The problem is that the financial industry earns practice money. Governments, strongly put pressure by asset managers, insurers and others who benefit from bribes, put pressure on the commission to delete the prohibition before the text was officially proposed in 2023. A final agreement on the proposal has still not occurred.
Another proposal, for an EU Ticker strip which would publish data on prices and volume of securities negotiated in the EU, improving the overall transparency of prices and competition, has been dug after – once again – the pressure of governments launched by their scholarships, including the commercial distribution model of these data for a premium price would be threatened by the band.
Under the political agreement on this legislation, a lower version of the Ticker band with less precious information will always be implemented, but the scholarships are already consortia to bid to execute the band, which means that the competition can be diluted.
These are only two examples of many, but the scheme is clear – new EU initiatives that would deepen the capital markets are dug or abandoned after the governments, in Thrall to their national champions of the finance industry, say no.
The rules
Then there is the obstinate question of the rules and which applies them. Although most agree that having a single rules of rules and a single supervisor for the actors of the EU capital markets would make the market more integrated, governments will not abandon their property of the rules and their supervision, with high -level peaks on the question ending with a dead end.
They also engage in a “gold floor” – when countries deploy the rules of the EU differently at the national level. It is often a question of protecting national investors or internal economic interests, a fact which creates obstacles to foreign participants, a prejudicial competition, according to a report in 2024 of the Lobby group of the Polish capital markets CFA Poland.
Politices
