BETA


2010/2302(INI) Credit rating agencies: future perspectives

Progress: Procedure completed

RoleCommitteeRapporteurShadows
Lead ECON KLINZ Wolf (icon: ALDE ALDE)
Committee Opinion JURI REGNER Evelyn (icon: S&D S&D)
Lead committee dossier:
Legal Basis:
RoP 54

Events

2011/10/24
   EC - Commission response to text adopted in plenary
Documents
2011/06/08
   EP - Results of vote in Parliament
2011/06/08
   EP - Decision by Parliament
Details

The European Parliament adopted a resolution on credit rating agencies (CRAs): future perspectives.

The resolution recalls that CRAs are supposed to be information intermediaries, reducing information asymmetries in the capital markets and facilitating global market access.

In recent legislation, CRAs have been assigned another role which can be classified as one of ‘certification’, reflecting the fact that ratings are increasingly embedded in regulatory capital requirements. CRAs played a significant role in the build-up to the financial crisis through the assignment of faulty ratings to structured finance instruments. The credit rating industry has various problems, amongst which the most important are the lack of competition, oligolistic structures and the lack of accountability and transparency. A problem of the dominant rating agencies in particular is the payment model and whereas the regulatory system’s key problem is over-reliance on external credit ratings.

Firstly, the report assesses the macroeconomic role of CRA in the global financial market regulation and then looking at the intermediate level and questions of competition and the industry structure. Lastly, the report assesses conflicts of interest in the business model, i.e. the micro level.

(1) Macro level: financial market regulation

Over-reliance : Parliament considers that the over-reliance of the global financial regulatory system on external credit ratings has to be reduced as far as possible and in a realistic timeframe. It considers it important to establish a capital adequacy framework that ensures robust internal risk assessment, better oversight of such risk assessment, and improved access to credit-relevant information. Members support in this respect the increased use of the internal-ratings-based (IRB) approach provided that it is reliable and safe and that the size, capacity and sophistication of the financial institution allow for an adequate risk assessment.

Parliament expresses the view that market participants should not invest in structured or other products if they cannot assess the underlying credit risk themselves, or alternatively that they should apply the highest risk weighting.

Increased capacity for supervisors : Members are aware of the inherent conflict of interest if market participants devise internal credit risk assessments for their own regulatory capital requirements. Hence, they see the need to increase supervisors’ responsibilities, capacity, powers and resources for monitoring, assessing and overseeing the adequacy of the internal models and for imposing prudential measures. They consider that if an internal model cannot be appropriately assessed by the supervisor due to its complexity such a model shall not be approved for regulatory use.

(2) Intermediate level: industry structure

European Credit Rating Foundation : the Commission is asked to conduct a detailed impact assessment and viability study on the costs, benefits and potential governance structure of a fully independent European Credit Rating Foundation (ECRaF) which would expand its expertise into all three sectors of ratings. The Commission should consider the start-up financing costs to cover the first three to maximum five years of the Foundation’s work. Members are strongly of the opinion that financing costs should under no circumstances be borne by taxpayers and considers that no further funding should be provided and that the new ECRaF should be fully self-sufficient financing its own budget after the start-up period.

Members consider that, to ensure its credibility, the management, staff and governance structure of the new Foundation need to be fully independent and autonomous . i.e. not bound by instructions vis-à-vis the Member States, the Commission and all other public bodies as well as the finance industry and other CRAs.

Disclosure and access to information : Parliament points out that, in order to enable investors to adequately assess risk and to fulfil their due diligence and fiduciary duties, increased disclosure of information on products is necessary in the field of structured finance instruments to allow investors to make informed judgments. Sophisticated investors should be able to assess the underlying credits from which they can then derive the risk of a securitised product. The resolution calls on the Commission to assess the n eed to increase disclosure of information for all products in the field of financial instruments . It also calls on the Commission to propose a revision of Directive 2003/71/EC and Directive 2004/109/EC in order to ensure that sufficient accurate and complete information on structured finance instruments is more widely available.

Members call for, alongside increased transparency of the rating process and its internal auditing, stronger supervision of CRAs by EU supervisory authorities and of more intrusive supervision by national supervisory authorities of the use/dependency on ratings by financial institutions.

Two obligatory ratings : Members consider that the Commission should consider whether, under certain circumstances, the use of two obligatory ratings is appropriate e.g. for structured finance instruments and for any external credit ratings used for regulatory purposes and whether the most conservative, meaning least favourable, external credit rating should be regarded as the reference for regulatory purpose.

Sovereign debt rating : Members ask the industry to clarify which methodology and judgments are used to calibrate sovereign ratings and to explain deviation from these model-generated ratings and from the forecasts of the main international financial institutions.

Given the effects that credit ratings of sovereign debt can have on the market, Members support enhanced disclosure and explanation of methodologies, models and key rating assumptions adopted by credit rating agencies.

(3) Micro level: business model

Payment models : Parliament supports the existence of various payment models in the industry but highlights the existence of risks of conflicts of interest which need to be addressed by appropriate transparency and regulatory means while not imposing an unwarranted model. The Commission is asked, based on the recent consultation, to come forward with proposals for alternative viable payment models that involve both issuers and users.

Members take the view that good governance in CRAs is crucial to ensure the quality of ratings and calls for full transparency from CRAs on the governance arrangements in place.

Accountability, responsibility and liability : Members consider that CRAs should be held accountable for the consistent application of the underlying methodology of their credit ratings. They recommend therefore that CRAs’ exposure to civil liability in the event of gross negligence or misconduct be defined on a consistent basis across the EU and that the Commission should identify ways for such civil liability to be anchored in Member States’ civil law.

The resolution suggests that each registered CRA should conduct an annual review to assess its past credit rating performance and should compile this information in an accountability report for the supervisor. It suggests that the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) should carry out random checks on accountability reports on a regular basis to ensure a high quality standard in credit ratings.

Documents
2011/06/08
   EP - End of procedure in Parliament
2011/06/06
   EP - Debate in Parliament
2011/03/23
   EP - Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
Documents
2011/03/23
   EP - Committee report tabled for plenary
Documents
2011/03/16
   EP - Vote in committee
Details

The Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs adopted the own-initiative report drafted by Wolf KLINZ (ADLE, DE) on credit rating agencies (CRAs): future perspectives.

CRAs are supposed to be information intermediaries, reducing information asymmetries in the capital markets and facilitating global market access, reducing information costs and widening the potential pool of borrowers and investors, thus providing liquidity and transparency to markets and helping find prices.

However, the credit rating industry has various problems, amongst which the most important are the lack of competition, oligolistic structures and the lack of accountability and transparency. A problem of the dominant rating agencies in particular is the payment model and whereas the regulatory system’s key problem is over-reliance on external credit ratings.

Firstly, the report assesses the macroeconomic role of CRA in the global financial market regulation and then looking at the intermediate level and questions of competition and the industry structure. Lastly, the report assesses conflicts of interest in the business model, i.e. the micro level.

(1) Macro level: financial market regulation

Over-reliance : Members consider that the over-reliance of the global financial regulatory system on external credit ratings has to be reduced as far as possible and in a realistic timeframe. They consider it important to establish a capital adequacy framework that ensures robust internal risk assessment, better oversight of such risk assessment, and improved access to credit-relevant information. They support in this respect the increased use of the internal -ratings-based (IRB) approach provided that it is reliable and safe and that the size, capacity and sophistication of the financial institution allow for an adequate risk assessment.

Members express the view that market participants should not invest in structured or other products if they cannot assess the underlying credit risk themselves, or alternatively that they should apply the highest risk weighting.

Increased capacity for supervisors : Members are aware of the inherent conflict of interest if market participants devise internal credit risk assessments for their own regulatory capital requirements. Hence, they see the need to increase supervisors’ responsibilities, capacity, powers and resources for monitoring, assessing and overseeing the adequacy of the internal models and for imposing prudential measures. They consider that if an internal model cannot be appropriately assessed by the supervisor due to its complexity such a model shall not be approved for regulatory use.

(2) Intermediate level: industry structure

European Credit Rating Foundation : the Commission is asked to conduct a detailed impact assessment and viability study on the costs, benefits and potential governance structure of a fully independent European Credit Rating Foundation (ECRaF) which would expand its expertise into all three sectors of ratings. The Commission should consider the start-up financing costs to cover the first three to maximum five years of the Foundation’s work.

Members consider that, to ensure its credibility, the management, staff and governance structure of the new Foundation need to be fully independent and autonomous.

Disclosure and access to information : Members points out that, in order to enable investors to adequately assess risk and to fulfil their due diligence and fiduciary duties, increased disclosure of information on products is necessary in the field of structured finance instruments to allow investors to make informed judgments. Sophisticated investors should be able to assess the underlying credits from which they can then derive the risk of a securitised product.

The report calls on the Commission to assess the need to increase disclosure of information for all products in the field of financial instruments.

It asks the Commission to propose a revision of Directive 2003/71/EC and Directive 2004/109/EC in order to ensure that sufficient accurate and complete information on structured finance instruments is more widely available.

Members call for, alongside increased transparency of the rating process and its internal auditing, stronger supervision of CRAs by EU supervisory authorities and of more intrusive supervision by national supervisory authorities of the use /dependency on ratings by financial institutions.

Two obligatory ratings : Members consider that the Commission should consider whether, under certain circumstances, the use of two obligatory ratings is appropriate e.g. for structured finance instruments and for any external credit ratings used for regulatory purposes and whether the most conservative, meaning least favourable, external credit rating should be regarded as the reference for regulatory purpose.

Sovereign debt rating : Members ask the industry to clarify which methodology and judgments are used to calibrate sovereign ratings and to explain deviation from these model-generated ratings and from the forecasts of the main international financial institutions.

Given the effects that credit ratings of sovereign debt can have on the market, Members support enhanced disclosure and explanation of methodologies, models and key rating assumptions adopted by credit rating agencies.

(3) Micro level: business model

Payment models : the committee supports the existence of various payment models in the industry but highlights the existence of risks of conflicts of interest which need to be addressed by appropriate transparency and regulatory means while not imposing an unwarranted model. The Commission is asked, based on the recent consultation, to come forward with proposals for alternative viable payment models that involve both issuers and users.

Accountability, responsibility and liability : Members consider that CRAs should be held accountable for the consistent application of the underlying methodology of their credit ratings. They recommend therefore that CRAs’ exposure to civil liability in the event of gross negligence or misconduct be defined on a consistent basis across the EU and that the Commission should identify ways for such civil liability to be anchored in Member States’ civil law.

The report suggests that each registered CRA should conduct an annual review to assess its past credit rating performance and should compile this information in an accountability report for the supervisor. It suggests that the ESMA should carry out random checks on accountability reports on a regular basis to ensure a high quality standard in credit ratings.

2011/03/01
   EP - Committee opinion
Documents
2011/01/20
   EP - Amendments tabled in committee
Documents
2010/12/16
   EP - Committee referral announced in Parliament
2010/12/15
   EP - REGNER Evelyn (S&D) appointed as rapporteur in JURI
2010/11/24
   EP - Committee draft report
Documents
2010/09/21
   EP - KLINZ Wolf (ALDE) appointed as rapporteur in ECON

Documents

Activities

AmendmentsDossier
206 2010/2302(INI)
2011/01/20 ECON 191 amendments...
source: PE-454.677
2011/02/09 JURI 15 amendments...
source: PE-458.578

History

(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)

events/3/docs
  • url: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/CRE-7-2011-06-06-TOC_EN.html title: Debate in Parliament
docs/0/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE454.361
New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/ECON-PR-454361_EN.html
docs/1/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE454.677
New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/ECON-AM-454677_EN.html
docs/2/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE456.819&secondRef=02
New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/JURI-AD-456819_EN.html
docs/3/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-7-2011-0081_EN.html
New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-7-2011-0081_EN.html
events/0/type
Old
Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
New
Committee referral announced in Parliament
events/1/type
Old
Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
New
Vote in committee
events/2
date
2011-03-23T00:00:00
type
Committee report tabled for plenary
body
EP
docs
url: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-7-2011-0081_EN.html title: A7-0081/2011
events/2
date
2011-03-23T00:00:00
type
Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
body
EP
docs
url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-7-2011-0081_EN.html title: A7-0081/2011
events/3/docs
  • url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20110606&type=CRE title: Debate in Parliament
events/5
date
2011-06-08T00:00:00
type
Decision by Parliament
body
EP
docs
url: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-7-2011-0258_EN.html title: T7-0258/2011
summary
events/5
date
2011-06-08T00:00:00
type
Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
body
EP
docs
url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-7-2011-0258_EN.html title: T7-0258/2011
summary
procedure/Modified legal basis
Rules of Procedure EP 150
procedure/Other legal basis
Rules of Procedure EP 159
procedure/legal_basis/0
Rules of Procedure EP 54
procedure/legal_basis/0
Rules of Procedure EP 052
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Economic and Monetary Affairs
committee
ECON
rapporteur
name: KLINZ Wolf date: 2010-09-21T00:00:00 group: Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe abbr: ALDE
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Economic and Monetary Affairs
committee
ECON
date
2010-09-21T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: KLINZ Wolf group: Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe abbr: ALDE
committees/1
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Legal Affairs
committee
JURI
rapporteur
name: REGNER Evelyn date: 2010-12-15T00:00:00 group: Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats abbr: S&D
committees/1
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Legal Affairs
committee
JURI
date
2010-12-15T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: REGNER Evelyn group: Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats abbr: S&D
docs/3/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A7-2011-81&language=EN
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-7-2011-0081_EN.html
docs/4/body
EC
events/2/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A7-2011-81&language=EN
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-7-2011-0081_EN.html
events/5/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P7-TA-2011-258
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-7-2011-0258_EN.html
activities
  • date: 2010-12-16T00:00:00 body: EP type: Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading committees: body: EP responsible: True committee: ECON date: 2010-09-21T00:00:00 committee_full: Economic and Monetary Affairs rapporteur: group: ALDE name: KLINZ Wolf body: EP responsible: False committee: JURI date: 2010-12-15T00:00:00 committee_full: Legal Affairs rapporteur: group: S&D name: REGNER Evelyn
  • date: 2011-03-16T00:00:00 body: EP committees: body: EP responsible: True committee: ECON date: 2010-09-21T00:00:00 committee_full: Economic and Monetary Affairs rapporteur: group: ALDE name: KLINZ Wolf body: EP responsible: False committee: JURI date: 2010-12-15T00:00:00 committee_full: Legal Affairs rapporteur: group: S&D name: REGNER Evelyn type: Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
  • date: 2011-03-23T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A7-2011-81&language=EN type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading title: A7-0081/2011 body: EP type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
  • date: 2011-06-06T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20110606&type=CRE type: Debate in Parliament title: Debate in Parliament body: EP type: Debate in Parliament
  • date: 2011-06-08T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/sda.do?id=19842&l=en type: Results of vote in Parliament title: Results of vote in Parliament url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P7-TA-2011-258 type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading title: T7-0258/2011 body: EP type: Results of vote in Parliament
commission
  • body: EC dg: Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union commissioner: BARNIER Michel
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Economic and Monetary Affairs
committee
ECON
date
2010-09-21T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: KLINZ Wolf group: Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe abbr: ALDE
committees/0
body
EP
responsible
True
committee
ECON
date
2010-09-21T00:00:00
committee_full
Economic and Monetary Affairs
rapporteur
group: ALDE name: KLINZ Wolf
committees/1
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Legal Affairs
committee
JURI
date
2010-12-15T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: REGNER Evelyn group: Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats abbr: S&D
committees/1
body
EP
responsible
False
committee
JURI
date
2010-12-15T00:00:00
committee_full
Legal Affairs
rapporteur
group: S&D name: REGNER Evelyn
docs
  • date: 2010-11-24T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE454.361 title: PE454.361 type: Committee draft report body: EP
  • date: 2011-01-20T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE454.677 title: PE454.677 type: Amendments tabled in committee body: EP
  • date: 2011-03-01T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE456.819&secondRef=02 title: PE456.819 committee: JURI type: Committee opinion body: EP
  • date: 2011-03-23T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A7-2011-81&language=EN title: A7-0081/2011 type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading body: EP
  • date: 2011-10-24T00:00:00 docs: url: /oeil/spdoc.do?i=19842&j=0&l=en title: SP(2011)8071 type: Commission response to text adopted in plenary
events
  • date: 2010-12-16T00:00:00 type: Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading body: EP
  • date: 2011-03-16T00:00:00 type: Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading body: EP summary: The Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs adopted the own-initiative report drafted by Wolf KLINZ (ADLE, DE) on credit rating agencies (CRAs): future perspectives. CRAs are supposed to be information intermediaries, reducing information asymmetries in the capital markets and facilitating global market access, reducing information costs and widening the potential pool of borrowers and investors, thus providing liquidity and transparency to markets and helping find prices. However, the credit rating industry has various problems, amongst which the most important are the lack of competition, oligolistic structures and the lack of accountability and transparency. A problem of the dominant rating agencies in particular is the payment model and whereas the regulatory system’s key problem is over-reliance on external credit ratings. Firstly, the report assesses the macroeconomic role of CRA in the global financial market regulation and then looking at the intermediate level and questions of competition and the industry structure. Lastly, the report assesses conflicts of interest in the business model, i.e. the micro level. (1) Macro level: financial market regulation Over-reliance : Members consider that the over-reliance of the global financial regulatory system on external credit ratings has to be reduced as far as possible and in a realistic timeframe. They consider it important to establish a capital adequacy framework that ensures robust internal risk assessment, better oversight of such risk assessment, and improved access to credit-relevant information. They support in this respect the increased use of the internal -ratings-based (IRB) approach provided that it is reliable and safe and that the size, capacity and sophistication of the financial institution allow for an adequate risk assessment. Members express the view that market participants should not invest in structured or other products if they cannot assess the underlying credit risk themselves, or alternatively that they should apply the highest risk weighting. Increased capacity for supervisors : Members are aware of the inherent conflict of interest if market participants devise internal credit risk assessments for their own regulatory capital requirements. Hence, they see the need to increase supervisors’ responsibilities, capacity, powers and resources for monitoring, assessing and overseeing the adequacy of the internal models and for imposing prudential measures. They consider that if an internal model cannot be appropriately assessed by the supervisor due to its complexity such a model shall not be approved for regulatory use. (2) Intermediate level: industry structure European Credit Rating Foundation : the Commission is asked to conduct a detailed impact assessment and viability study on the costs, benefits and potential governance structure of a fully independent European Credit Rating Foundation (ECRaF) which would expand its expertise into all three sectors of ratings. The Commission should consider the start-up financing costs to cover the first three to maximum five years of the Foundation’s work. Members consider that, to ensure its credibility, the management, staff and governance structure of the new Foundation need to be fully independent and autonomous. Disclosure and access to information : Members points out that, in order to enable investors to adequately assess risk and to fulfil their due diligence and fiduciary duties, increased disclosure of information on products is necessary in the field of structured finance instruments to allow investors to make informed judgments. Sophisticated investors should be able to assess the underlying credits from which they can then derive the risk of a securitised product. The report calls on the Commission to assess the need to increase disclosure of information for all products in the field of financial instruments. It asks the Commission to propose a revision of Directive 2003/71/EC and Directive 2004/109/EC in order to ensure that sufficient accurate and complete information on structured finance instruments is more widely available. Members call for, alongside increased transparency of the rating process and its internal auditing, stronger supervision of CRAs by EU supervisory authorities and of more intrusive supervision by national supervisory authorities of the use /dependency on ratings by financial institutions. Two obligatory ratings : Members consider that the Commission should consider whether, under certain circumstances, the use of two obligatory ratings is appropriate e.g. for structured finance instruments and for any external credit ratings used for regulatory purposes and whether the most conservative, meaning least favourable, external credit rating should be regarded as the reference for regulatory purpose. Sovereign debt rating : Members ask the industry to clarify which methodology and judgments are used to calibrate sovereign ratings and to explain deviation from these model-generated ratings and from the forecasts of the main international financial institutions. Given the effects that credit ratings of sovereign debt can have on the market, Members support enhanced disclosure and explanation of methodologies, models and key rating assumptions adopted by credit rating agencies. (3) Micro level: business model Payment models : the committee supports the existence of various payment models in the industry but highlights the existence of risks of conflicts of interest which need to be addressed by appropriate transparency and regulatory means while not imposing an unwarranted model. The Commission is asked, based on the recent consultation, to come forward with proposals for alternative viable payment models that involve both issuers and users. Accountability, responsibility and liability : Members consider that CRAs should be held accountable for the consistent application of the underlying methodology of their credit ratings. They recommend therefore that CRAs’ exposure to civil liability in the event of gross negligence or misconduct be defined on a consistent basis across the EU and that the Commission should identify ways for such civil liability to be anchored in Member States’ civil law. The report suggests that each registered CRA should conduct an annual review to assess its past credit rating performance and should compile this information in an accountability report for the supervisor. It suggests that the ESMA should carry out random checks on accountability reports on a regular basis to ensure a high quality standard in credit ratings.
  • date: 2011-03-23T00:00:00 type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A7-2011-81&language=EN title: A7-0081/2011
  • date: 2011-06-06T00:00:00 type: Debate in Parliament body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20110606&type=CRE title: Debate in Parliament
  • date: 2011-06-08T00:00:00 type: Results of vote in Parliament body: EP docs: url: https://oeil.secure.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/sda.do?id=19842&l=en title: Results of vote in Parliament
  • date: 2011-06-08T00:00:00 type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P7-TA-2011-258 title: T7-0258/2011 summary: The European Parliament adopted a resolution on credit rating agencies (CRAs): future perspectives. The resolution recalls that CRAs are supposed to be information intermediaries, reducing information asymmetries in the capital markets and facilitating global market access. In recent legislation, CRAs have been assigned another role which can be classified as one of ‘certification’, reflecting the fact that ratings are increasingly embedded in regulatory capital requirements. CRAs played a significant role in the build-up to the financial crisis through the assignment of faulty ratings to structured finance instruments. The credit rating industry has various problems, amongst which the most important are the lack of competition, oligolistic structures and the lack of accountability and transparency. A problem of the dominant rating agencies in particular is the payment model and whereas the regulatory system’s key problem is over-reliance on external credit ratings. Firstly, the report assesses the macroeconomic role of CRA in the global financial market regulation and then looking at the intermediate level and questions of competition and the industry structure. Lastly, the report assesses conflicts of interest in the business model, i.e. the micro level. (1) Macro level: financial market regulation Over-reliance : Parliament considers that the over-reliance of the global financial regulatory system on external credit ratings has to be reduced as far as possible and in a realistic timeframe. It considers it important to establish a capital adequacy framework that ensures robust internal risk assessment, better oversight of such risk assessment, and improved access to credit-relevant information. Members support in this respect the increased use of the internal-ratings-based (IRB) approach provided that it is reliable and safe and that the size, capacity and sophistication of the financial institution allow for an adequate risk assessment. Parliament expresses the view that market participants should not invest in structured or other products if they cannot assess the underlying credit risk themselves, or alternatively that they should apply the highest risk weighting. Increased capacity for supervisors : Members are aware of the inherent conflict of interest if market participants devise internal credit risk assessments for their own regulatory capital requirements. Hence, they see the need to increase supervisors’ responsibilities, capacity, powers and resources for monitoring, assessing and overseeing the adequacy of the internal models and for imposing prudential measures. They consider that if an internal model cannot be appropriately assessed by the supervisor due to its complexity such a model shall not be approved for regulatory use. (2) Intermediate level: industry structure European Credit Rating Foundation : the Commission is asked to conduct a detailed impact assessment and viability study on the costs, benefits and potential governance structure of a fully independent European Credit Rating Foundation (ECRaF) which would expand its expertise into all three sectors of ratings. The Commission should consider the start-up financing costs to cover the first three to maximum five years of the Foundation’s work. Members are strongly of the opinion that financing costs should under no circumstances be borne by taxpayers and considers that no further funding should be provided and that the new ECRaF should be fully self-sufficient financing its own budget after the start-up period. Members consider that, to ensure its credibility, the management, staff and governance structure of the new Foundation need to be fully independent and autonomous . i.e. not bound by instructions vis-à-vis the Member States, the Commission and all other public bodies as well as the finance industry and other CRAs. Disclosure and access to information : Parliament points out that, in order to enable investors to adequately assess risk and to fulfil their due diligence and fiduciary duties, increased disclosure of information on products is necessary in the field of structured finance instruments to allow investors to make informed judgments. Sophisticated investors should be able to assess the underlying credits from which they can then derive the risk of a securitised product. The resolution calls on the Commission to assess the n eed to increase disclosure of information for all products in the field of financial instruments . It also calls on the Commission to propose a revision of Directive 2003/71/EC and Directive 2004/109/EC in order to ensure that sufficient accurate and complete information on structured finance instruments is more widely available. Members call for, alongside increased transparency of the rating process and its internal auditing, stronger supervision of CRAs by EU supervisory authorities and of more intrusive supervision by national supervisory authorities of the use/dependency on ratings by financial institutions. Two obligatory ratings : Members consider that the Commission should consider whether, under certain circumstances, the use of two obligatory ratings is appropriate e.g. for structured finance instruments and for any external credit ratings used for regulatory purposes and whether the most conservative, meaning least favourable, external credit rating should be regarded as the reference for regulatory purpose. Sovereign debt rating : Members ask the industry to clarify which methodology and judgments are used to calibrate sovereign ratings and to explain deviation from these model-generated ratings and from the forecasts of the main international financial institutions. Given the effects that credit ratings of sovereign debt can have on the market, Members support enhanced disclosure and explanation of methodologies, models and key rating assumptions adopted by credit rating agencies. (3) Micro level: business model Payment models : Parliament supports the existence of various payment models in the industry but highlights the existence of risks of conflicts of interest which need to be addressed by appropriate transparency and regulatory means while not imposing an unwarranted model. The Commission is asked, based on the recent consultation, to come forward with proposals for alternative viable payment models that involve both issuers and users. Members take the view that good governance in CRAs is crucial to ensure the quality of ratings and calls for full transparency from CRAs on the governance arrangements in place. Accountability, responsibility and liability : Members consider that CRAs should be held accountable for the consistent application of the underlying methodology of their credit ratings. They recommend therefore that CRAs’ exposure to civil liability in the event of gross negligence or misconduct be defined on a consistent basis across the EU and that the Commission should identify ways for such civil liability to be anchored in Member States’ civil law. The resolution suggests that each registered CRA should conduct an annual review to assess its past credit rating performance and should compile this information in an accountability report for the supervisor. It suggests that the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) should carry out random checks on accountability reports on a regular basis to ensure a high quality standard in credit ratings.
  • date: 2011-06-08T00:00:00 type: End of procedure in Parliament body: EP
links
other
  • body: EC dg: url: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/internal_market/ title: Internal Market and Services commissioner: BARNIER Michel
procedure/Modified legal basis
Old
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 150
New
Rules of Procedure EP 150
procedure/dossier_of_the_committee
Old
ECON/7/04338
New
  • ECON/7/04338
procedure/legal_basis/0
Rules of Procedure EP 052
procedure/legal_basis/0
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 052
procedure/subject
Old
  • 2.50.08 Financial services, financial reporting and auditing
  • 2.50.10 Financial supervision
New
2.50.08
Financial services, financial reporting and auditing
2.50.10
Financial supervision
activities
  • date: 2010-12-16T00:00:00 body: EP type: Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading committees: body: EP responsible: True committee: ECON date: 2010-09-21T00:00:00 committee_full: Economic and Monetary Affairs rapporteur: group: ALDE name: KLINZ Wolf body: EP responsible: False committee: JURI date: 2010-12-15T00:00:00 committee_full: Legal Affairs rapporteur: group: S&D name: REGNER Evelyn
  • date: 2011-03-16T00:00:00 body: EP committees: body: EP responsible: True committee: ECON date: 2010-09-21T00:00:00 committee_full: Economic and Monetary Affairs rapporteur: group: ALDE name: KLINZ Wolf body: EP responsible: False committee: JURI date: 2010-12-15T00:00:00 committee_full: Legal Affairs rapporteur: group: S&D name: REGNER Evelyn type: Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
  • date: 2011-03-23T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A7-2011-81&language=EN type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading title: A7-0081/2011 body: EP type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
  • date: 2011-06-06T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20110606&type=CRE type: Debate in Parliament title: Debate in Parliament body: EP type: Debate in Parliament
  • date: 2011-06-08T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/sda.do?id=19842&l=en type: Results of vote in Parliament title: Results of vote in Parliament url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P7-TA-2011-258 type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading title: T7-0258/2011 body: EP type: Results of vote in Parliament
committees
  • body: EP responsible: True committee: ECON date: 2010-09-21T00:00:00 committee_full: Economic and Monetary Affairs rapporteur: group: ALDE name: KLINZ Wolf
  • body: EP responsible: False committee: JURI date: 2010-12-15T00:00:00 committee_full: Legal Affairs rapporteur: group: S&D name: REGNER Evelyn
links
other
  • body: EC dg: url: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/internal_market/ title: Internal Market and Services commissioner: BARNIER Michel
procedure
dossier_of_the_committee
ECON/7/04338
reference
2010/2302(INI)
title
Credit rating agencies: future perspectives
legal_basis
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 052
stage_reached
Procedure completed
subtype
Initiative
Modified legal basis
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 150
type
INI - Own-initiative procedure
subject