Activities of Paloma LÓPEZ BERMEJO related to 2018/0165(COD)
Shadow reports (1)
REPORT on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulations (EU) No 596/2014 and (EU) 2017/1129 as regards the promotion of the use of SME growth markets PDF (623 KB) DOC (82 KB)
Amendments (5)
Amendment 26 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 1
Recital 1
(1) The Capital Markets Union initiative aims at reducing dependence on bank lending, at diversifying market-based sources of financing for all smaller and medium-sized enterprises (‘SMEs’) and at promoting the issuance of bonds and shares by SMEs on public markets. Companies established in the Union that seek to raise capital on trading venues are facing high one-off and ongoing disclosure and compliance costs which can deter them from seeking an admission to trading on Union trading venues in the first place. In addition, shares issued by SMEs on Union trading venues tend to suffer from lower levels of liquidity and higher volatility, which increases the cost of capital, making this source of funding too onerous. A horizontal European policy for SMEs is absolutely vital: it needs to be inclusive, coherent and effective, and must take into account the various subgroups of SMEs and their different needs. To this end, additional regulations are required to ensure that SMEs can be matched up with arrangements such as business angels, seed capital, risk capital, etc. Loan diversification on the part of SMEs is a guarantee for the economic health of the Union.
Amendment 27 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 2
Recital 2
(2) Directive 2014/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council24 has created a new type of trading venues, the SME growth markets, a subgroup of Multilateral Trading Facilities (‘MTFs’), in order to facilitate access to capital for SMEs and to facilitate the further development of specialist markets that aim to cater for the needs of SME issuers. Directive 2014/65/EU also anticipated that ‘attention should be focused on how future regulation should further foster and promote the use of that market so as to make it attractive for investors, and provide a lessening of administrative burdens and further incentives for SMEs to access capital markets through SME growth markets’. In its resolution on this proposal for a regulation the European Economic and Social Committee stated that: ‘the low level of communication and bureaucratic approaches are significant barriers and much more effort must be put into overcoming these obstacles. Communication should always target the bottom of the chain by involving SME associations, social partners, chambers of commerce etc.’ _________________ 24 Directive 2014/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on markets in financial instruments and amending Directive 2002/92/EC and Directive 2011/61/EU (OJ L 173, 12.6.2014, p. 349).
Amendment 30 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4
Recital 4
(4) The attractiveness of SME growth markets should be reinforced by further reducing the compliance costs and administrative burdens faced by SME growth market issuers. To maintain the highest standards of compliance on regulated markets, the alleviations provided for in this Regulation should be limited to companies listed on SME growth markets, irrespective of the fact that not all SMEs are listed on SME growth markets and not all companies listed on SME growth markets are SMEs. Pursuant to Directive 2014/65/EU, up to 50 % of non- SMEs can be admitted to trading on SME growth markets to maintain the profitability of the SME growth markets’ business model through, inter alia, liquidity in non-SMEs securities. In view of the risks involved in applying different sets of rules to issuers listed on the same category of venue, namely SME growth markets, the changes set out in this Regulation should not be limited to SME issuers only. For the sake of consistency for issuers and clarity for investors, the alleviation of compliance costs and administrative burdens should apply to all issuers on SME growth markets, irrespective of their market capitalisation. Applying the same set of rules to issuers also ensures that companies are not penalised because they are growing and are no longer SMEs. There is a need for a sharper focus on SMEs – the targets of this action – and their needs. Cutting red tape is a vital part of this process, but other steps also need to be taken. Efforts need to be made to improve the information that is directly available to SMEs about the financing options open to them. The data show that a lack of information for SMEs is one of the main problems when it comes to their ability to access sources of funding other than banks.
Amendment 42 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9
Recital 9
(9) The current less stringent requirements for SME growth markets issuers to produce, in accordance with Article 18(6) of Regulation (EU) No 596/2014, an insider list only upon the request of the competent authority, is of limited practical effect, because those issuers are still subject to ongoing monitoring of the persons who qualify as insiders in the context of ongoing projects. The existing alleviation should therefore be replaced by the possibility for SME growth markets issuers to maintain only a list of permanent insiders, which should include persons who have regular access to inside information due to their function or position within the issuer. The competent authority must ensure that this administrative simplification does not give rise to illegal practices that are detrimental to SMEs. Insider lists are an important investigation tool for the competent authorities.
Amendment 48 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Regulation (EU) No 596/2014
Article 17 – paragraph 4
Article 17 – paragraph 4
An issuer whose financial instruments are admitted to trading on an SME growth market and which has decided to delay the public disclosure of inside information shall notify that decision to the competent authority. The explanations for the decision to delay are always to be provided only upon request of the competent authority specified in accordance with paragraph 3. That competent authority shall not require that issuer to keep a record of that explanation.