EN Official Journal of the European Union C 133/17

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions — Action plan on building a capital markets union

(COM(2015) 468 final)

(2016/C 133/04)

Rapporteur: Daniel MAREELS

On 30 September 2015, the European Commission decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, on the

‘Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions — Action plan on building a capital markets union’

(COM(2015) 468 final).

The Section for Economic and Monetary Union and Economic and Social Cohesion, which was responsible for preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 26 January 2016.

At its 514th plenary session, held on 17 and 18 February 2016 (meeting of 17 February 2016), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 179 votes to 1 with 4 abstentions.

1. Conclusions and recommendations

1.1. As the recovery of Europe’s economies remains sluggish and fragile and the level of investment remains low, it should be a matter of priority to deploy every possible means to achieve a robust and stable economic recovery in a more unified environment. The EESC believes that a capital markets union can contribute to this and therefore welcomes the Action plan on building a capital markets union .

1.2. The Committee endorses the goals of the action plan. The aim here is to mobilise capital in Europe and channel it to all companies, infrastructure and sustainable, long-term projects, with positive effects on employment. More choices should be opened up to better protected investors.

1.3. Broadening and diversifying the sources of funding are key elements for securing more investment and growth, as well as for job creation. This should happen within a single capital market. The Committee believes that maximum harmonisation and uniformity of rules should be a primary consideration. For this reason it is necessary that all Member States introduce, apply and supervise the different measures of the action plan in the same way.

1.4. In the Committee’s view, the success of the capital markets union will hinge on combining the best of the current situation with as many new opportunities as possible. Easy, appropriate and diversified access to funding, a more balanced allocation of capital and lower capital costs should be priorities here. Safeguards as regards international competitiveness and attractiveness are needed.

1.5. Bank funding will continue to play a key role in financing the economy. Banks have an important role to play not only as lenders but also as intermediaries on the capital markets. The Committee feels that certain new markets, including for non-performing loans, should be explored further because they could bring about an increase in credit, particularly for SMEs.

1.6. The funding of SMEs, especially small and micro-businesses, which constitute the driving force for Europe’s economy and are of major importance for employment, is a matter that is close to the Committee’s heart. The Committee has serious concerns, however, regarding the relevance and effectiveness of the capital markets union for SMEs.

1.6.1. For small and micro-businesses, accessing capital markets is generally an overly ambitious aim. They must be able to choose the funding channels that suit them best. To that end, the widest possible range of funding structures and opportunities and the broadest possible diversification of the financial ecosystem should be ensured.

1.6.2. Regarding traditional bank funding, which should be further supported, in particular as regards guarantees, one should also note that it is marked by national characteristics. Proven structures must not be questioned by the Capital Markets Union. The financial regulation needs to better take into account the proven national features in the future so as not to jeopardise the regional SME lending.

1.6.3. Besides, all other useful alternatives should be explored and, where possible, other avenues developed, such as the Juncker plan. The role of the EIB could also be further strengthened when it comes to instruments (guarantee schemes, etc.) for the funding of the economy (1). The proposals for STS-securitisation (2) are also step in the right direction.

1.6.4. For the other SMEs, access to the capital market should be an efficient process, as for all businesses. Funding should be cheaper and entail lower costs. The current pervasive information deficit should be remedied, and the framework made more SME-friendly. Here it may be appropriate to draw inspiration from existing ‘best practices’.

1.7. The Committee thinks that the EU’s economic and financial stability should be one of the priorities of the capital markets union. The broadening and diversification of funding sources within a single market will be conducive to sound risk-spreading and Europe’s economies should become more robust and resilient to shocks.

1.8. In the Committee’s view, a suitable regulatory and supervisory framework should help to fully develop the strengths of capital markets and to keep their weaknesses in check, such as excessive or disproportionate risk-taking. The new system should be resilient to the adverse effects of any new crises. That also requires greater convergence and cooperation in the area of micro- and macro-prudential supervision, at both EU and national levels.

1.9. The shadow banking sector should also be addressed in this framework and the risk of regulatory arbitrage should be reduced. Furthermore, it is important that a level playing field exists for all operators carrying out similar financial activities on the markets, and the principle of ‘same risks, same rules’ should apply across the board.

1.10. The capital markets also open up new choices to investors on the capital markets. The Committee welcomes this, provided that provision is made for an appropriate framework geared to better protection. There should thus be more simplification, transparency and comparability of financial instruments and information, which, incidentally, could also benefit businesses looking for funding. Efforts in the area of financial education should also be stepped up.

1.11. As regards the implementation of the action plan, the Committee endorses the bottom-up and step-by-step approach adopted, but also thinks that further work should be undertaken without delay, building on the momentum and support that emerged following publication of the Green Paper. The EESC stresses that the creation of a capital markets union is a major project, the success of which will depend entirely on the details and guarantees. In addition, making it easier to access credit is certainly not a problem in all Member States, and freeing up the supply side will never be able to resolve a problem on the demand side. We should therefore be careful not to see the capital markets union as the solution to all problems facing the EU.

1.12. It is important now to maintain focus on the goals and ensure regular progress is made. The Committee is concerned that it will take time to achieve the end result, not only because of the large number of ‘building blocks’ that make up the plan, but also because the substantial national differences are not going to disappear instantly. The Committee is in favour of regular interim assessments, in which it would be happy to assist.

2. Background

2.1. In order to achieve its absolute priorities: growth, jobs and investment, the Juncker Commission has, since it took up office, been devising an ‘investment plan for Europe’, It comprises three pillars, including ‘creating an investment-friendly environment’ (3). The gradual pursuit of a capital markets union is, alongside a single digital market and energy union, one of the most important goals of that third pillar.

2.1.1. In late September 2015, the Commission published its Action plan on building a capital markets union (4), following a green paper consultation on this subject, in which a large number of parties took part, including the EESC (5). The action plan lays the foundations for a smoothly operating, well integrated capital markets union encompassing all Member States by 2019.

2.1.2. The building blocks — 33 in all — are to be announced over time and essentially relate to the following areas and matters (6): — financing for innovation, start-ups and non-listed companies, — making it easier for companies to enter and raise capital on public markets, — investing for the long term, infrastructure and sustainable investment, — fostering retail and institutional investment, — leveraging banking capacity to support the wider economy, and — facilitating cross-border investing.

2.1.3. Under the action plan, each of the building blocks has a contribution to make to achieving the goals set, but — in addition — the cumulative effect will be significant.

2.2. Several objectives are being pursued with the capital markets union, as it has been sketched out, including the creation of a stronger link between savings and growth.

2.2.1. The capital markets union should extend the range of funding sources in Europe to include sources other than banks, by assigning a greater role to the financial markets, meaning a diversification of funding sources in the economy by tapping non-banking sources. A capital markets union must help mobilise capital in Europe and channel it to all companies, infrastructure and sustainable, long-term projects.

2.2.2. Its aim is thus to deepen the single market in financial services. Building up a capital markets union will lead to more and better financial integration and enhanced competition. Capital markets will benefit from the size of the single market and will at the same time become more liquid and more competitive.

2.2.2.1. The capital markets union should make a positive contribution to growth and financial stability. By facilitating access to funding for companies, it will support growth and job creation. Diversification of risks will make the whole system more stable.

2.2.3. The general public and consumers will likewise benefit considerably, notably from the concomitant investment opportunities which will arise.

3. Observations and comments

3.1. This action plan is to be welcomed. It is not only good that it is being launched just over six months after publication of the green paper, but — even better — that everything possible is being done as a matter of priority to crank up the economy by expanding and improving financing for the economy, thus providing new impetus for growth and decent jobs.

3.2. The EESC supports the goals set out in the action plan and the priority areas that have been put forward: — providing more funding choices for Europe’s businesses and particularly SMEs. A capital markets union must expand the range of funding options for companies. These opportunities should exist everywhere and be available to all entrepreneurs across all stages of the ‘funding escalator’, — ensuring an appropriate regulatory environment for long-term and sustainable investment and financing of Europe’s infrastructure, — increasing investment and choices for retail and institutional investors within a framework geared to investor protection, — enhancing the capacity of banks to lend, notably by reviving securitisation operations and markets in an appropriate manner, which should allow more funding to be available for SMEs, — carrying out a comprehensive review of the cumulative impact and coherence of the financial legislation adopted in response to the financial crisis, with a view to financing for the real economy, — bringing down cross-border barriers and developing capital markets for all 28 Member States, inter alia, by removing a number of existing fiscal and other obstacles. It is not only important that the numerous steps that need to be taken to build a capital markets union are brought together in a single plan but also that there is a clear will to debate this matter, as well as a willingness to tackle the obstacles that hinder the further development of the European financial system.

3.3. The aim of diversifying funding sources should not be pursued to the detriment of the banking system. Bank- and market-based funding go hand-in-hand and should be regarded as complementary. Banks also have a role as intermediaries in capital markets.

3.3.1. One of the priority areas of the action plan is enhancing the capacity of banks to lend to the economy. Non-performing loans (7) remain a cause of concern in the EU and lock up capital that could otherwise be used to grant more loans. The Committee believes that the Commission should take action to free up capacity on banks’ balance sheets by promoting NPL securitisation and creating markets for impaired assets. Bank lending could be unlocked if deep and transparent markets for distressed bank debt were developed or revitalised where they exist.

3.4. Deeper, liquid and efficient capital markets can secure benefits for all operators and players on such markets.

3.4.1. Therefore, capital markets can ensure better access to funds and secure better conditions for companies looking for funding; as a consequence, capital costs will be lower due to greater competition between investors. The availability of finance will also be ensured more effectively during difficult periods, as capital markets will as a rule be better able to deal with uncertain environments and higher-risk projects.

3.4.2. Government bond markets are very important for the purposes of assessing various risks. A capital market thus requires the integration of such markets. That also underpins convergence in the capital costs of private issuers. Appropriate measures in this area are therefore welcome.

3.4.3. To successfully build the capital markets union, the building blocks must be sufficiently robust and credible. It is important to take into account the specific features of the existing funding landscape, while also creating a sufficient number of new possibilities and opportunities for funding. The result should also provide safeguards as regards international competitiveness and attractiveness.

3.4.4. Particularly in respect of SMEs, there is a considerable challenge here. The question arises as to how the money is going to reach them. It will be difficult for SMEs to gain access to and make good use of the capital markets and the funding opportunities and tools. They often also have to contend with an ‘information deficit’ that does not make things any easier for them (8). It will thus be important to test how SME-friendly the new framework is.

3.4.5. Companies and SMEs, and particularly micro-enterprises, for which the capital markets are not accessible, must be able to opt for the funding channels that suit them best, at any point in their existence. For small and micro-businesses, it thus comes down to achieving the broadest possible diversification of the financial ecosystem so that they have the widest possible range of funding structures and opportunities at their disposal, including leasing. All alternatives should be explored. Solutions must be sought not only in bank- or market funding but also elsewhere. The Juncker plan has made a good start here. In addition, a more active role for the EIB in this area (directly or indirectly, e.g. guarantee schemes) should be sought.

3.4.6. There will be more opportunities for investors. The wider range of financial products will allow investors to make choices in line with their investment objectives, pay attention to, and manage, risk diversification, and improve their risk-reward profile.

3.4.7. Investors are entitled to adequate protection. A framework geared to investor protection is therefore needed, as well as a number of other initiatives in areas such as financial education and increasing and improving the information provided. Fundamentally, work can be done to ensure greater simplification and transparency and better comparability of the financial instruments on the markets, which could also be beneficial for anyone seeking funding.

3.5. If a single market really is to be achieved, not only should existing cross-border barriers be dismantled and the current fragmentation of the market resolved, but equally new obstacles should be avoided. The EESC is of the opinion that maximum harmonisation and uniformity of rules should be a primary consideration, with special attention paid to the choice of instruments to be used here. For this reason it is necessary that all Member States introduce, apply and supervise the different measures of the action plan in the same way.

3.6. A capital markets union should make Europe’s economies more robust and resilient to shocks. The EU’s economic and financial stability is at stake. An appropriate regulatory framework is therefore needed, which should be conducive to the proper development of the strong points of the capital markets union, such as sound risk-sharing and diversification, and keep its weaknesses firmly in check. The entire financial system should be made more resilient to any future crises. Where appropriate, the consequences of such crises should be absorbed more swiftly and in a more targeted way.

3.7. Given the potential risks, and bearing in mind the need for adequate economic and financial stability, provision should be made for appropriate national and EU-wide micro- and macro-prudential supervision in the relevant segments of the capital markets. The new financing channels should be designed in keeping with the principle of ‘same risks, same rules’.

3.8. ‘Shadow banking’ should also be addressed. The Committee has previously called for this system to be firmly embedded within the regulatory framework (9) and stated that the risk of regulatory arbitrage (10) should be avoided. In the Committee’s view, there should be no such thing as ‘shadow’ activities: the shadow banking system should be subject to the same regulatory and prudential requirements as the financial system as a whole (11). At the same time, the Committee believes that it should be acknowledged that shadow banking is also an additional alternative financing channel that can be useful for the real economy (12).

3.9. As regards the implementation of the action plan, the bottom-up and step-by-step approach adopted is to be supported, since it allows the input of market players to be turned to good use, priorities to be established and a combination of short- and long-term initiatives and measures to be used.

3.10. It is important to continue to take advantage of the momentum and broad support that was generated for the capital markets union at the time of the Green Paper public consultation, and also to secure tangible results swiftly.

3.11. In the upcoming period, it will be important to maintain focus on the goals and ensure regular progress is made. It is important to achieve tangible, positive results in all the areas that the action plan covers. In this regard, the Commission’s intention to regularly report on progress made in implementing the action plan and to proceed to an overall review in 2017 is welcome, as additional measures and adjustments to the timetable may be necessary.

3.12. Questions could be asked as to whether the proposed timetable for achieving the capital markets union by 2019 is realistic and feasible. Much remains to be done and the fear is that the major differences that currently exist between the Member States will not be so easy to overcome and iron out. The various elements of the action plan can only lay a good foundation; it is the market itself that will determine the success or failure of the capital markets union.

Brussels, 17 February 2016. The President of the European Economic and Social Committee Georges DASSIS

(1) See here the EESC’s activities on EU industry and monetary policy — The role of the EIB; see http://www.eesc.europa.eu/?i=portal.en.events-and-activities-industry-monetary-policy-eib

(2) Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down common rules on securitisation and creating a European framework for simple, transparent and standardised securitisation and amending Directives 2009/65/EC, 2009/138/EC, 2011/61/EU and Regulations (EC) No 1060/2009 and (EU) No 648/2012; and the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms (OJ C 82, 3.3.2016, p. 1).

(3) See the European Commission’s website http://ec.europa.eu/priorities/jobs-growth-investment/plan/index_en.htm

(4) Action plan on building a capital markets union — Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions (COM(2015) 468 final). See http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1447000363413&uri=CELEX:52015DC0468

(5) See EESC opinion on the Green Paper on building a capital markets union (OJ C 383, 17.11.2015, p. 64).

(6) See more details thereof in Annex 1 to the Action plan on building a capital markets union.

(7) Or NPLs.

(8) See EESC Information Report on Access to finance for SMEs and midcaps in the period 2014-2020: opportunities and challenges, EESC-2014-06006-00-01-RI-TRA, of 1 July 2015.

(9) See EESC opinion on ‘After the crisis: a new financial system for the internal market’ (OJ C 48, 15.2.2011, p. 38), point 2.7.2.1.

(10) See EESC opinion on the ‘Green Paper — Shadow banking’ (OJ C 11, 15.1.2013, p. 39), point 1.4.

(11) See EESC opinion on the ‘Green Paper — Shadow banking’ (OJ C 11, 15.1.2013, p. 39), point 1.5.

(12) See EESC opinion — Shadow banking — Addressing new sources of risk in the financial sector (OJ C 170, 5.6.2014, p. 55), point 1.10.