Videos

Automobiles, drones, household appliances, online banking apps are just a few products and services which are increasingly using artificial intelligence (AI) and, in particular, machine learning to make decisions. There is no doubt that AI has extraordinary potential to transform products, services and activities in a multitude of sectors and aspects of our society, and being a key driver of Europe’s innovation and economic growth. All this comes with the promise and expectation that AI will improve product safety and consumer experience. Nonetheless, AI also raises challenges for Europe’s established liability regimes. Our webinar explores how EU plans for an AI framework explore the issue of liability and how companies can equip themselves to meet these new challenges. How can companies demonstrate that they are taking the appropriate governance and ICT steps to comply with any new EU framework? What role can the insurance sector play to help mitigate any risks around compliance with the new framework? Our panel will explore these questions from various perspectives: the regulatory expectations, the ability to oversee compliance and the scope for new solutions offered by the insurance sector. Topics of Discussions will include: •The new European framework for AI, •The review of the concept of liability, •Whether a specific liability insurance solution is needed for AI, and •The role of assurance providers in managing liability risk....

The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS) completed the initial phase of the Basel III reforms in December 2017. These reforms seek to restore credibility in the calculation of risk-weighted assets (RWAs) and improve the comparability of banks’ capital ratios. RWAs are an estimate of risk that determines the minimum level of regulatory capital a bank must maintain to cover unexpected losses and is an integral element of the risk-based capital framework. The main changes on credit risk (the main risk facing European banks) are to provide a more detailed risk-weighting approach, particularly for residential and commercial real estate and reduce the reliance on external credit ratings. With operational risk the reforms make it easier to compare RWAs across banks by removing the option to use multiple approaches and the option to use internal models. The revised output floor limits the amount of capital benefit a bank can obtain from its use of internal models relative to using the standardised approaches. The reforms also introduce a leverage ratio buffer for G-SIBs to make sure that the leverage ratio continues to act as a backstop to the risk-based requirements for G-SIBs. The European Commission have made very clear that they are committed to implementing the revised Basel III rules on time. They were expected to present a legislative proposal in June 2020, but on 27 March BCBS announced a delay in the implementation of these reforms by one year to 1 January 2023. Consistent with previous implementations of Basel rules, the European Commission has reiterated that the EU will respect the BCBS agreement but will also take into account, within the flexibility allowed by the agreement, and accordingly adapt the framework to reflect European specificities. The EBA and ECB Banking Supervision have emphasised the importance of the EU not deviating from the rules agreed by the BCBS. On the other hand, European Finance Ministers made a commitment in 2018 that the implementation would not lead to an increase in aggregate capital for EU banks. Many MEPs have also called on the European Commission to take into account EU specificities and there is increasing pressure for the EU to modify the Basel III reforms framework to mitigate the expected capital impact of the revised rules. This event discusses whether COVID-19 should necessitate a further delay in the implementation of the Basel III standards? How extensive and in which areas should Europe deviate from Basel III? What are the implications of not deviating from the Basel agreement? Does implementation of Basel III in Europe make it more difficult for tackle structural weaknesses that plague European banks, such as low profitability, a lack of consolidation and NPLs?...

As part of its Digital Finance package in September 2020, the Commission came out with a proposal for a pilot regime for the use of distributed ledger technology and crypto assets in relation to securities trading and post-trade services. The use of crypto assets has attracted significant interest from across the financial services industry for some time. Since the deployment of crypto currencies, the industry has been exploring whether this technology can be applied to securities markets to create a more efficient market, compared to the usage of ledgers based on double-entry bookkeeping. However, to date there is still limited use of DLT in financial services, specifically by market infrastructures. While some claim the use of DLT could revolutionise the whole financial infrastructure, others have highlighted the technological and legal limitations. With this in mind the Commission proposal aims to promote the uptake of DLT in the trading and post-trade area, allowing operators to request exemptions from certain regulatory requirements that could be seen as obstacles, and develop secondary markets for tokenised financial instruments. In this webinar, we take stock of current market thinking, the barriers to the use of new technologies in financial infrastructure and the possible impact of the Commission proposal. Does the Commission’s proposal provide the necessary legal certainty and remove regulatory obstacles for the uptake of DLT in post-trade services? Does the fragmented European post-trade make it harder for the EU to encourage uptake of DLT than other markets? Do existing post-trade regulations act as a barrier to the introduction of DLT?...

Digitalisation and new technologies are significantly transforming the European financial system. The financial sector is the largest user of information and communications technology (ICT) in the world, accounting for about 20 percent of all ICT expenditure. As a consequence, its operational resilience hinges to a large extent on ICT and this dependence will further increased digitalisation and with the growing use of emerging models, concepts or technologies, such as financial services benefiting from the use of Cloud, distributed ledger technology and artificial intelligence. The presence of high value assets and sensitive data make the financial system vulnerable to operational incidents and cyber-attacks. Policymakers and supervisors have therefore increasingly focused on risks stemming from reliance on ICT. They have notably tried to enhance firms’ resilience through the setting of standards and through the coordination of regulatory or supervisory work. This work has been carried out at both international and European level, and both across industries and for a number of specific sectors, including financial services. Within the European Union, European Commission President von der Leyen Communication has emphasised that it is crucial for Europe to reap all the benefits of the digital age and to strengthen its industry and innovation capacity, within safe and ethical boundaries. To proponents of a new digital operational resilience and critical infrastructure framework, the absence of comprehensive rules on digital operational resilience at EU level has led to the proliferation of national initiatives and supervisory approaches that has resulted in overlaps or inconsistencies, inconsistent incident reporting mechanism. Cyber risks remain more undetectable and it has created ICT third-party and critical infrastructure dependency risks. Financial supervisors also currently do not have powers to oversee risks stemming from financial entities’ dependency on ICT third-party service providers. Any new framework must balance the opportunities that the adoption of technologies brings the European financial system with any risks the new framework purports to mitigate. Let’s not forget that the adoption of Cloud for example, not only has commercial benefits for its users but also improves regulatory reporting, risk management and improves security and cyber-attack detection. These technologies have also proved extremely resilient under the stress placed on them by COVID-19. The litmus test is to ensure that any new framework doesn’t introduce a plethora of processes and approvals, slowing down and significantly raising the cost of adopting emerging models and technology crucial to the competitiveness of the European financial system. This particularly holds if Europe adopts a broad definition of what is deemed critical infrastructure. Please join us for this discussion on what will be a thought provoking and timely discussion on one of most important policy areas for both for technology providers and financial services industry....

Our panelists James Chew, Thomas Wieser, Tuomas Saarenheimo, Uli Schulze Südhoff will take a closer look at what opportunities various EU funding mechanisms could offer to support building expertise around asset classes and fund structures in the EU. They will address the different obstacles to the CMU and discuss possible solutions...

The European Commission is currently exploring different measures that will aim to fill ESG data gap and allow for better implementation and use of sustainable finance tools currently being developed. The upcoming review of the Non-Financial Reporting Directive (NFRD) will play an important part with this regard. The Commission is currently preparing a legislative proposal on the reviewed NFRD, which is expected to be announced at the end of January 2021. One of the main issues the Commission will address with its proposal in on the content and digitalisation of non-financial information. The Commission will likely propose developing a new reporting standard. European Financial Reporting Advisory Group (EFRAG) has already started with preparatory work for this in case an agreement is found that such standards should be developed. As part of the CMU action plan and EU Digital Strategy, the Commission will also likely propose measures on tagging information in accordance to an IT taxonomy which will be developed. This will allow reports to be accessible in machine readable format. The aim is to have a single access point to all corporate information, not distinguishing financial and non-financial information, while keeping the reporting as simple as possible for the preparers. This webinar will look at ESG data gaps and discuss the best ways to address them through corporate reporting and other tools that are currently being developed by the market. The speakers will explore different measures and instruments that could improve data availability, such as the proposal for a single access point for corporate data and access to data, as well as the link to corporate governance practices. The panelists will touch upon the main issues and possible policy solutions that would work best in practice and support a wide use of the sustainable finance tools....

We are delighted that Ashley Ian Alder, Chairman of IOSCO has agreed to speak at our series of Afore Consulting in discussion with … The discussion will take the form of a virtual fireside chat on IOSCO’s work programme. In particular, we plan to cover the following themes: •Covid-19 impact on investor protection; •IOSCO’s work on sustainable finance and asset management. Ashley has kindly offered to also take a few questions from the audience towards the end of the discussion....

We are delighted that Dr. Jörg Kukies, State Secretary at the German Federal Ministry of Finance, agreed to speak at our series of Afore Consulting in discussion with … The discussion will take the form of a virtual fireside chat on the EU responses to the Covid-19 pandemic. In particular, we plan to cover the following themes: • Moving forward with the Banking Union; • Views on priorities for CMU; • Views on the Commission Digital Finance Package; • The lessons learnt from Germany’s GreenBund; • Germany’s position on implementing Basel III, in light of Covid-19. Dr. Jörg Kukies kindly offered to also take a few questions from the audience towards the end of the discussion....

As the priorities of DG FISMA for the coming years are taking shape, we are delighted that Sean Berrigan, Director General of DG FISMA has agreed to open our series of Afore Consulting in discussion with … The discussion will take the form of a virtual fireside chat on the planned work programme of his department taking into account in particular the economic impact of COVID-19 on the European Commission’s priorities. In particular, we plan to cover the following three themes: - The DG FISMA response to COVID-19 pandemic - Planned developments under the Fintech and Sustainable finance policies - What are we aiming for with the upcoming CMU Action Plan?...

We are delighted that Katharine Braddick, Director General Financial Services, HM Treasury, agreed to speak at our series of Afore Consulting in discussion with … The discussion took form of a virtual fireside on HM Treasury’s work programme in financial services. In particular, the following themes: •The Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the EU and the UK as it pertains to Financial Services •The Memorandum of Understanding establishing the framework for this cooperation establishing the framework for cooperation in financial services Katharine kindly offered to also take a few questions from the audience towards the end of the discussion....

As the priorities of DG COMP in the area of financial services for the coming years are taking shape, we are delighted that Maria Velentza, Director Financial Institutions at DG COMP, has agreed to speak at our series of Afore Consulting in discussion with … The discussion will take the form of a virtual fireside chat on issues relevant for the European Payment Sector. In particular, we plan to cover the following themes: • The impact of new technologies in payments • Pan-European payment schemes • Competition concerns related to payments and big platforms Maria has kindly offered to also take a few questions from the audience towards the end of the discussion....

As the European Parliament and Council are finalising the new Multiannual Financial Framework and the Next Generation EU package, we are delighted that Mario Nava, Director General for Structural Reform Support (DG REFORM) has agreed to speak at our series of Afore Consulting in discussion with … The discussion will take the form of a virtual fireside chat on his new role and the planned work programme of this new DG, which was established in January 2020. The conversation will take into account even stronger need for Member States to carry out structural reforms in light of COVID-19 and additional budgetary resources allocated to Member States in order to finance the recovery and reform. In particular, we plan to cover the following four themes: • Responsibilities and expectations of DG REFRORM and its structure. • DG REFORM work programme, especially in the light of the Next Generation EU additional resources and obligations for Member States. • How to ensure alignment of Member States reforms with overall EU policies for green, digital and competitive Europe? • Reforms in the financial sector and access to finance and their impact for private sector. Mario has kindly offered to also take a few questions from the audience towards the end of the discussion....

We are delighted that Mitchell A. Silk, Assistant Secretary for International Markets at the US Department of the Treasury, has agreed to speak at the Afore Consulting in discussion with … series of events. The discussion will take the form of a virtual fireside chat. In particular, we plan to cover the following themes: •The Covid-19 response by the US as regards financial services and the current regulatory priorities; •The Digital Finance Agenda, financial stability concerns and priorities; •The state of the EU-US financial services regulatory dialogue; •Brexit and the future US-UK financial regulatory cooperation; Mitchell has also kindly offered to take a few questions from the audience during the discussion. ...

We are delighted that Steven Maijoor, Chair of the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), has agreed to speak at our series of Afore Consulting in discussion with … The discussion will take the form of a virtual fireside chat on the ESMA priorities for 2021. In particular, we plan to cover the following themes: • 2020: looking back, coordination role and Wirecard; • Further strengthening supervision (CCPs, CRAs); • Strengthening convergence: peer reviews, union-wide priorities; • CMU and sustainability (standard setting). Steven has kindly offered to also take a few questions from the audience during the discussion....

We are delighted that Yves Mersch, Member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank, has agreed to speak at the Afore Consulting in discussion with … series of events. The discussion will take the form of a virtual fireside chat. In particular, we plan to cover the following themes: • Monetary policy; • Banking and prudential supervision. Yves has also kindly offered to take a few questions from the audience towards the end of the discussion....

The Commission is working on proposals to link the green taxonomy to public spending and the overall ambition of a green future. Our discussion with Stefan Marx, Peter Munro of the European Investment Bank (EIB) & Marie Baumgarts focuses on the Technical Expert Group on Sustainable Finance's five principles that should drive the EU budget and national spending towards green recovery....

...

In October 2019 the European Union launched together with Argentina, Canada, Chile, China, India, Kenya and Morocco the International platform on sustainable finance (IPSF). Since its launch, Indonesia, New Zealand, Norway, Senegal, Singapore and Switzerland also joined the IPSF. The aim of the IPSF is to coordinate efforts of scaling up environmentally sustainable finance and to promote globally integrated markets. The IPSF serves as a forum where a dialogue between policymakers developing sustainable finance regulatory measures can take place. Following the publication of the first annual report on the work of the IPSF in October 2020 and the announcement that Japan has decided to join the IPSF, this webinar will offer a good opportunity to discuss the progress, impact and future plans of the IPSF. Green finance in Asia has taken off in the last years, which has been supported by various measures such as introduction of carbon price, ESG disclosures for listed companies, creation of taxonomies, increase in green lending and green bonds markets, as well as including banks’ sustainability practices in supervisory assessments. The event will look at global trends in sustainable finance, especially focusing on growing initiatives in Asian jurisdictions and explore how these initiatives work together with the sustainable finance mechanisms developed by the EU. The speakers will gather ideas on how to further develop global standards on sustainable finance and insure international cooperation and discuss what role could the private sector play in the global decision making process....

The President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, recently stressed the need for a common approach with Member States capitalised on cryptocurrencies to ensure we understand how to make the most of the opportunities they create and address the new risks they may pose. Following the publication of the MiCA legislative proposal on the authorisation of issuers of crypto assets and crypto asset service providers, this seminar will explore the best approach for categorising crypto assets for regulatory and supervisory purposes. Any classification needs to ideally also be internationally consistent and easily applicable. The market in crypto assets, stablecoins and other tokens has flourished in recent years, both in Europe and globally. The EU’s approach builds on existing EU financial services regulation and bases its framework on the use case. Nonetheless, this creates challenges. When is the crypto asset a security instrument, a means of payment or a commodity token? Can the use case of a crypto asset evolve over time? Will it be used for business-to-business transactions or is it customer facing? Who is the issuer? MiCA seeks to address these questions by effectively creating seven categories of crypto assets: those that are financial instruments, those not used at all in financial services and five applications categorised and supervised under the new Regulation: general crypto assets, asset-referenced tokens and e-money tokens, as well as significantly more relevant versions of the latter two. In the first of three seminars exploring MiCA and the related legislative proposals by the European Commission on crypto assets we will look at whether the Commission got this categorisation right....

The digitalisation of the economy and society is leading to calls for a reform of the corporate tax system in order to support growth and generate revenues, by realigning taxing rights with the value creation in the digital economy and setting a minimum level of effective taxation of business profits. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) is working on developing a global solution by proposing a two-pillar system: Pillar 1 (unified approach) would establish a new nexus and reallocate taxing rights thus reviewing the current profit allocation and business location-taxation rules, whereas Pillar 2 (GloBE) would ensure a minimum level of taxation thus mitigating the risks from the practices of profit-shifting to jurisdictions where they can be subjected to nominal, or no, taxation. The detailed blueprints of the two pillars were presented at the October G20/OECD Inclusive Framework plenary meeting and will be under public consultation until December 2020. The target date for the conclusion of an agreement has thus been postponed by the OECD to mid-2021. This webinar will take stock of the OECD discussions. These global discussions will also determine the next steps of EU corporate tax policy. In absence of a global agreement by mid-2021, the European Commission will propose its own solution for digital taxation. This webinar will explore the challenges inherent to an EU proposal for digital taxation. Special focus will be given to questions around (i) the legal framework for such proposal and (ii) its cross-border application in the Single Market. The discussion will also touch upon potential carve outs or exemptions....

With the publication of the Taxonomy Regulation in June 2020, the framework for an EU-wide classification system aimed at identifying economic activities recognised as environmentally sustainable was officially established. The initial aim for creating the framework was to prevent green washing and stimulate investments in environmentally sustainable activities. However, to be truly sustainable, the social dimension of a company’s activities must also be taken into account. In October, the Platform on Sustainable Finance will begin to operate and the development of a social taxonomy will be one of its main tasks. Identifying gaps in existing practices and establishing parameters for what a socially responsible investment looks like will provide a clear framework for investors. In parallel, the European Commission is currently developing a legislative proposal on director’s duties and supply chain due diligence. This will include measures the companies will have to take to address their adverse sustainability impacts, including potential harm of human rights in both their own operations and value chain. In order for both of these initiatives to work well and set a pioneer global standard, they will have to go hand in hand. This webinar will explore the connections between supply chain due diligence and potential integration of human rights into the upcoming social taxonomy. The webinar will discuss investigating human rights risks in supply chains, assessing the most prominent patterns of abuses and look for best policy solutions to address this issue through the upcoming EU initiatives....

Following the Global Financial Crisis, the EU significantly upgraded the regulatory regime for EU banks. This included legislation to strengthen banks’ capital and liquidity and a number of reforms aimed at addressing the “too big to fail” issue, ensuring that large and complex banking organisations can be resolved without deploying taxpayers’ money. The Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (BRRD) introduced a resolution regime, recovery and resolution plans, requirements on bail-in and loss absorbing capacity. Although not perfect and not quite complete in places, the regulatory landscape that the EU has in place is now significantly stronger enabling EU policymakers, regulators and the banks in a much better place to withstand times of economic stress. Whereas significant progress has been made by the EU on upgrading the regulatory regime post financial crisis, less progress has been made by many banks’ repairing their balance sheets. Banks capital positions have strengthened but asset quality – non-performing loans (NPLs) and forbearance – drove deteriorations in loan portfolio’s. There has been pressure on banks to contain cost, deleverage and restructure whilst the level of profitability of many European banks is low. The average return on equity for all EU banks is around 3 percent, well below their cost of capital. Low profitability in banking has real economic consequences. It restricts the extent to which banks can fund growth from retained earnings; it makes raising new equity and debt more difficult and more expensive; it constrains the options available to banks in implementing their recovery plans; and raises questions about their viability and sustainability. Most importantly, low profitability weakens the ability and willingness of banks to finance the European economy. The EU has been suffering from such a downward spiral since the financial crisis, as evidenced by subdued bank lending, weak or negative economic growth, and high levels of NPLs. The COVID-19 pandemic is having an unprecedented impact on the European economy. Banks weathered the initial fall-out well but as problems shift from liquidity to solvency and the temporary Government credit provision support programmes get closer to ending it is inevitable that NPLs will rise further, especially for those banks with high exposures to the most vulnerable sectors of the economy. Over the past few months the European Commission, and also the ECB have been hinting that they are looking to get ahead of the pending problems and revise the EU bank crisis management framework and develop a comprehensive policy to address NPLs’. Planning for the worst, but hoping for the best, makes perfect sense and the expectation is that the Commission will come forward with proposals before the end of 2020. This event looks at what is needed to minimise the pending fallout from COVID-19. Is it simply an issue of tweaking the BRRD to simply the process for precautionary recapitalisations and liquidity support? Do Early Intervention Measures also need to be revisited? To address the problem of NPLs is it an issue of reaching political agreement on the two parts of the Draft Directive on credit services, credit purchasers and the recovery of collateral, or does Europe need an EU-wide Asset Management? Do bank insolvency laws and debt enforcement rules need to be harmonised across Member States? All of these issues are highly political, potentially crucial to the recovery of the EU economy and provide for fruitful discussion for this event with the European Commission as well as representatives from the private sector....

Business interruptions triggered by administrative decisions in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic have sparked debates across the world as to whether business interruption clauses in insurance contracts indeed apply to COVID-19 related lockdowns. Beyond the legal litigation, the pandemic has highlighted the urgent need for the public and private sectors to work in partnership in designing an accessible and widely encompassing pandemic risk insurance product. Over the last months, various initiatives have emerged, both on the regulatory and industry sides, to offer an initial blueprint of a private-public framework for a pandemic risk insurance. In July 2020, EIOPA highlighted options for developing shared resilience solutions for pandemic risk, and explores different insurance models and coverage. The French Government has recently consulted on the framework for a pandemic risk framework, with a view of passing legislation before the end of the year. In Germany, the insurance industry has proposed spreading the risks associated to pandemic insurance through bonds sold on the capital markets. The US Congress is also considering legislation for an insurance programme which would make business interruption insurance widely available, at a reduced cost. However, many points remain open for discussion, such the compulsory nature of pandemic insurance, cross-border situations, the scope of insurance (workers compensation and general liability insurance) and the pricing of risk. This webinar will explore the need for developing a pandemic risk insurance product resilient to withstand future business interruptions linked to a pandemic, as well as the different roles public and private operators can play in shaping it. Topics of Discussions will include: •How to delineate the risk sharing between public authorities and industry; •Are NatCat and terrorism insurance protections relevant starting points; •Whether pandemic risk insurance should be made mandatory, and if so how can an efficient and effective market be created; •Whether a European solution is desirable and how to achieve it....

The Banking Union project attempts to sever the bank-sovereign nexus that was one of its contributing factors to the Euro-crisis. The vision is an integrated banking framework through harmonising the application of banking rules across the Eurozone to ensure an equal protection of bank depositors. The part of Banking Union dealing with crisis management was the creation of the Single Resolution Mechanism (SRM), introducing EU-level decision-making on bank resolution and the creation of a Standalone Resolution Authority, the Single Resolution Board (SRB) backed by a Single Resolution Fund financed by banks. There have been some doubts expressed on the effectiveness of the SRM. Some of this is likely comes down to the limited resources available to the SRB in case of resolution and Member States continued willingness to bailout banks in the name of public interest. The SRB have been calling for changes, in particular on further harmonisation of resolution and insolvency rules as well as addressing the issues of liquidation in resolution. The COVID-19 pandemic represents the first real test of Banking Union and this Seminar will address several questions: is the current framework working as intended? Will Banking Union remain hybrid between national and at the EU level or does Covid-19 necessitate further integration and harmonisation of resolution and insolvency rules? The SRB have increased the amount large EU cross-border banks have to pay into the Single Resolution Fund at a time when perhaps that money could be lent out by banks. Does this make sense given the need for bank financing across the EU and Member States continued preference to bailout failing banks? EDIS does matter, but with negative interest rates should this drop down the political list of priorities?...

Topics of Discussions include: - How can the Solvency II revision serve the political priorities of the EU in regards to the CMU and the Green Deal; - Reconciling a risk-based framework with incentives to invest long-term; - How to accompany greater investments in SMEs and equities; - Insurers as investors to a carbon-neutral economy by 2050; - Managing the low-for-long interest rate environment; - The appropriateness of the accounting framework. Discussing these issues with us are: Didier Millerot, Fausto Parente, Tobias Buecheler and Fabio Marchetti....

EU’s strategic autonomy and sovereignty have become ‘buzzwords’ in the past years with the EU seeking to promote more independence at times of growing geopolitical competition – whether in its industrial, supply chain or defence policies or when it comes to its tech-oriented and financial services policies. European Council President Charles Michel called European strategic autonomy the ‘new common project for this century’ EU Member States still do not agree to what levels of ambition should strategic autonomy be pursued or how would the concept of strategic autonomy be defined. However, especially in the wake of the COVID-19 crisis, all agree that the EU should develop more capabilities. The Commission, France and Germany and others have been arguing that the EU needs its own strategic infrastructure and technological knowledge to be able to compete for the next step in innovation. The German Presidency aims to adopt Council conclusions on this important subject before the end of the year. The quest towards more strategic autonomy is feeding through to a number of initiatives focusing the EU for what many perceive as a new era of heightened geopolitical competition. In the technology space, discussions around data localisation or European cloud federations prevail, along with channelling investments into the next generation of technologies. In financial services, the discussions currently focus on payments – whether it is about strengthening the international role of the euro, launching a new European payment system or adopting regulation to limit non-European tech player entrance into the financial services space in Europe. This webinar aims to explore what strategic autonomy might and should mean and how it might apply to the financial services and tech sectors....

Policymakers have concentrated on getting money to businesses to bridge their funding gap through the pandemic and to strengthen the subsequent economic recovery. Most of this funding has taken place through loans and other debt. Debt is effective because it is quick and effective, but it generates side-effects: more debt means a worsening of a companies’ credit rating overtime limiting the ability to obtain new funding. Time is also of the essence if we are not to hold back companies from using the right form of finance without impacting of their ability to fund themselves post crisis. To avoid the problem of leverage and indebtedness, companies need to raise equity. Despite all the focus, over recent years, the record of European Union companies raising Equities through either Initial Public Offerings (IPOs) or further offerings is very poor. Over the last quarter there were just 10 IPO’s across the European Union which is poor in comparison to both historical times and other parts of the World. The European Commission have long realised the need to improve European Capital Markets and have delivered 12 of actions announced under the 2015 Capital Market Union (CMU) action plan covering not just equities markets but other related markets. In June the High-Level Forum published its final report on CMU setting out recommendations aimed at removing the biggest barriers in the EU’s capital markets. The Commission will look again at MiFID II/MiFIR next year to taking stock and assessing what areas are in need of an overhaul. The existence of liquid secondary equity markets is essential condition for developed IPO markets. Secondary markets are the main exit strategy for any investors in IPOs and therefore the higher the secondary market liquidity, the higher the investor appetite for IPOs. This webinar will look at what should policymakers do to improve the ability of companies to use European equity markets. Have these factors changed at all post COVID-19? How important is secondary market liquidity for potential investors in IPOs? The speakers will discuss different measures, policy solutions, what works best in practice and also the decisions that corporates are often faced with when deciding whether and where to raise equity, or not as the case maybe....

During this seminar we will explore the functioning of key legal aspects of the EU’s post trade securities market regime. Post-trade is continuously and rightly being mentioned as one of the main priorities for creating truly integrated capital markets in Europe. Nonetheless, progress on European initiatives in this area is notoriously slow. Recognising these challenges, the European Commission will imminently be launching public consultations on the functioning of the Settlement Finality Directive and the Financial Conglomerates Directive. Both pieces of legislation have been critical to EU market integration but have now been in force since the early 2000s. We are also expecting an important public consultation on the CSDR governing the authorisation regime and oversight of central securities depositories. Among the questions the panel will be discussing are: whether the existing legal regimes are still appropriate for new technologies; how the legislation interacts with current insolvency regimes and the BRRD; how the netting provisions in the Collateral Directive are working in practice; as well as the impact of the rules on settlement discipline under the CSDR....

The Financial Stability Board in 2013 stated that the development of a sound capital and supervisory framework for the insurance sector is essential for supporting financial stability. Subsequently, the International Association of Insurance Supervisors (IAIS) has embarked to develop a comprehensive, group-wide supervisory and regulatory framework for Internationally Active Insurance Groups (IAIGs), including a quantitative Insurance Capital Standard (ICS). The Insurance Capital Standard 2.0, which would apply to IAIGs, is currently at the beginning of a five-year monitoring period. Over this period, supervisors are due to assess the performance of the ICS and whether the ICS appropriately captures current market conditions and risks. The IAIS is now undertaking an economic impact study of the ICS and assessing how the ICS reacts under stressed situations. This seminar will explore the status of the ICS and the impact of market stress under COVID-19. We will also look at the link between the ICS and the planned revisions to Solvency 2 in the EU in 2021. Bringing together views from Europe and the United States the seminar will examine the prospect for outcome-based equivalence between the ICS and the ongoing US domestic discussions on an alternative aggregation-based method. Topics of Discussions will include: •How to ensure the largest participation in the ICS monitoring exercise; •Whether the ICS appropriately captures market risks; •Progress on the Aggregated Method in the United States; •The EU’s expectations in the ICS, as well as •The overall importance of international cooperation and the EU-US Insurance Dialogue....

Efforts by global stablecoin networks to drive the next stage of payments innovation have raised a number of fundamental concerns that these networks could destabilise monetary policy, facilitate money laundering and erode user privacy to name a few fears, as well as raise fundamental questions about the appropriate role of private money. The Financial Stability Board (FSB) examined regulatory issues raised by global stablecoins and recently recommended that regulation, supervision and oversight is proportionate to the risks and stressed the value of flexible, efficient, inclusive, and multi-sectoral cross-border cooperation, coordination, and information sharing arrangements among authorities. In tandem, the Council of the EU and the European Commission published a joint statement last year stating that no global stablecoin arrangement should operate in the EU until “the legal, regulatory and oversight challenges and risks have been adequately identified and addressed.” In September, the European Commission started the EU process of addressing these challenges and risks through a legislative proposal to address for the regulations for markets in crypto-assets (MiCA) and on a pilot regime for market infrastructures based on distributed ledger technology as part of a broader digital finance package introduced to enable and support the potential of digital finance to boost innovation and competition, while at the same time mitigating risks stemming from it. While potential stablecoin network operators wait for the implementation of MiCA before contemplating launching, the Council and the Commission welcomed the fact that EU central banks and regulators are looking at the costs and benefits of central bank digital currencies and also welcomed the key role of European “payment actors” in exploring further the ongoing digital transformation of the payment system to meet customer and market expectations. This webinar looks at what are the potential implications of the stance so far of policymakers on global stablecoin networks to enable them to launch. Although the international standard setters have delivered global recommendations and helpfully a roadmap for potential revisions, will national frameworks lead to similar approaches across jurisdictions, or will the regulatory landscape create a patchwork of countries that prohibit/permit the evolution of stablecoin networks? Does MiCA get the balance right between supporting technology and innovation to deliver payments, while mitigating potential risks? Stablecoins are by definition global, so does this mean that the EU risks stifling their development? Or is the objective really about ensuring that the ECB has time to develop a digital euro given concerns over implications of stablecoins for monetary policy and the unease of the role of private money....