20 Amendments of Sven GIEGOLD related to 2010/2302(INI)
Amendment 20 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas the industry's key problem is lack of competition, oligolistic structures as well as over-reliance on the issuer-pays model and the regulatory system's key problem is dependency on external credit ratings,
Amendment 38 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital I a (new)
Recital I a (new)
I a. whereas cases such as BP show that to fully appreciate financial risks of companies and financial institutions, environmental and social factors are key,
Amendment 50 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Points to shortcomings in the standardised approach in the Basel II regulatory framework -remaining under Basel III - allowing regulatory capital requirements for financial institutions to be set on the basis of external credit ratings; supports increased use of the internal- ratings-based (IRB) approach, provided that the size and sophisticationcapacity of the financial institution allow for an adequate risk assessment; considers, at the same time, that smaller and less sophisticated playerplayers with lower capacities should be able to use external ratings, if no internal credit risk assessment is viable, provided that they fulfil appropriate due diligence requirements; In any case, to lower the risks associated with ratings, and as agreed at the Basel Committee, a meaningful pillar one leverage ratio should be introduced to complement risk weighted capital requirements;
Amendment 65 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Is aware of the inherent conflict of interest if market participants devise internal credit risk assessments for their own regulatory capital requirements, and hence sees the need to increase supervisors‘ capacity and resources for monitoring, assessing and overseeing the adequacy of the internal models; if the internal models' complexity exceeds the supervisor's capacity to perform its duties, such models may not be approved;
Amendment 109 #
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 5
Subheading 5
Amendment 110 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
Amendment 113 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
Amendment 116 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Points out that, in order to enable investors adequately to assess risk and to fulfil their due-diligence and fiduciary duties, increased disclosure of information is necessary in the field of structured finance instruments to allow investors to make informed judgments; considers that sophisticated investors should be able to rate the underlying credits from which they can then derive the risk of a securitised product;
Amendment 125 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. PConsiders whether it wouldit to be advantageous to oblige issuers to discuss the content and method behind a structured finance instrument with a third party that is either conducting an unsolicited credit rating or devising an internal risk assessment;
Amendment 126 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)
Paragraph 17 a (new)
17 a. Recalls the compromise reached in the first revision of the CRA regulation concerning transparency of information and calls upon the Commission to keep its promises to explore all possibilities to introduce wide ranging transparency requirements concerning the ratings of all financial instruments, and vis-à-vis the whole market;
Amendment 132 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Is of the opinion that the Commission should consider the use of two obligatory ratings for structured finance instruments if an external credit rating is used for regulatory purposes;
Amendment 159 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 a (new)
Paragraph 21 a (new)
21 a. Considers that sovereign debt should be exclusively rated by the European Credit Rating Foundation
Amendment 165 #
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 9
Subheading 9
Micro level: business model Payment modelPayment models, extra- financial risks and volatility of ratings
Amendment 166 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Supports the existence of various payment models in the industry as long as inherent conflicts of interest are addressed by regulatory means; asks the credit rating industry to come forward with proposals for alternative viable payment models that involve both issuerHighlights the potential conflict of interest associated with the issuer pays model and calls upon the Commission to explore the option of reverting to an investor pays model, in particular for regulatory ratings, detailing and weighting the pros and usercons;
Amendment 173 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 a (new)
Paragraph 22 a (new)
22 a. Calls on the Commission to explore in detail the feasibility of alternative models such as random allocation of ratings through an independent institution, or a "payment upon results" model (deferred payments based on results), including the feasibility of combining these two models;
Amendment 174 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 b (new)
Paragraph 22 b (new)
22 b. Calls upon the Commission to devise a rule to tackle the volatility of ratings by e.g. prescribing an ESMA investigation in cases of downgrades or upgrades of more than two notches per quarter;
Amendment 175 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 c (new)
Paragraph 22 c (new)
22 c. Calls upon the Commission to devise rules to oblige Credit Rating Agencies to integrate potential environmental and social risks into the ratings;
Amendment 182 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. Considers that if credit ratings fulfil a regulatory purpose they should not be classified as mere opinions, and that CRAs should be held accountable for their credit ratings; recommends therefore that CRAs‘ exposureshould be subject to civil liability in the event of gross negligence be increased, and that provthe Commissions to that effect should identify ways for such civil liability to be anchored in Member States’ civil law;
Amendment 189 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25 a (new)
Paragraph 25 a (new)
25 a. Considers that, in particular in prospectuses, it should be indicated whether a rating was solicited or not and who commissioned and paid for it. All ratings should be published in prospectuses.
Amendment 190 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25 b (new)
Paragraph 25 b (new)
25 b. Calls upon the Commission to devise a rule to make sure that when a rating analyst switches jobs, the analyst’s ratings will be reviewed and the job change will be made public.