Past Event

Substance requirements for financial firms moving out from the UK

In the run-up to Brexit, UK-based financial firms are considering how to organize their operations across the future divide between the UK and EU27. This event will discuss the regulatory requirements on how self-sustaining the operations in the EU should be, and implications for the single market and third countries.

Date: June 2, 2017, 12:30 pm Topic: Finance & Financial Regulation

VIDEO AND AUDIO RECORDING

 

SUMMARY

The opening remarks of the two speakers showed agreement on the broad areas in which substance requirements focus, namely:

  • Local risk management
  • Local staff
  • Local operational management
  • Local resources and booking

Overall, whereas there was also the common view that agreeing the criteria defining substantial subsidiary presence in the host jurisdiction will be challenging, the two speakers offered somewhat different perspectives on the issue.

First, Gerry Cross stressed that, despite the difficulties, requirements will be pinned out through a holistic approach and an iterative process, tackling issues on a case-by-case basis rather than conceptually. Essentially, he called for a balanced approach between rigor and feasibility that already is bearing fruits and will achieve further progress in the future. Mr. Cross also underlined that, aligning the legal entity in the host country with the true underlying activity is not a trivial issue for regulators but a key ingredient in ensuring financial stability.

Simon Gleeson likened the task of defining substance requirements to aiming at a fast-moving target, given the continuous change in the financial industry. He remarked that the topic is often discussed with the wrong premise: it makes little sense to speak of one entity and one location in the financial industry model. Put another way, there is no “it” and “there” for instance when talking about risk management and internal models. Therefore, defining local is complex and regulators will have to answer questions about what they hope to achieve in setting a specific requirement.

The questions and answers section was dominated by a discussion of the impact the Brexit negotiations will have in setting the requirements and the spillover into the future regulatory environment, financial integration and stability. Some more specific, technical questions were also posed.

To start with, the stance of regulators was contrasted to the dynamics the negotiations can create. The speakers were in agreement that any significant shocks to the financial architecture currently in place (e.g. access of UK-based firms to financial infrastructure in the EU) will not be of technical nature but the outcome of political decisions. As Gerry Cross put it, regulators’ objective is financial stability and that takes cooperation between the authorities of different jurisdictions, but in this negotiation that translates into hoping for the best and preparing for the worst.

The good scenario was also discussed. Simon Gleeson took the view that this would correspond to the broad continuation of the current situation. The rationale is that London is to remain Europe’s major financial center for the foreseeable future and EU27 will be interested in having a say about how it is regulated. In exchange, it makes sense to offer some equivalent form of market access.

Finally there was the related question of whether common interest among supervisory authorities can yield the much needed cooperation, even in the event of a hard Brexit. Nicholas Veron offered examples where regulators from different jurisdictions dealt with globally systemic threats during the financial crisis despite the absence of explicit, formal agreements. But Mr. Gleeson listed counterexamples, which he attributed to the specific, legislated and binding remit supervisors have to respect that is none other than to ensure financial stability in their own jurisdiction.

Event noted by Konstantinos Efstathiou , Research Assistant

EVENT MATERIALS

Presentation by Simon Gleeson

Schedule

Jun 02, 2017

12:30-13:00

Check in and lunch

13:00-13:45

Discussion

Chair: Nicolas Véron, Senior Fellow

Gerry Cross, Director for Policy and Risk, Central Bank of Ireland

Simon Gleeson, Partner, Clifford Chance LLP

13:45-14:30

Discussion with the audience

Chair: Nicolas Véron, Senior Fellow

14:30

End

Speakers

Gerry Cross

Director for Policy and Risk, Central Bank of Ireland

Simon Gleeson

Partner, Clifford Chance LLP

Nicolas Véron

Senior Fellow

Location & Contact

Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels

Matilda Sevon

matilda.sevon@bruegel.org

Read article More on this topic More by this author

Podcast

Podcast

Director's Cut: The economics of no-deal Brexit

Bruegel director Guntram Wolff is joined by senior fellow Zsolt Darvas to rake through the possibilities and probabilities inherent in a no-deal Brexit scenario, covering trade, the Irish border, citizens' rights and the EU budget.

By: The Sound of Economics Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: January 16, 2019
Read about event More on this topic

Past Event

Past Event

Market power and its implications to competition policy

What are the reasons behind the global trends in corporate margins and market concentration?

Speakers: Adina Claici, Fiona Scott Morton, Nicolas Petit, Georgios Petropoulos and Arno Rasek Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels Date: January 16, 2019
Read article More by this author

Blog Post

What 2019 could bring: A look inside the crystal ball

Economic performance prospects in Europe, the US and Asia in 2019. We start off by reviewing commentaries and predictions about the euro zone, which many commentators expect to perform below potential as uncertainties continue to dampen a still robust recovery.

By: Michael Baltensperger Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance, Global Economics & Governance Date: January 14, 2019
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

EU budget implications of a no-deal Brexit

A no-deal Brexit would mean the UK’s contributions to the EU budget fall to zero as of March 30th 2019. The author here calculates an estimate of the budget shortfall that would have to be covered in this case, and how the burden would fall across different member states.

By: Zsolt Darvas Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: January 14, 2019
Read article Download PDF More on this topic More by this author

Policy Contribution

The implications of no-deal Brexit: is the European Union prepared?

The author, based on a note written for the Bundestag EU Committee, is exploring the possible consequences of a no-deal Brexit for the EU, assessing preparations on the EU side and providing guidance on the optimal strategy for the EU, depending on the choices made by the United Kingdom.

By: Guntram B. Wolff Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: January 14, 2019
Read article Download PDF More by this author

Parliamentary Testimony

German Bundestag

The implications of no-deal Brexit: is the EU prepared?

Hearing on Brexit in the EU Committee of Bundestag on 14 January 2019, exploring the possible consequences of a no-deal Brexit for the EU and assessing preparations on the EU side.

By: Guntram B. Wolff Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance, German Bundestag, Testimonies Date: January 14, 2019
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Brexit: Now for something completely different?

The life of Brexit. After a week of ECJ rulings, delayed votes, Theresa May’s errands across Europe and the vote of no confidence, we review the latest economists’ opinions to try to make sense of what has changed and what hasn’t.

By: Inês Goncalves Raposo Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: December 17, 2018
Read article More on this topic

Opinion

How a second referendum could be the best way to overcome Brexit impasse

A new vote based on the revocation (or not) of Article 50 would give the UK government a clear signal to proceed in one direction or another, and thus trim down the number of options being touted – most of which are unworkable as things stand.

By: Maria Demertzis and Nicola Viegi Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: December 14, 2018
Read about event More on this topic

Past Event

Past Event

Investment and intangible capital

This event featured a presentation of the EIB's 2018 Investment Report.

Speakers: Román Arjona, Maria Demertzis, Debora Revoltella and Mario Nava Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels Date: December 14, 2018
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Opinion

Immigration: The doors of perception

Surveys show that people systematically overestimate the share of foreign-born citizens among resident populations. Aligning people's perceptions with reality is vital to the betterment of public debate and proposed policies.

By: Inês Goncalves Raposo Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: December 12, 2018
Read about event More on this topic

Past Event

Past Event

Emerging Trends in Competition Policy - A Global Perspective

How is global competition policy evolving given the challenges of the digital era?

Speakers: Cristina Caffarra, Antonio Capobianco, Kris Dekeyser, William Kovacic and Georgios Petropoulos Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels Date: December 11, 2018
Read about event More on this topic

Past Event

Past Event

Environmental and economic effects of the EU ETS

What is the impact of the EU ETS on carbon emissions and economic performance of regulated companies?

Speakers: Sander de Bruyn, Antoine Dechezleprêtre, Beatriz Yordi Aguirre and Georg Zachmann Topic: Energy & Climate Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels Date: December 6, 2018
Load more posts