El BCE y la cooperación internacional

The 2007-08 financial crisis combined with the sovereign crisis that began in 2010 to produce the worst overall crisis in the European Union’s history. The crisis exposed important regulatory loopholes and fragile governance mechanisms, which resulted in a massive financial retrenchment especially within the eurozone (ECB, 2015). A new wave of legislative and regulatory action to promote financial integration at European level thus began, with particular focus on the completion of the single rulebook and the supervisory architecture (de Larosière Group, 2009), as well as greater rule harmonisation (which was also led by global initiatives at G-20 level) via wider use of (directly applicable) regulations. The recent experience with the Banking Union shows the determination to create a sound institutional architecture, coupled with the necessary harmonised rules, a genuine economic and monetary union (European Council, 2012a, 2012b) and single financial market. The spillover effects of these actions have important repercussions and certainly strengthen the process of financial integration for the whole European Union. Together with the ESAs and the single rulebook, the Banking

Post-2008 crisis environment

20 _{This ‘special’ procedure is now adopted for all key securities regulations and, at that time, for the Markets in} Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID) 2004/39, the Market Abuse Directive (MAD) 2004/72, the Prospectus Directive 2003/71 and the Transparency Directive 2004/109.

21 _{The three committees were: the Committee of European Securities Regulators (CESR) set up by Commission} Decision 2001/527/EC of 06.01.2001; the Committee of European Banking Supervisor (CEBS) set up by Commission Decision 2004/5/EC of 05.11.2003, and the Committee of European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Supervisors (CEIOPS) set up by Commission Decision 2004/6/EC of 05.11.2003.

Union is a fundamental institutional innovation that creates new European institutions, such as the Single Supervisor Mechanism (SSM), and is producing more effective regulatory and supervisory convergence.

With this renewed spirit to create a genuine economic and monetary union and to deepen the financial ecosystem, the president of the European Commission called for a “capital markets union” (Juncker, 2014), which would include further development and integration in capital markets across the European Union. In the wake of the historic development of the Banking Union, the European Commission then published in February 2015 a Green Paper aimed at creating a capital markets union via greater accessibility, more funding sources and a sound investment infrastructure by 2019 (European Commission, 2015a). European capital markets should be able to attract institutional, retail and international investors alike (European Commission, 2015a). Following the Green Paper consultation, a European Commission Communication fleshed out additional details about an action plan to deliver a capital market union, accompanied by an economic analysis (European Commission, 2015b, 2015c). The plan relies on a list of ‘early’ and medium-term actions (see Figure 1). The plan combines actions for investment policies and financial stability objectives with actions for the single market integration and to tackle cross-border barriers.

Capital markets union

Figure 1. The CMU Action Plan

Source: Author’s elaboration from European Commission, 2015a, 2015b. Note: For a more detailed overview of the proposed measures, see Annex.

Short-term actions include, inter alia,relaxed capital charges for certain investments (e.g. infrastructure), a new prospectus regime for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and a new regulatory framework for securitisation. These actions also include initiatives left over by the previous Commission, while medium-term actions aimed at tackling more fundamental issues such as information flows and harmonisation of legal underpinnings of financial markets are mostly a revamp of policy actions that have not really advanced

SME access to market-based finance) shows how the CMU, in the eyes of the European Commission, is more than a step towards greater European capital markets integration. While it is certainly a commendable objective to act on all these areas, this way of planning may further complicate the implementation process, as the measurability of its objectives (accountability) is diluted by the fact that investment and integration policy objectives might not be necessarily aligned and may end up with conflicting outcomes. For instance, relaxing capital requirements for insurance companies to stimulate the purchase of securitised products might be a valid investment policy, but may have limited or counterproductive effects on pan-European capital market integration. Most notably, by relaxing those capital charges, there would be a positive economic impact on those markets in which, for historical reasons (such as operating under favourable national laws), a strong insurance sector has developed. If the sector is inefficient, it may be unable to promote cross-border integration and, at the same time, be an obstacle for truly cross-border service providers. The final result might be paradoxically a further widening of divergences among member states and an impediment to the development of a pan-European industry, which may not then emerge as a result of cross-border competition. Investment and financial stability policies may clash with integration policies and dilute their impact. Hence, there should be a clear distinction between actions for integration, investment and financial stability objectives. The action plan requires strong political support, which may fade away if not fed with measurable milestones, i.e. a list of concrete policy action priorities and measurable objectives.22

There will be a measurability issue if objectives are conflicting.

In this respect, the ‘Five Presidents’ Report returned attention to advancing the financial integration process in the region as a key driver for the deepening of the single market for capital (and financial services). The report therefore proposed a more detailed timeline, including the launch of the capital markets union plan by 2017, i.e. to lead to a more binding convergence process, because “the world’s second largest economy cannot be managed through rule-based cooperation alone” (European Commission, 2015b, p. 5). Most notably, this statement recognised the role that Europe should play in a globalised financial system and confirmed the new ‘post-crisis trend’ at European level to improve the multilateral model of mutual recognition (Verdier, 2011) at the centre of the second financial integration wave during the 1980s and 1990s. It thus reaffirmed the importance of a renewed European institutional framework as a way to strengthen the cooperation-based model, by coupling the creation of a sound “macro-prudential toolkit” with a “Single European capital markets supervisor” (European Commission, 2015b, p. 12).

The ‘Five Presidents’

Report