DIRECTORIO DE BUFETES en la WEB: A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I-K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W-Z |
Le enviamos regularmente las últimas noticias
Su Nombre:
Su Email:
NOTICIAS
INTERNACIONAL
Rosali Pretorius, financial markets and regulation partner at Denton Wilde Sapte says: "The government plans to strengthen the FSA and it is to be given a new stability objective. It proposes extensive and potentially intrusive powers in support of that objective such as the power to amend firms' licences and a possible power to request information from anyone, FSA regulated or not. The government also proposes to give the FSA greater sticks to punish financial firms and people who work for them. In order to do this, the FSA will need to recruit talent which will come at a cost they and the financial industry can ill afford. In a number of areas, especially on capital regulation, there are no new proposals - just a record of existing workstreams. The government seems keen to support multilateral initiatives at the European level especially, and to benchmark proposals against other countries. Hence the desire for a more calibrated regulatory response to systemically important institutions, rather than a modern version of Glass Steagall or support for a split between utility banking and financial engineering. In its zeal to address the problems, government should be careful not to implement measures that ride coach and horses through the basic civil liberty principles of due process. The devil will lie in the detail of legislation. What checks and balances will be put in place? The Banking Act Henry VII provision i.e. the power to amend primary legislation by secondary legislation, makes for uncertainty and should not be repeated. Legislation and rules, especially definitions, must be clear; as uncertainty is bad for business. There will be a new authority for consumer education proposed and the FSA will be given powers of appointment subject to Treasury approval. It makes sense to help consumers understand information rather than ask firms to provide even more information, although there seems to still be a general emphasis on disclosure as a panacea. But industry will pay for this. Similarly the proposal to develop a collective redress mechanism seems like a good idea - it should cut the costs the FOS has had to deal with, e.g. on PPI."
copyright, 2006 - Strong Element, S.L. - Peña Sacra 18 - E-28260 Galapagar - Madrid - Spain - Tel.: + 34 91 858 75 55 - Fax: + 34 91 858 56 97 - info@lawyerpress.com - www.lawyerpress.com - Aviso legal
