Summary of contributions to the ‘Call for Evidence’

Contents

1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 3
2. OVERVIEW OF RESPONDENTS AND RESPONSES ........................................... 3
2.1. Who responded? ................................................................................................ 3
2.2. Overview of responses ...................................................................................... 5
2.3. Quality of the evidence submitted ..................................................................... 7
3. RULES AFFECTING THE ABILITY OF THE ECONOMY TO FINANCE ITSELF ........................................................................................................................ 8
3.1. Unnecessary regulatory constraints on financing (Issue 1) ............................... 8
3.2. Market liquidity (Issue 2) .................................................................................. 9
3.3. Investor and consumer protection (Issue 3) ..................................................... 11
3.4. Proportionality / preserving diversity in the EU financial sector (Issue 4) ..... 12
4. UNNECESSARY REGULATORY BURDEN ........................................................ 13
4.1. Excessive compliance costs and complexity (Issue 5) .................................... 13
4.2. Reporting and disclosure obligations (Issue 6) ............................................... 14
4.3. Contractual documentation (Issue 7) ............................................................... 16
4.4. Rules outdated due to technological change (Issue 8) ..................................... 17
4.5. Barriers to entry (Issue 9) ................................................................................ 17
5. INTERACTIONS OF INDIVIDUAL RULES, INCONSISTENCIES AND GAPS ......................................................................................................................... 18
5.1. Links between individual rules and overall cumulative impact (Issue 10) ..... 18
5.2. Definitions (Issue 11) ...................................................................................... 19
5.3. Overlaps, duplications and inconsistencies (Issue 12) .................................... 19
5.4. Gaps (Issue 13) ................................................................................................ 21
6. RULES GIVING RISE TO POSSIBLE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES ........ 21
6.1. Risk (Issue 14) ................................................................................................. 21
6.2. Procyclicality (Issue 15) .................................................................................. 22
ANNEX: ACRONYMS .................................................................................................... 24

1. INTRODUCTION

On 30 September 2015, the European Commission launched a public consultation entitled the Call for Evidence: EU regulatory framework for financial services. The consultation closed on 31 January 2016.

The purpose of the Call for Evidence, which is part of the Commission's 2016 work programme as a REFIT item,1 was to consult all interested stakeholders on the benefits, unintended effects, consistency, gaps in and coherence of the EU regulatory framework for financial services. It also aimed to gauge the impact of the regulatory framework on the ability of the economy to finance itself and grow. In particular, the consultation sought feedback, concrete examples and empirical evidence on the impact of rules adopted to date. The consultation was structured under the following thematic areas:

1. Rules affecting the ability of the economy to finance itself and to grow;
2. Unnecessary regulatory burdens;
3. Interactions, inconsistencies and gaps;
4. Rules giving rise to possible other unintended consequences.

The Commission received 288 responses to the consultation and would like to thank respondents for their contributions.
This feedback statement summarises the issues raised. It seeks to provide a factual overview of the contributions received and examples provided. It is not an exhaustive list of all contributions and does not assess the validity of the respective claims. The contents of this document therefore cannot be regarded as reflecting the position of the Commission.

Overall, stakeholders did not dispute the reforms of recent years and many expressed support, highlighting the benefits of the new rules. But the Call for Evidence was also welcomed as giving all interested parties the opportunity to assess the potential interactions, overlaps and inconsistencies between different pieces of legislation.