on proper stress tests.
237) In the light of the corporate governance weaknesses witnessed over the past few years,
supervisors will also need to pay greater attention to the incentive effects of corporate
remuneration schemes. Here as well, a common global approach would be optimal inorder to avoid regulatory arbitrage. Supervisors should therefore agree on a common
assessment of incentive alignment in financial institutions and apply such common
criteria under pillar 2 of Basel 2.
238) The IMF should play a significant role in surveying (in the framework of Article IVassessments) the enforcement by member countries of international standards.
62

Recommendation 26: Barring a fundamental change in the ways that banks operate,
the Group recommends that the colleges of supervisors for large complex cross-borderfinancial groups currently being set up at the international level should carry out robust
comprehensive risk assessments, should pay greater attention to banks' internal risk
management practices and should agree on a common approach to promoting incentivealignment in private sector remuneration schemes via pillar 2 of Basel 2.
The Financial Stability Forum (FSF), working closely with other relevant international
bodies, should ensure coherent global supervisory practice between the various colleges
and promote best practice.

IV. MACROECONOMICPREVENTIONSURVEILLANCEANDCRISIS239) As has been described in chapter 1 of this report, international macroeconomic
developments and global imbalances have played a major role in leading to the current
crisis. While many were observing the emergence of at least some of thesedevelopments and imbalances, only few rang the alarm bells. While the lack of relevant
aggregate data of a reliable nature admittedly rendered any such warnings less precise
and thus less effective, this is no excuse for the fact that, where concerns were actually
voiced, corrective action has been totally inadequate. Macroeconomic surveillance
therefore needs to be significantly improved and needs to get more teeth.
240) The experience of the last few years has highlighted the importance of establishing amore robust macroeconomic framework for the global economy. To this end, thesurveillance of macroeconomic policies, exchange rates and global imbalances needs tobe reinforced. Central banks, on their side, should more closely monitor the growth inmonetary and credit aggregates.
241) Beyond the strengthening of the IMF's existing macroeconomic surveillancemechanisms one of the priorities in crisis prevention should be the strengthening ofinternational early warning mechanisms building on the swift identification of systemic
vulnerabilities. A comprehensive early warning system, jointly run by the IMF and the
FSF, could build on the existing analytical framework for bilateral and multilateralmacroeconomic surveillance, but would have to give greater emphasis to macroprudential concerns. The existing financial reviews are not designed to provide anassessment on macro-prudential risks or vulnerabilities ahead of crises. Drawing thelessons from the past, it will moreover be important to ensure that any effective early
warning system is able to deliver clear and unambiguous messages to policymakers andrecommend pre-emptive policy responses. The key failure in the past was not so mucha lack of surveillance, although the messages emerging from the surveillance could havebeen sharpened, but a lack of policy action. Thus, the follow-up to any such financial
system assessments needs to be strengthened significantly.
242) A comprehensive early warning system could also usefully be complemented by thecreation of an international risk map and an international credit register. The purpose ofsuch a risk map would be to build up a common data base containing relevant
information on risk exposures of financial institutions and markets, both at the national
and the international level. The risk map should contain all the information needed for63

identifying systemic risks on a global scale. Clearly, in order to be effective, the risk
map should go beyond the banking sector and include major other financial institutions
like insurance companies and hedge funds. It should also include all major financial
products. Subject to suitable rules for protecting confidentiality of firm-level data, sucha risk map would close the information gap revealed in the current crisis and could
become an essential tool for everybody interested in assessing risks to financial stability.
243) An international credit register could be instrumental when preparing, on a regular basis,a global financial risk map. Such a credit register, to be set up by the BIS in cooperation
with other relevant bodies like national central banks and the IMF, would consist of adatabase compiling a coherent set of interbank and customer-specific credit data (above
a certain threshold and collected at regular intervals) for the major creditors. It would
therefore allow to better assess the risk exposure of key financial players.
Complementing existing national credit registers, an international credit register,
accompanied by a comparable securities register, would be a useful tool for all bodies
concerned about assessing risks to financial stability – provided this can be achieved
without excessive bureaucracy.
244) The International Monetary Fund (IMF) is in principle uniquely placed for playing anover-arching role in ensuring high-quality macroeconomic and macro-prudential
surveillance even if it may need to further deepen its analysis of financial market
developments. The IMF has already, in collaboration with the FSF, undertaken
substantial work on setting up an early warning system (including a possible early
warning list) and on procedures for a future Early Warning Exercise (EWE). The
purpose of such a EWE should be to increase peer pressure in order to trigger timely
corrective action. The IMF, in cooperation notably with central banks, would also seemto be the international institution best suited for preparing a global risk map.
245) In addition, the IMF/World Bank Financial Sector Assessment Programmes (FSAP)
should in the future become compulsory for all IMF member countries, based on a fixedschedule particularly for systemically important countries. It should be at the same levelas macroeconomic surveillance and be fully integrated into the Art. IV consultation
process. Furthermore, the FSAP results should be published and countries should be
obliged to set out their reasons for not following IMF recommendations, similar to the"comply or explain" procedure now used in the EU's level 3 committees.
246) When reinforcing global early warning mechanisms concerning risks to financial
stability, close cooperation between the IMF with its expertise in macro-prudential
matters, the FSF and the BIS/Basel Committee with their knowledge of microprudential supervision will be required. These different tasks and warnings would be
regularly reported to the IMFC or to the IMF Council as suggested above. Moreover, inorder to build up an international credit risk map and credit register, market participants
and national regulators will need to be involved.
247) However, allowing the IMF to play its full role in addressing global macroeconomic
imbalances and in promoting financial stability will require a strong political will to
accept its independent professional advice. Too often in the past, the IMF was hinderedby the (large) member countries concerned either from undertaking the necessary
analysis (e.g. Financial Sector Assessment Programme, FSAP) or from voicing publicly
its concerns. It is therefore particularly important that the IMF reinforces its surveillanceover systemically important countries in an even-handed manner and that member
64countries increase their commitment to implementing the IMF's precise policy
recommendations. Even acknowledging that there may always remain legitimate
intellectual disagreements, the objective must be to effectively address domestic policies
in systemically important member countries of the IMF which present a serious risk tothe stability of the international economic and financial system. The IMF's
recommendations – discussed and endorsed by the IMFC – should therefore become
internationally shared macroeconomic policy objectives. In this context, the IMF could
also usefully resume its multilateral consultations with key member countries.
248) As the experience of the last few years has demonstrated, analysis alone is not enough.
Corrective action is required. Although a high-level ex ante political commitment to theimplementation of IMF recommendations would help, more ambitious steps should betaken. In particular, when thrashing out the early warning system, thought should begiven to the possibility of identifying "danger zones" for key variables, the entry ofwhich would be to trigger the presumption of the need for intervention, thus reversing
the "burden of proof".
Recommendation 27: The Group recommends that the IMF, in close cooperation
with other interested bodies, notably the FSF, the BIS, central banks and theEuropean Systemic Risk Council (ESRC), is put in charge of developing andoperating a financial stability early warning system, accompanied by an internationalrisk map and credit register.
The early warning system should aim to deliver clear messages to policy makers andto recommend pre-emptive policy responses, possibly triggered by pre-defined "danger
zones".
All IMF member countries should commit themselves to support the IMF inundertaking its independent analysis (incl. the Financial Sector Assessment
Programme). Member countries should publicly provide reasons whenever they do notfollow these recommendations.
The IMFC/Council should receive a report, one or twice a year, on this matter.
249) Any efforts to reduce the risks to financial stability are in danger of being underminedby systemically relevant jurisdictions that refuse to use internationally agreed standards.
The international community therefore has to deal with jurisdictions that have weakregulatory and governance standards, lack transparency or are not cooperating in
exchanging information, like certain offshore financial centres. Leaving aside money
laundering and tax issues, and focusing only on financial regulation, offshore financial
centres can pose a risk to financial stability and also create a substantial level playing
field problem: registration of financial institutions can be weak; initial capitalrequirements (for services to non-residents) are low; and supervision substandard oreven inexistent.
250) In order to correct the associated risks to the global financial system, different measures
have been proposed. These range from added financial statement disclosure rules(requiring the disclosure of off-balance sheet structures on a jurisdiction by jurisdiction
basis in a separate annex to the financial statement, accompanied by a risk statement for
assets held in poorly regulated, and in some cases, "uncooperative" financial centres) to65

more far-reaching rules prohibiting regulated financial institutions from transacting withentities located in these jurisdictions.
251) Without judging the merits of these proposals at this time, which should be examined in
more detail, the Group considers that, already today, group supervisors have thepossibility of increasing capital requirements for those financial institutions that takehigher risks by holding assets in poorly regulated financial centres or where supervisors
feel hindered in getting pertinent information. Where necessary, these existing powers
should be used to the full.
252) The effectiveness of these arrangements should be monitored on a regular basis under
the auspices of the IMF. More generally, a transparent evaluation and benchmarking
process should be set up by the IMF and the FSF, in cooperation with the World Bank,
the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) and the OECD, in order to regularly assess theregulatory framework in off-shore centres and other financial centres, the results ofwhich would be made public.
Recommendation 28: The Group recommends intensifying co-ordinated efforts toencourage currently poorly regulated or "uncooperative" jurisdictions to adhere to
the highest level international standards and to exchange information amongsupervisors.
In any event, in order to account for the increased risks, group supervisors should
increase capital requirements for those financial institutions investing in or doing
business with poorly regulated or supervised financial centres whenever they are notsatisfied by the due diligence performed or where they are unable to obtain or
exchange pertinent information from supervisors in these offshore jurisdictions.
The IMF and the FSF, in cooperation with other relevant international bodies,should assess the existing regulatory standards in financial centres, monitor theeffectiveness of existing mechanisms of enforcing international standards andrecommend more restrictive measures where the existing applied standards are
considered to be insufficient.

V. CRISIS MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION
253) Even improved crisis prevention will not completely avoid crises from happening.
However, the current crisis has revealed a lack of effective crisis management andcoordination framework at the international level. There are no clear multilateralarrangements for coordinating national responses to financial crises. Furthermore, thedifficulties in separating liquidity from solvency crises have again become apparent.
254) The experiences of the last twelve month have demonstrated the need for close
coordination between supervisory, monetary and fiscal authorities.
Effective
information sharing and close cooperation are essential not only for efficient crisis
management, but they are also indispensable for avoiding negative spillovers,
distortions to competition and regulatory arbitrage.

66255) In this context, strengthening the IMF's capacity to support countries facing balance of
payment problems in a financial crisis is critical. The Fund currently has insufficient
resources for assisting its members. EU Member States should therefore show theirreadiness to contribute to increasing IMF resources.
Recommendation 29: The Group recommends that EU Member States should show theirsupport for strengthening the role of the IMF in macroeconomic surveillance and tocontribute towards increasing the IMF's resources in order to strengthen its capacity tosupport member countries facing acute financial or balance of payment distress.

VI. EUROPEAN GOVERNANCE AT THE INTERNATIONAL LEVEL
256) While the European Union is one of the key international players, its representation ininternational organisations and other international bodies is fragmented and lacks
coherence and continuity. In some cases, the EU's representation is incomplete (e.g. the
FSF or G20 at Ministerial level), while in other cases the EU as a whole – i.e. including
its Member States - is even perceived as being over-represented, to the detriment ofemerging market economies. This weakens the possibility of the EU speaking with asingle voice, and it is something that is also increasingly criticised by the EU's
international partners. It is therefore essential to organise a coherent European
representation in the new global economic and financial architecture. In the context of amore ambitious institutional (and quota) reform of the IMF, this could imply rearranging constituencies and reducing the number of Executive Board members for the
EU to not more than two. A similar consolidation of the EU's representation should beinstalled for other multilateral fora.
Recommendation 30: The Group recommends that a coherent EU representation in
the new global economic and financial architecture be organised.
In the context of a more ambitious institutional reform, this could imply aconsolidation of the EU's representation in the IMF and other multilateral fora.

VII. DEEPENING THE EU'S BILATERAL FINANCIAL RELATIONS
257) The EU has every interest in leading and developing its relations with the major
financial powers of the world. Over the past years, good technical work has been
carried out with the United States on complex regulatory and supervisory issues andthese efforts should be intensified with the new US administration to find the broadest
and deepest common ground. Likewise, with Japan and China, Brazil, India, Russia,
Saudi Arabia, and other emerging countries the EU should work to develop common
understanding on the global financial reforms that are needed. The EU has a unique
opportunity to strengthen its global influence and to promulgate its ideas andapproaches. But for this to happen – the EU's own supervisory and regulatory model
must not just be fit for purpose but a global example of effectiveness, utility, fairness,cooperation, consistency and solidarity.

67

Recommendation 31: In its bilateral relations, the EU should intensify its financial
regulatory dialogue with key partners.

***
This report sets out the regulatory, supervisory and global reforms that the Group considers
are needed.
Work must begin immediately.

68ANNEX I: Mandate for the High-Level Expert Group on
financial supervision in the EU
The current financial crisis has highlighted the weaknesses in the EU's supervisory
framework, which remains fragmented along national lines despite the substantial progressachieved in financial market integration and the increased importance of cross border entities.
If financial integration is to be efficient in terms of safeguarding systemic stability as well as
in delivering lower costs and increased competition, it is essential to accelerate the ongoingreform of supervision.
Supervisory reform has so far relied on an evolutionary approach, whereby the so-called
Level 3 Committees in the Lamfalussy framework are expected to achieve significant
convergence in supervisory practices and procedures across member states. While certain
progress in convergence has been achieved, this progress has not allowed the EU to identify
and/or deal with the causes of the current financial crisis. The current national-basedorganisation of EU supervision lacks a framework for delivering supervisory convergence andlimits the scope for effective macro-prudential oversight based on a comprehensive view ofdevelopments in financial markets and institutions.
The Group is therefore requested to make proposals to strengthen European supervisoryarrangements covering all financial sectors, with the objective to establish a more efficient,integrated and sustainable European system of supervision.
In particular the group should consider:-

how the supervision of European financial institutions and markets should best beorganised to ensure the prudential soundness of institutions, the orderly functioning ofmarkets and thereby the protection of depositors, policy-holders and investors;-

how to strengthen European cooperation on financial stability oversight, early warning
mechanisms and crisis management, including the management of cross border and crosssectoral risks;-

how supervisors in the EU's competent authorities should cooperate with other major
jurisdictions to help safeguard financial stability at the global level.

The Group will examine the allocation of tasks and responsibilities between the national andEuropean levels.
The Group should present a report to the European Commission in view of the Council of
Spring 2009.
The Group will conduct hearings and organize a consultation as appropriate.

69

ANNEX II: Meetings of the Group and Hearings in 2008 - 2009
The Group began its work in mid-November and held 11 full day meetings. It received oral
evidence from the following personalities and representatives of European financial services
associations and international institutions:-

The Chairs of the 3 Level 3 Committees (CEBS, CEIOPS, CESR);-

European Commissioners Charlie McCreevy and Joaquin Almunia;-

Dr A.H.E.M. Wellink, Chairman of the Basle Committee and President of the Netherlands
Central Bank;-Mr Jean-Claude Trichet, President of the ECB;-Mr Mario Draghi, Chairman of Financial Stability Forum and Governor of the Bank of
Italy;-Mr Marek Belka, Head of the European Desk of the IMF;-

Mr Xavier Musca, Chairman of the Economic and Finance Committee;-

Mr Peter Praet, Chairman of the Banking Supervisory Committee at the ECB and
Executive Director at the National Bank of Belgium;-

Baron Alexander Lamfalussy;-

The CEA (Comité Européen des Assurances) and AMICE (Association of Mutual
Insurers and Insurance Cooperatives in Europe);-

The EBF (European Banking Federation), ESBG (European Savings Banks Group) and
EACB (European Association of Co-operative Banks);-

The Federation of European Securities Exchanges (FESE), ICMA (International CapitalMarket Association), EFAMA (European Fund and Asset Managers Association), ISDA
(International Swaps and Derivatives Association), FOA (Future and Options
Association), AMAFI (French Association of Financial Markets), LIBA (London
Investment Banking Association), European Issuers and ISCS (Investicni společnost
Ceske sporitelny);-

Representatives of large insurance companies (AXA, Munich Reinsurance Company,
Aegon and AVIVA plc.).

70

ANNEX III: An increasingly integrated single European
financial market
Looking ahead, it is important to ensure that the way in which supervision is organised in theSingle Market allows supervisors to meet the objective of maintaining financial stability (inboth normal and crisis conditions), while allowing to the greatest extent possible financial
institutions and customers to benefit from the advantages of the Single Market as set out in
the Treaty.
EU financial markets are increasingly integrated, especially in the wholesale markets. The
banking and insurance markets are dominated by pan-European groups, whose risk
management functions are centralised in the group's headquarters. There has been an increasein cross-border M&A transactions in terms of value since 2003. This trend was particularly
strong in 2005, when several large-value transactions were conducted, amounting to over 50%of the total M&A value in the euro area banking system. EU banks have become moreinternational than ever, expanding into foreign markets both in Europe and beyond. Currently
around 70% of EU banking assets is in the hands of 43 banking groups with substantial crossborder activities. Especially in the Central and Eastern European countries, the banking
sectors are dominated by foreign (mostly Western European) financial groups (see figure 1).
The present crisis is likely to lead to further consolidation across borders, although theeconomic slow-down may limit consolidation in the short to mid-term.
Figure 1. Market share of foreign-owned banks (% of total assets)
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20

FR

SE

DE

ES

IT

NL

EMU-12

AT

PT

DK

BE

EU-25

SI

CY

MT

IE

GR

UK

HU

FI

LV

LT

PL

BG

RO

LU

SK

CZ

0

EE

10

As for financial markets, the available evidence suggests that the integration has progressedconsiderably, but varies depending on the market segment, and is to a large extent correlatedwith the degree of integration of the underlying financial infrastructure. Table 1 provides an
overview of the level of integration of the various segments. It should be noted that due tointensive cross-border consolidation of stock exchanges, concentration of the underlying
infrastructures is increasing (i.e. the market share of the five largest stock exchanges in
Europe exceeded 90% in 2006).

71

Table 1. Integration of various market segments
Market segment

Degree of integration

Money market

High degree

Bond markets•

government bonds

Considerable degree•

corporate bonds

Considerable degree

Equity markets

Increasing integration

Banking markets•

interbank/wholesale activities

Increasing integration•

capital market related activities

Increasing integration•

retail banking activities

Fragmented

This evolution towards large cross-border groups does not imply any judgement on thebenefits or the possible drawbacks (the last global chapter will touch on the concept of 'too
big too fail') of this phenomenon. But it is important that any reflection on the EU supervisionframework should take into account these trends.
The emergence of an increasingly integrated financial market in the EU is indeed a major
challenge for financial supervision – a challenge which goes to the heart of the objective ofsupervision: integration increases contagion risks, and thereby jeopardises financial stability;
integration makes it more difficult to ensure a level playing-field if rules and supervisory
practices differ; integration means the development of large cross-border groups, which will
require more streamlined and cost-effective supervisory organisation.
At the current juncture, the supervision of EU firms remains largely based on national, home
state supervision – but where cross border firms have set up subsidiaries under local law thesesubsidiaries are regulated finally at host state level. Cross border branches of firms are
regulated by the home country – but safeguards have been provided in EU law for host statesupervisors to act for example in emergency situations to protect depositors (Article 33 CRD).
In the case of investment services, host state supervisors have significant areas of control including the right to examine branch arrangements (Article 32 MIFID). Host supervisors
retain control of liquidity in branches as well and should be informed of all relevant
information about the group (Article 42 CRD and its recent strengthening).
This organisation is a very complex one, leading to multiple reporting lines between
supervisors and supervised entities and to complex mechanisms of cooperation between homeand host supervisors. Some argue that the present arrangements should be preserved because,in certain cases, it could be better to handle complex financial institutions with different
supervisors holding different views on a number of issues. However, such a view would haveto be backed by a precise and convincing analysis. In any case, such an approach has thepotential of leading to cross border and cross-sectoral risk and distrust between supervisors.
Be that as it may, what seems difficult to contest is that fragmentation in supervision has
shown to be the source of major dangers. The case of AIG in the US is noteworthy. No one in72the US and elsewhere denies that the collapse of that major institution was the result of a
weak state-by-state insurance regulatory system and of the absence of a single responsiblesupervisory body at the Federal level. More generally, the US authorities are likely torestructure what most consider as a too fragmented supervisory system. The EU must
obviously avoid such pitfalls.
Some argue that there is, at the moment, insufficient mechanisms allowing for real andeffective collaboration between home and host supervisors:-

host supervisors do not have comprehensive means to challenge the home statesupervision of a group which has branching activities in its territories;-

there is no binding mediation mechanism arbitrating between home and host supervisors,whether for banks, insurance companies or investment firms;-

if a national supervisor fails to take a necessary measure, there is no quick mechanism
allowing for a collaborative decision to be taken in relation, for example, to the liquidity
or solvency position of a group;-

there are no effective cross border crisis management arrangements, as illustrated by thetable below.
1.

Cross-border institutions operating in a branch structure:
Responsibility, information and tools are asymmetrically distributed andconcentrated in the home country. In a crisis situation where the institution issystemically important both in the home and the host country authorities have
incentives to find a solution since a branch cannot fail or be reconstructed on its
own. However, problems may arise if both authorities seek to rely on the
incentive and willingness of the other authority to contribute to a solution for thegroup. The host country, even though having a clear economic interest in asolution, may try to avoid or limit any contribution to sharing the burden andpoint to information and supervisory responsibilities in the home country. The
home country may comparably try to shift the largest possible burden to the hostcountry and argue that the crisis is not due to regulatory failure and/or that actionsof their independent supervisors do not entail fiscal responsibility.
If the institution is only systemically important in the home country the hostcountry will be reluctant to contribute in crisis management when a financial
burden is involved. The home authorities have the incentives, instruments andaccess to information to ensure a solution. The Icelandic cases provide tangible
examples.
Turning to the opposite case where the institution is only systemically important in
the host countries significant conflicts of interests may arise. Host authorities lackthe information and tools to act (except for the corner solution where the hostcountry intervenes to rescue the entire group). Moreover, in case of a failure of agroup with a large branch, the burden on the home country deposit guarantee
scheme (DGS) may be substantial.

2.

Cross-border institutions operating in a subsidiary structure:
Responsibility, information and tools are shared between the countries where theinstitution operates. Both home and host competent authorities should have access73

to information and tools to use in a crisis situation, if necessary. If an institution issystemically important both in the home and the host country both authorities
have incentives to ensure a solution. In theory, the problems can either be solved
individually or jointly. However, host authorities may have an incentive to ringfence the subsidiary in some cases (and almost all Member States may be legallyobliged to do this), while home authorities may have an incentive to seek thecentralization of a bank's assets and keep liabilities decentralized. The functional,
managerial and operational structure of the group and mismatch between the
distribution of assets and liabilities could result in difficulties in restarting thesubsidiary on its own and more generally in restructuring the group. Bothauthorities may need to rely on the incentives and willingness of the otherauthority – which will often not have legal flexibility - to provide a solution as thehome and host country authorities are not accountable to each other in the event of
insolvency. The management of Fortis-group serves as a real example of thiscase.
As in the case with branches, for an institution that is only systemically importantin the home country, the host country will be reluctant to contribute in crisis
management when a financial burden is involved.
If the subsidiary is only systemically important in the host country host authorities
in principle have the adequate tools and sufficient information to act
independently in a crisis situation, but may in practice find it difficult to restart thesubsidiary on its own due to the ownership structure of the bank.
It is important to note that consolidated group structures vary from among
Member States as well as their legal obligations. Missing as well at EU level are
early intervention tools, common winding up procedures, rules on transferabilityof assets and common approaches to bankruptcy.
Given the above, the current supervisory arrangements are not optimal to contribute to a highdegree of financial stability in the Single Market. Host Member States, in particular, largely
depend on the effectiveness of supervision carried-out in the home Member States. And one
supervisory mistake can have major consequences throughout the Single Market.
The appropriateness of current arrangements also fails from an efficiency standpoint.
Currently, financial institutions operating in different markets have to cope with different
national supervisory rules and practices. They have to commit extensive resources to deal
with numerous supervisors and differing supervisory requirements, for example in the area ofreporting. This entails administrative costs without any added value15.
Finally, one can question whether the current arrangements provide for a level playing-field
between financial institutions. Cross-border institutions have different home supervisors,depending on the Member State where they have established their headquarters. Thesevarious supervisors may have different views on major supervisory issues, such as forexample the validation of internal risk models. The Colleges of Supervisors may also takedifferent views in equal situations, leading to different supervisory outcomes for groups whocompete with each other.
15
The ongoing compliance cost as a percentage of operating expenses for large banks and financial conglomerates is on
average around 1%. Large pan-EU institutions could save at least several million euros every year, if they could benefit froma more streamlined supervisory structure.

74

ANNEX IV: Recent attempts to strengthen supervision in
the EUOver the last few years, a number of attempts have been made to introduce greater coherence
between the reality of an integrated market and the organisation of supervision. The EU has
tried to increase cooperation and coordination between national supervisory authorities,
including for crisis management. This applies especially to the implementation of theLamfalussy process across the banking, securities and insurance sectors and the recent MOU
on crisis management.
The first aim of the Lamfalussy report in 2000 was to speed up the adoption of EU financial
services law – providing a framework and mechanism for timely decision making based on
the technical expertise of the level 3 committees, open consultation, transparency and politicalaccountability. Good results have been achieved in this respect. The Lamfalussy process did
not deal with strengthening prudential oversight – but the report warned: "While thecommittee strongly believes that large deep, liquid and innovative financial markets will
result in substantial efficiency gains and will therefore bring individual benefits to European
citizens; it also believes that greater efficiency does not necessarily go hand in hand withenhanced financial stability".
Another aim of the Lamfalussy process was to converge supervisory practices; agree common
day to day interpretations and applications of EU rules with non-binding guidelines; foster
greater trust among supervisors. These tasks have proven to be very difficult.
Without recourse to qualified majority decision making until very recently, and without legal
powers the level 3 committees have been unable to converge their activities sufficiently.
Some of this is due to the fact that some directives in levels 1 / 2 of the Lamfalussy process
allowed for optionality and gold plating – so level 3 could not resolve the problems left overfrom levels 1 and 2. But in other cases, national supervisors did not cooperate sufficiently toconverge either supervisory practices or interpretations – whether the reason is to protect anational champion, restrict competition, preserve a national practice viewed as a competitive
supervisory or regulatory advantage or just sheer bureaucratic inertia.
Some recent examples of supervisory difficulties within the Lamfalussy framework16:-

No common reporting formats have been agreed, and are unlikely before 2012.

-

Lengthy blockages resulting in no agreement on CESR-ESCB standards for clearing andsettlement.

-

Unified registration and supervision of credit rating agencies at EU level cannot be
granted to CESR because it lacks the legal powers resulting in the Commission proposing
complex national registration with non-binding coordination by CESR.

Over the past decade, the Commission, supported by the level 3 committees, has worked hardto try and further reinforce supervisory cooperation in the EU. The latest attempt has been in
its recent proposals for the revisions of the CRD and its proposal for a home country based
16

A number of examples on regulatory divergences are provided in the chapter on regulation.

75

group support regime for Solvency 2. The aim in both cases was to move towards stronger
group wide supervision.
For the CRD, the Commission proposed:-

Installing colleges of supervisors for major cross border groups and ensure an effective
decision-making process within the colleges.

-

Strengthening home country control for capital add-ons in subsidiaries in other Member
States;-Strengthening host state branch supervisory with more information.

For Solvency 2 – the group support regime proposed by the Commission, inter alia, would:-

Install colleges of supervisors for cross-border groups and ensure an effective decisionmaking process within the colleges;-

Allow the home based firm to allocate capital throughout the group in an efficient way,
subject to safeguards to protect the financial soundness of all the legal entities belonging
to the group.

In both cases a strong number of countries - including all new Member States for Solvency 2
and Member States unanimously in the case of the CRD – have decisively rejected changing
the current balance of home and host state regulation.
At the heart of this, are three major problems:(i)A perceived lack of adequate processes and guarantees in the case things go wrong forhost country depositors and policy-holders that do business with foreign branches andsubsidiaries, linked to local requirements for all supervisors to protect local interests andapply local laws first.

(ii)

Lack of a sufficiently clear framework agreement on at the EU level on burden sharing
principles in rescue operations with a cross-border character.

(iii) A lack of trust among EU supervisors, which recent events have accentuated further.
The majority of Member States are not confident that, should a cross-border crisis occur, it
will be managed and resolved in an optimal way for their citizens. And indeed, some recent
examples, highlighted in hearings organised by the Group, have shown that the division of
responsibilities between home and host supervisors have been far from satisfactory which hascomplicated the coordination of crisis management. Many Member States, therefore, object tomajor modifications in the allocation between home and host authorities. They will not, inparticular, accept that the level of regulatory capital to be held by the subsidiaries establishedin their territories is decided by a competent authority in another Member State.
The absence, therefore, of a sound framework for crisis management and resolution (withsufficiently clear principles on burden sharing, customers' protection, assets transferability
and winding up) complicates the introduction of an effective and efficient supervisory system
to avoid financial crises in the first place. Any proposals to modify the organisation ofsupervision in the EU therefore have to be accompanied by the setting up of a moreconvincing framework for crisis management in the EU.

76

Furthermore there could be cases where Member States disagree with the monetary policy
choices made elsewhere in the EU, seeing them as too lax and jeopardising the stability of thefinancial system. Given the impact of excessive credit expansion, especially in some hostcountries, safeguards for such countries could be justified. If a host supervisor detects suchdeviations, it should be able to act by tightening credit conditions or increasing reserve
requirements. The following safeguards should be considered:-if there were to be significant mismatches in terms of borrowing in foreign currencies, thehost supervisor should have the leeway through appropriate regulations to curb thosecurrency mismatches in both subsidiaries and branches;-particular attention should be dedicated to the appropriate degree of liquidity of branches
and subsidiaries in host countries.

If the implementation of such safeguards were to create a problem with the group supervisor,
it would be useful if the host supervisor could bring the case to an independent body forarbitration and decision.
The Commission's proposal for mandatory colleges of supervisors for cross-border firms has
fared better politically, although there are no clear decision-making processes in case of
disagreements among supervisors in colleges nor mechanisms for dealing with disputes. And
some have estimated there will need to be up to 123 colleges which will make the applicationof consistent supervisory practice essential, but very difficult to achieve.
Against this background, the Group considers that it is crucial that in the future EUsupervisors exercise their competences in a more effective, collaborative and coordinated way
than today. The existing level 3 committees have clearly reached their limits in terms of
informal cooperation methods.
The fact that EU supervisory arrangements may not have been one of the major causes of thecrisis, and that the supervisory systems of some third countries have not performed better,cannot be excuses for inaction. Given their complexity and fragmented nature, EU
supervisory arrangements have, in the context of an increasingly integrated EU market, thepotential of being inadequately prepared for a future crisis. This pertains to the future andcannot be demonstrated. It nevertheless appears that it would be wise for Europe to organise
itself in order to limit further damage if new crisis were to appear. Making recommendations
to facilitate this is the very essence of the mandate that has been given to the group. The
aspirations of global G20 convergence – important though it is – cannot be delivered without
effective supervision in the biggest capital market in the world, the EU.
The Group considers it is now pressing to establish a more effective supervisory system in the
EU. One which will better meet the objective of financial stability. Ensure a level playingfield. Be as cost-effective and underpin real European capital market integration.

77

ANNEX V: Indicative allocation of competences between
national supervisors and the Authorities in the
ESFS
BANKING SUPERVISION
Stage 1
SUPERVISORY TASKS
Licensing of banks, e.g., fit and proper test,
business plan, and minimum capital.
Compliance with CRD minimal capitalrequirements (Pillar 1)
Review of bank's internal capitalassessment and supervisory review processof bank's adequacy of capital (Pillar 2)
On-site inspections
Review of banks' disclosure framework(Pillar 3)
Enforcement and sanctions
Internal governance/control
Supervisory assessments of mergers andacquisitions.
Hybrid funds, i.e., compliance witheligibility requirements
Large exposures requirements
Qualified holdings
ReportingKnow your customer rules
Provisioning policy
Anti-money laundering rules
Imposition of a conservator and possible
revocation of licences
Complaints
Development and implementation ofharmonised technical EU prudential
regulations and requirements, including
advice to the Commission
Defining overall supervisory policies
Convergence of supervisory rules andpractices
Financial stability monitoring
Oversight on colleges
Crisis management/resolution

NATIONAL LEVELXEU LEVEL

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X (see § 206)
X (see § 206)
X (see § 206)
X (see § 206)
X (see § 206)

X

Stage 2SUPERVISORY TASKS
Licensing of banks, e.g., fit and proper test,
business plan, and minimum capital.
Compliance with CRD minimal capitalrequirements (Pillar 1)
Review of bank's internal capital

NATIONAL LEVELXEU LEVEL

X

78

assessment and supervisory review processof bank's adequacy of capital (Pillar 2)
On-site inspections

X

Review of banks' disclosure framework(Pillar 3)
Enforcement and sanctions
Internal governance/control
Supervisory assessments of mergers andacquisitions.

X

Hybrid funds, i.e., complianceeligibility requirements
Large exposures requirements
Qualified holdings
Reportingwith

Know your customer rules
Provisioning policy
Anti-money laundering rules
Imposition of a conservator and possible
revocation of licences
Development and implementation ofharmonised technical EU prudential
regulations and requirements, including
advice to the Commission
Defining overall supervisory policies
Ensure consistent supervision, e.g.,defining common supervisory standards
and practices as well as arrangements forthe functioning of colleges
Binding mediation, e.g., in case of
disagreement between national supervisors
Designation of group supervisor
Complaints

X

X
X
X
(National)X(see §208)

X(pan-EU, in combination withnational assessments, see
§208)

X
X
X
X
(To be included in an EU
database)
X
X
X
X
X

X
(incl. binding technicalinterpretation of level 1 andlevel 2 measures, see §208)
X (see § 206)
X
(incl. binding supervisory
standards, see §208)
X (see §208)

X

Financial stability monitoring
Binding cooperation and information
sharing procedures with the ESRC formacro-surveillance
Evaluate supervisory processes thoughpeer review
Aggregate all relevant information
pertaining to cross-border institutions
Prepare and/or adopt of 3rd countryequivalence decisions
Represent EU interests in bilateral andmultilateral
discussions
with
third
countries on supervision
Crisis management

X

Crisis resolutionX

X (see §208)
X(e.g., on discrimination bynational supervisors, see §208)
X (see §208)
X (see §208)
X (see §208)
X (see §208)
X (see §208)
X (see §208)
X(Coordinate national efforts,e.g., create and lead groups ofnational supervisors, see §208)
X

79

(Coordinate national efforts,e.g., facilitate cooperation andexchange of information, act
as mediator and help to define
and implement the rightdecisions, see §208)

INSURANCE SUPERVISION
Stage 1
SUPERVISORY TASKS
Licensing of insurance firms, e.g., fit andproper test, business plan and minimum
capital.
Checking the calculation of the Minimum
Capital Requirement (MCR) and theSolvency Capital Requirement (SCR)
Impose capital add-ons
Evaluate the level of eligible own funds
Evaluate the quality of eligible own funds
On-site inspections
Asses technical provisions
Assess investment rules
Assess the system of governance
Asses internal models
Approve ancillary own funds
Authorise hybrid capital items
Enforcement and sanctions
Supervisory assessments of mergers andacquisitions.
Reporting, including decisions on public
disclosure by insurance undertakings
Know your customer rules
Anti-money laundering rules
Revocation of licences
Complaints
Development and implementation ofharmonised technical EU prudential
regulations and requirements, including
advice to the Commission
Defining overall supervisory policies
Convergence of supervisory rules andpractices
Financial stability monitoring
Oversight on colleges
Crisis management, including assessing theviability of recovery plans and/or financing
schemeCrisisresolution
andinsolvency
proceedings

NATIONAL LEVELXEU LEVEL

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X (see § 206)
X (see § 206)
X (see § 206)
X (see § 206)
X (see § 206)

X
X

80

Stage 2
SUPERVISORY TASKS
Licensing of insurance firms, e.g., fit andproper test, business plan and minimum
capital.
Checking the calculation of the Minimum
Capital Requirement (MCR) and theSolvency Capital Requirement (SCR)
Impose capital add-ons
Evaluate the level of eligible own funds

NATIONAL LEVEL
X
X
X

Evaluate the quality of eligible own funds
On-site inspections

X
X
X

Asses technical provisions
Assess investment rules
Assess the system of governance
Asses internal models
Approve ancillary own funds
Authorise hybrid capital items
Enforcement and sanctions
Supervisory assessments of mergers andacquisitions.

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
(National)

Reporting, including decisions on public
disclosure by insurance undertakings

X(To be included in an EU
database)
X
X
X

Know your customer rules
Anti-money laundering rules
Revocation of licences
Development and implementation ofharmonised technical EU prudential
regulations and requirements, including
advice to the Commission
Defining overall supervisory policies
Ensure consistent supervision, e.g.,defining common supervisory standards
and practices as well as arrangements forsupervisory colleges
Binding mediation, e.g., in case of
disagreement between national supervisors
Designation of group supervisor
Complaints
Financial stability monitoring
Binding cooperation and information
sharing with the ESRC for macrosurveillance
Evaluate supervisory processes throughpeer reviews
Aggregate all relevant information
pertaining to cross-border institutions
supervisors
Prepare and/or adopt of 3rd country

EU LEVEL

X

X(see §208)

X(pan-EU, in combination withnational assessments, see§208)

X(incl. binding technicalinterpretation of level 1 andlevel 2 measures, see §208)
X (see § 206)
X
(incl. binding supervisory
standards, see §208)
X (see §208)

X

X (see §208)
X(e.g., on discrimination bynational supervisors, see §208)
X (see §206)
X (see §208)
X (see §208)
X (see §208)
X (see §208)81

equivalence decisions
Represent EU interests in bilateral andmultilateral
discussions
with
third
countries on supervision
Crisis management, including assessing theviability of recovery plans and/or financing
schemeCrisisresolution
proceedingsandinsolvency

X (see §208)
X

X

X(Coordinate national efforts,e.g., create and lead groups ofnational supervisors, see §208)
X(Coordinate national efforts,e.g., facilitate cooperation andexchange of information, act
as mediator and help to define
and implement the rightdecisions, see §208)

SECURITIES SUPERVISION
Stage 1
SUPERVISORY TASKSNATIONAL LEVEL

MiFIDAuthorisation- Investment Firms- Regulated Markets and Multilateral
Trading Facilities
Calculations
Suspense of trading
Compliance conduct of business
Inspections
Reporting
Enforcement

X
X
X
X
X
X

Post-Trading
Authorisation
Supervision
Enforcement
Access to other systems

X
X
X
X

Credit Rating Agencies
Authorisation
Supervision
Enforcement

X
X
X

Prospectus
Authorisation

X

Transparency
Officially Appointed Mechanisms
Notification shareholders

X
X

Market Abuse
Market supervision
Enforcement
Emergency powers

X
X
X

EU LEVEL

X
X

82

EU investigations

X

Accounting
Mandatory recommendations
Enforcement

X
X

UCITS
Authorisation
Enforcement

X
X

OthersCompliance conduct of business by otherfinancial institutions, e.g., banks andinsurance firms
Supervisory assessment of mergers andacquisitions
Development and implementation ofharmonised technical EU prudential
regulations and requirements, including
advice to the Commission
Defining overall supervisory policies
Convergence of supervisory rules andpractices
Financial stability monitoring
Oversight on colleges
Crisis management/resolution

X
XX

X (§ 206)
X (see § 206)
X (§ 206)
X (§ 206)
X (§ 206)

X

Stage 2SUPERVISORY TASKSNATIONAL LEVEL

MiFIDAuthorisation- Investment Firms- Regulated Markets and Multilateral
Trading Facilities
Calculations

X
X
X

Suspense of trading

X

Compliance conduct of business
Inspections

X
X

ReportingX

Enforcement

X

Post-Trading
Authorisation
Supervision
Enforcement
Access to other systems

X(national)X(national)X(national)X(national)

EU LEVEL

X(pan-EU, see §208)
X(pan-EU, see §208)
X(pan-EU, see §208)
X(pan-EU, see §208)

83

Credit Rating Agencies
Authorisation
Supervision
Enforcement

X (see §208)
X (see §208)
X (see §208)

Prospectus
Authorisation

X

Transparency
Officially Appointed Mechanisms
Notification shareholders

X
X

Market Abuse
Market supervision
Enforcement
Emergency powers

X
X
X

Investigations

X

Accounting
Mandatory recommendations
Enforcement

X

UCITS
Authorisation
Enforcement

X
X

OthersCompliance conduct of business by otherfinancial institutions, e.g., banks andinsurance firms
Supervisory assessment of mergers andacquisitions
Development and implementation ofharmonised technical EU regulations andrequirements, including advice to theCommission
Defining overall supervisory policies
Ensure consistent supervision, e.g.,defining common supervisory standards
and practices as well as arrangements forthe functioning of colleges
Binding mediation, e.g., in case of
disagreement between national supervisors
Complaints
Financial stability monitoring
Binding cooperation and information
sharing procedures with the ESRC formacro-surveillance
Evaluate supervisory processes throughpeer review

X(Coordinate national efforts,see §208)

X (see §208)

X
X(National)X(pan-EU, in combination withnational assessments, see
§208)

X

X
(incl. binding technicalinterpretation of level 1 andlevel 2 measures, §208)
X (see § 206)
X
(incl. binding supervisory
standards, see §208)
X (see §208)

X

X(e.g., on discrimination bynational supervisors, see §208)
X (see §208)
X (see §208)
X (see §208)84

Collect and make available all relevant
information pertaining to cross-border
institutions
Prepare and/or adopt of 3rd countryequivalence decisions
Represent EU interests in bilateral andmultilateral
discussions
with
third
countries on supervision
Crisis management

X (see §208)

X

Crisis resolutionX

X (see §208)
X (see §208)
X(Coordinate national efforts,e.g., create and lead groups ofnational supervisors, see §208)
X(Coordinate national efforts,e.g., facilitate cooperation andexchange of information, act
as mediator and help to define
and implement the rightdecisions, see §208)85