Transcript Karel Lanoo- Presentation

1
European Systemic Risk Board
 Governance:
 Steering Committee: 3 central bankers, 3 chairs of
ESAs, 1 Commissioners, 1 Finance Minister delegate
 General Board
 Only consultative
 Tasks:
 define, identify and prioritise all macro-financial risks;
 issue risk warnings and give recommendations to policy
makers, supervisors and public;
 monitor follow-up of the risk warnings;
 liaise with international counterparts;
 Based within ECB
2
European Supervisory Authorities
 Governance:
 1 Steering Committee of chairs of 3 ESAs
 Per authority: Chairs of 27 national functional
supervisors
 Tasks:
 single rulebook;
 harmonise supervisory practices;
 strengthen the oversight of cross-border groups
(participate and mediate in colleges) and supervise panEuropean entities (CRAs, CSDs, CCPs);
 establish a central European supervisory database.
 Upgrade of CEBS, CESR, CEIOPS
3
Legal basis
 Best would be EU Treaty change, but this is
excluded
 Within current Treaty:



Art. 95: to complete single market, can be
adopted in QMV, but with EP co-decision
Art. 308: unanimity, only EP consent
Art. 105.6: to extend ECB powers for banking
supervision, but with unanimity
 Pushes to limits of EU competence
 In pract. 4 regulations and 1 Council decision
4
EU agencies
 28 EU regulatory agencies exist today
 e.g. Food agency, Pharmaceutical agency,
Eurocontrol
 No general rule regarding their powers,
governance, funding, etc.
 Average employment 200 persons
 Legal base could be challenged:


the authorities could never have more
competences than the delegating authority
See Meroni (1958) & Enisa (2004) ECJ cases
5
Evaluation
 ESRB:



Main problem is of conceptual and institutional
nature
Better to have it as consultative only committee,
 reduces conflicts with central bank (and supervisors)
 difficulty of predicting systemic risks
Cfr. debate on US Systemic Risk Council
 ESFS:



Enormous workload ahead: main problem is of
organisational and operational nature
Will member states accept supervisory powers?
Mediation in colleges has fiscal implications
6
Comparing EU and US debate
 US:
 Debate mainly focused on Systemic Risk Council
 Strengthening of supervisory powers of Fed
 other reforms disappointing
 EU:
 Debate mainly focused on ESFS
 No formal increase in powers of ECB, maintains clear
distinction btw. supervisory and monetary
 Could in long term lead to more unified structure, but
maintains too much of a functional approach
7