transparency research May 10, 2011
Posted by Bradley in : consultation , add a commentNext week I am going to the 1st Global Conference on Transparency Research at Rutgers-Newark. I’m giving a paper with the title Stakeholders and the Machine : Identity and the Construction of Rules on Money.
eu commission consults on corporate governance April 5, 2011
Posted by Bradley in : consultation , add a commentThe Commission published a Green Paper on the EU Corporate Governance Framework and invites feedback via this page.
if you can have a tax consultation tracker, why not a whole of government policy tracker? April 4, 2011
Posted by Bradley in : consultation , add a commentThe new UK Treasury tax consultation tracker is here. But it would be so much better to have a whole of government listing (something better than this). Surely this should be manageable in a state where the government has a lot of control over policy initiatives?
commission consultation on technical details of a possible eu crisis management framework January 6, 2011
Posted by Bradley in : consultation , add a commentFollowing its October Communication on financial sector crisis management, the Commission is consulting on technical details of the framework before publication of a formal legislative proposal. The closing date is March 3rd.
uk independent banking commission public meetings November 4, 2010
Posted by Bradley in : consultation , add a commentThe Independent Commission on Banking announced that it wants to stimulate a wide debate. It is holding a series of public meetings as part of this effort:
Leeds, 4pm on 19th November 2010. The event will be hosted by the Leeds University Business School and be chaired by Clare Spottiswoode.
Edinburgh, 6pm on 22nd November 2010. The event will be hosted by the David Hume Institute, at the Playfair Library. Bill Winters will chair the discussion, and panellists will include representatives from Lloyds Banking Group and Royal Bank of Scotland, as well as Bill Jamieson from the Scotsman and Professor Marcus Miller of Warwick University.
London, 3pm on 2nd December 2010. The event will be hosted by the Confederation of British Industry, chaired by Sir John Vickers and introduced by Richard Lambert. The panel will include John Varley, Chief Executive of Barclays.
Cardiff, in early December 2010. The event will be hosted by the Welsh Assembly Government at the Pierhead building in Cardiff Bay and be chaired by Martin Wolf. The event will focus on the banking needs of small and medium enterprises.
London, 6pm on 13th December 2010. The event will be hosted by Consumer Focus, will look mainly at consumer and retail issues and be chaired by Martin Taylor.
The press notice has contact details to arrange attendance.
regulatory opacity October 29, 2010
Posted by Bradley in : consultation , add a commentThe Federal Reserve’s final rule on gift cards and the Credit Card Act was published in the Federal Register today. The rule states:
The Board received two comments on the interim final rule from a credit union trade association and a bankers’ trade association. Both commenters generally supported the interim final rule. The bankers’ trade association suggested that the Board exercise its exception authority to eliminate in-store disclosures where cards sold meet the final gift card rule’s substantive fee and expiration date protections. This commenter also requested an extension of the delayed effective date. No other comments were received. The final rule adopts the interim final rule as issued, with minor non-substantive edits.
The comments don’t seem to have been that significant and didn’t seem to have an effect on what the Fed did, but still, and in the spirit of transparency reflected, for example at regulations.gov, I’d like to know who these commenters were, and exactly what they said. The NAFCU’s website shows that it sent comments to the Fed dated April 14, 2010 on ” The CARD Act Final Two Provisions” although these comments are only accessible by members. Other comments by the NAFCU to agencies which publish responses,such as the SEC, (the Fed does publish responses to some of its proposals) are visible.
jurisconsulting? October 8, 2010
Posted by Bradley in : consultation , add a commentI think that consultation by policy-makers makes some sense as a means of gathering data about the context in which rules would operate, for example about whether a rule is needed or about how costly it would be to implement. And I understand that sometimes consultation is used for pr rather than to gather data. But I don’t understand why a regulator would use consultation to figure out what the law requires it to do. That seems to be exactly what the FSA is doing in its most recent quarterly consultation with respect to dealing with the implications of the Court of Justice’s December 2009 judgment in the Spector Photo Group Case (Case C-45/08). In that case, the Court ruled on the interpretation of Art. 2(1) of the Market Abuse Directive:
Member States shall prohibit any person … who possesses inside information from using that information by acquiring or disposing of, or by trying to acquire or dispose of, for his own account or for the account of a third party, either directly or indirectly, financial instruments to which that information relates.
The Court held that the directive involved a rebuttable presumption that a person who had inside information actually used it when trading. The FSA concludes that the statutory language in the UK is consistent with this interpretation, but that the language of the implementing rules is not:
MAR 1.3.4 E sets out our opinion that if the inside information was the reason for, or a material influence on, the decision to deal, this indicates that the person’s behaviour is ‘on the basis of’ inside information. This evidential provision suggests we would need evidence of a person’s intention, as a separate element, to prove insider dealing.
So, the FSA proposes to conform its rules to the requirements of Spector. Fair enough. But the FSA goes on to ask:
Do you agree that MAR 1.3.4 E should be deleted in light of the ECJ decision in the Spector case?
So, I want to know what possible relevance the views of respondents to the consultation document has to this question. Is the FSA here merely trying to give advance notice of the change, or is it really consulting on the question? Perhaps it is trying to save money on legal advice?
eu commission consults on basic payment accounts October 6, 2010
Posted by Bradley in : consultation, consumers , add a commentThe Commission has published a consultation document inviting stakeholders to comment on the idea of EU rules for basic payment accounts. The closing date for submissions is 17 November, and the consultation period is stated to be short because of a broader consultation last year. Some comments last year suggested that this was an issue self-regulation could not fix because those who are excluded from establishing bank accounts may not fit within banks’ economic models (see, e.g., comments of The Financial Inclusion Centre and Community Development Finance Association; Pour la Solidarité; Which?). In contrast, the Austrian Federal Economic Chamber argued that:
Forcing providers to offer a product by law is a tremendous interference with their private autonomy. Therefore, such an obligation must be rejected. Beyond that, a “one-size-fits-all”solution is not the appropriate approach for the issue at stake. The degrees of financial exclusion and the reasons for this exclusion vary significantly among the Member States. The appropriate response to the problem of financial exclusion can and must be found at the national level.
In the Consultation Document, and without noting that there was some noticeable opposition, the Commission states that the 2009 consultation:
revealed broad support for some EU action which could promote access to basic bank accounts throughout the Community.
Some action perhaps, but what should it look like? How to fix this issue through regulation? In order to ensure accessibility (but subject to the need to act to prevent money laundering and terrorist financing):
Criteria such as the level or regularity of income, employment, credit history, level of indebtedness, individual situation regarding bankruptcy or future activity of the account could not be taken into account for the opening a basic payment account.
The document suggests that the cost of basic accounts should be “reasonable”. This term is so far undefined, although the document suggests it may be defined later. The problem of charges for basic accounts was raised last year and could have merited some more detailed thought already, so this is disappointing. In thinking about the question of how to define “reasonable” charges for basic accounts one might focus on the comments of Which? that:
Banks are not charitable institutions but charging consumers fees for basic bank accounts would undermine the basis of BBAs: to achieve the aim of universal banking for all EU citizens.
On the other hand, the Irish Banking Federation argued that it would be inappropriate to regulate charges:
Although yet to crystallise in an official capacity, the features of a basic bank account being mooted in Ireland include no account-keeping fees, and no or low-cost transaction fees. However it would be
inappropriate for providers to be instructed as to the basis upon which they should construct their business
model as this is clearly a business decision.
So the Commission’s choice to use an indeterminate term such as “reasonable” looks like an attempt to postpone the arguments over charges to a point in time after the basic idea of EU rules on basic bank accounts has been agreed.
transnational consultation: residential mortgage underwriting September 20, 2010
Posted by Bradley in : consultation , comments closedThe Financial Stability Board is examining residential mortgage underwriting practices and seeks:
feedback from financial institutions, industry associations, consumer groups and other stakeholders on their experiences regarding residential mortgage underwriting practices, either in a particular country or across several countries. This could include comments on: gaps in regulatory and supervisory oversight; areas where regulations or guidance from different agencies might overlap; current or best practices for measuring a borrower’s ability and willingness to repay; how market practices have evolved in recent years; and challenges faced by underwriters or originators that operate in several countries.
Responses by 25 October 2010.
meaningless consultation: coalition-style August 18, 2010
Posted by Bradley in : consultation , comments closedFrom HM Treasury’s website:
The public is today being asked to vote to find the best ideas from over 44,000 submitted to the Treasury as part of the public engagement through the Spending Challenge website. The most promising ideas will be taken forward as part of the Spending Review process, which will set budgets for public services for the next four years.
The “ideas” (which include, for example, many versions of leave the EU now) can be found (although they are not organized in any useful way) here. The registration process asks for part of a postcode so this would seem to discourage non UK citizens from rating the proposals, but the invitation to rate doesn’t express any limits on whop can respond, nor does it explain how the Treasury proposes to identify the “most promising” ideas.