Updated May 2012 and reposted: In 2011, an EU legislative package on market abuse was proposed, which comprises two sets of documents: 1) a draft Regulation that will largely replace the existing Market Abuse Directive (MAD) and the level 2 measures; and a new Directive dealing with criminal sanctions. Market abuse rules are needed to ensure market integrity and investor confidence, and to allow companies to raise capital and contribute to economic growth, thereby increasing employment.

Despite having singled out credit rating agencies (CRAs) early on in the financial crisis as needing more regulation, policy-makers in the EU seem not to be reassured by the measures that have been adopted in the meantime, and want to go further. This paper starts with an overview of the credit rating industry today. The second section analyses the use of credit ratings and shows how the authorities have created a captive or artificial market for CRAs. Section 3 reviews the new EU CRA regulation and its possible impact, and the final section compares proposals for regulatory reform.

The European asset management industry is feeling squeezed from all sides, as a result of growing prudential, product and conduct regulation. A new Directive, UCITS IV, has only just been enacted, and already new challenges are emerging in the regulation of hedge and venture capital funds, the review of the regulatory regime for depositaries (or financial custodians) and amendments to the MiFID Directive. In addition, a new European supervisory framework is in the making, which implies much stricter controls on enforcement.

The financial crisis has sharpened the debate on Europe’s back office architecture. This paper reviews the ECB’s decision to proceed with its Target 2 Securities (T2S) project, which aims to establish a common IT platform for securities settlement, reducing differences between current infrastructures. The apparently solid configuration of the project shakes, however, when we closely examine the impact of this common infrastructure on the competitive landscape.

There remains considerable confusion as to how exactly the MiFID and UCITS directives will interact in the long run. This uncertainty reflects the growing pains of a regulatory transformation that represents no less than a tectonic shift from intense and prescriptive product regulation to a more flexible, principles-based regulation of management functions. Unlike UCITS, MiFID is a horizontal directive that cuts across the entire financial services industry (except for insurance).

This paper explores whether MiFID and Reg NMS could be accepted as equivalents by regulators on both sides of the Atlantic. Apart from many similarities, the most important one being that the main purpose of both measures is to enforce best execution in equity trading, there are many differences as well in the definition of best execution, the structures of the markets, and the role and powers of supervisory authorities.

This policy brief examines the evolution of the hedge fund industry, the industry’s structure and the prospect of regulatory steps looming on the horizon. In the wake of the recent bust of Amaranth and of the increased ‘retailisation’ of the industry, hedge funds have increasingly come under the close scrutiny of regulators. In this ECMI Policy Brief, Charles Gottlieb explores the economic rationale that should be kept in mind for any appropriate policy making in this area.

This ECMI Policy Brief attempts to contribute to the ongoing policy debate on MiFID art. 65.1, which tasks the Commission with conducting a study to report on whether the trade transparency requirements that currently apply to share trading ought to be extended to non-equity markets. It presents the pros and cons of introducing greater transparency into the marketplace, including a model on the possible impact of increasing transparency.

As the European Commission is currently in the process of preparing its White Paper on the enhancement of the EU framework for investment funds (scheduled for November 2006), now is a good time to reflect on whether the UCITS framework needs a radical overhaul if the regulatory landscape is going to adapt itself to the reality of market evolutions.