consulting the “general public” February 8, 2010
Posted by Bradley in : consultation , add a commentThe EU’s consultation on information sharing between the EU and the US, which purports to invite responses from stakeholders, including the “general public” doesn’t really seemed geared to generating responses from the public at large. It’s full of jargon and probably only makes sense to people who know quite a lot about the subject matter already (although the consultation page does provide links to relevant documents):
Should the agreement provide for modalities and consequences of “accountability”, e.g. internal and external review procedures? Should the agreement notably provide for a joint review mechanism?.. If there is no possibility to directly access one’s own personal data for justified reasons, should the agreement provide for the possibility of indirect verification through an independent authority responsible for the oversight of the processing in the sending or recipient country?.. Should the modalities for transparency and assistance to data subjects by US and EU data protection supervisory authorities be spelled out in the agreement?
a new reason to worry about credit ratings January 12, 2010
Posted by Bradley in : consultation , comments closedThe UK Treasury, facing a lack of bank lending to UK corporates is trying to figure out how to encourage non-bank lending in a Discussion Paper published today. There’s less non-bank lending to UK corporates than to US corporates, and the paper suggests this may be linked to lower levels of rated corporates in the UK than in the US:
In seeking finance from non-bank channels, in particular the corporate bond market, a public credit rating may increase investor awareness and serve to reduce overall financing costs and risks to investors and businesses. Compared with the US, a significantly smaller proportion of UK companies are rated.
The Discussion Paper asks for data in a number of areas, including reasons why UK corporates don’t seek public credit ratings, and whether requiring more disclosure (corporate transparency) generally or with respect to loan covenants would be a good idea.
developments in the uk credit card consultation November 12, 2009
Posted by Bradley in : consultation , comments closedIn an unusual move, the UK Department of Business, Information and Skills has published a press release relating to the credit card consultation which states:
PricewaterhouseCoopers released a report today on the future of the credit card market.
Commenting on the report, a Department for Business spokesperson said:
“Two weeks ago the Government launched a consultation on new measures which we believe will give consumers who use credit cards a better deal. That consultation is receiving an extraordinarily positive response from the public.
“Consumers are clearly very concerned about the credit card market and we are determined to put the customer back in the driving seat.
“There is a need to proceed carefully but the PricewaterhouseCoopers report fails to reflect the many positive options credit card companies have to reform the current system.
“Consumers would not be impressed if credit card companies used this report to argue against change; they should not hide behind this report.”
The report in question is the latest Precious Plastic Report (the BIS doesn’t make it easy to find – not even citing the report by its title), so it’s not exactly directed at the current consultation, although it is clearly written in a context where the regulation of credit cards is an issue. The report does suggest that regulation (in the US as well as the UK) may have negative impacts on the credit card market. But I think that credit card companies have taken advantage of their customers and of their customers’ vulnerabilities on both sides of the Atlantic in ways that are unethical and some of which ought to be illegal. And if I were writing the latest in a series of reports on the credit card market I’d feel obliged to notice that the political calculus with respect to financial regulation generally and with respect to consumer issues particularly has changed recently. So, isn’t the BIS over-reacting? And will the over-reaction be counter-productive?
uk oecd mnes consultation November 2, 2009
Posted by Bradley in : consultation , comments closedPublished on the same day as the credit card consultation (which generated an immediate response from the UK Cards Association) and by the same government department, the consultation on the terms of reference for an update of the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises doesn’t seem to merit the same sort of full court press and multi-format consultation documents. There doesn’t seem to be an mp3 version, or a plain English version, even though the document states that the:
consultation is relevant to a cross section of stakeholders, including.. businesses.. business organisations.. trade unions.. non-government organisations.. UK human rights institutions.. trade bodies.. international bodies.. consumer bodies.. law firms and legal bodies .. Parliament, and.. Government organisations
And the document also suggests that really early responses are more likely to be taken into account than later responses:
In line with Government’s code of practice on consultation views are invited within 12 weeks (i.e. by 25 January 2010). However, views received by 30 November 2009 would be particularly valuable in view of the next OECD meeting in early December. This meeting represents a major opportunity for the UK to influence the terms of reference of the update. Comments received after 30 November will still be considered and, where appropriate, put forward in writing. They will still have a chance of influencing the terms of reference but it may be more difficult at this stage to obtain the necessary consensus between adhering countries. To ensure consultation is as effective as possible, a UK NCP’s stakeholder event (9 November 2009) has been arranged, where we will also gather stakeholder views.
The document suggests responses may be submitted by email or by mail (even though there’s an ongoing postal strike). I guess that making it clear that you care about peoples’ responses to this consultation isn’t thought to be very important for the forthcoming election.
transparency of results of consultation September 14, 2009
Posted by Bradley in : consultation , comments closedThe EU Commission today published results of consultations on out of court resolution of disputes about financial services and basic bank accounts. The Commission has produced summary documents reflecting the results of the consultation. These documents show that the Commission received 97 responses to the basic bank accounts consultation and 68 responses to the ADR consultation. The basic bank accounts summary document reveals a range of views about the issues among respondents. For example, the document suggests that industry and public authorities have much more faith than consumers and users of financial services and civil society organisations in the effectiveness of voluntary codes of conduct. Not a very surprising result. And although there’s a lot of academic support for self-regulation, the academic organisations and think tanks which responded to this consultation did not tend to think that voluntary codes were effective either.
iosco audit firm ownership consultation September 11, 2009
Posted by Bradley in : consultation , comments closedBeginning this week and until December IOSCO is seeking comments on the idea of non-professional ownership structures for audit firms. Although IOSCO doesn’t always publish the full text of responses to its consultations this is one of the times where it proposes to do so. There are other consultations on auditor communications and on transparency and responses to these documents are also to be published.
tracking consultations August 24, 2009
Posted by Bradley in : consultation , comments closedIt would be easier to track consultations if the lists Governments maintain were kept current. The UK’s directgov website (“public services all in one place”) has a page dedicated to a list of government consultation websites. But whereas the link to the Department of Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform works – when they made the change to the Department for Business Innovation and Skills they put the new name on the top of the old web page, other links don’t work so well. So clicking on the Department for Constitutional Affairs takes you to a page that states that as of 2007 the responsibilities have been transferred to the Ministry of Justice. You have to click again to get to the new page. But the maintenance of the inaccurate list at directgov bothers me. People who know what they are looking for are likely to go straight to the Ministry of Justice website, but others who aren’t sure where to look may get put off by the outdated departmental designations and the need for extra clicking (and this from the successors to the people who promised joined-up government!).
fsa on shareholder activism and regulation August 19, 2009
Posted by Bradley in : consultation , comments closedToday the FSA published on its website a “Letter sent out to trade associations” which discusses “how its rules apply to activist shareholders who wish to work together to promote effective corporate governance in companies in which they have invested”. I assume the reference to trade associations in the plural is to the ISC’s members: ABI, AIC, IMA and NAPF. Others who are interested find out via the web site.
lobbying and transparency August 17, 2009
Posted by Bradley in : consultation , comments closedBodies which seek comments on regulatory proposals don’t always make public the comments they receive, and they are not necessarily consistent in how they deal with comments. Comments are sometimes published by the recipients, sometimes not. Similarly, trade associations which make comments sometimes publish the full text and sometimes do not. For example, I have noted in the past that ISDA makes public only some of its comment letters. But that doesn’t explain why a joint submission to the EU Commission on European financial supervision by SIFMA, LIBA and ISDA should be made public by LIBA, but presented by SIFMA Europe as being only available to its members. And, as of today, the comment letter doesn’t even appear in ISDA’s list of comment letters.
the eu, consultation and the crisis August 10, 2009
Posted by Bradley in : consultation , comments closedMeasures which are designed to respond to the financial crisis have been proposed in ways that short-circuit normal processes. The EU’s consultation on proposals to amend capital requirements, for example, has a consultation period of less than eight weeks because:
These amendments form part of the ongoing response of the European Union to the financial crisis and a proposal is scheduled for adoption by the Commission in October. A shorter consultation period is necessary to meet that timetable.
But the political process sometimes slows down the adoption of measures prompted by crisis. A Credit Ratings Regulation, for example, was proposed in November last year but it has not yet been adopted. The consultation for that measure, which began in July 2008 was also truncated:
It was not possible for Commission services to start the consultation period earlier given the fact that the advice of the Committee of European Securities Regulators (CESR) and the report of European Securities Markets Expert group (ESME) were delivered only in May and June this year respectively. These contributions had been prepared on the request of the Commission and offered the necessary basis for the Commission services’ work in this area. Moreover, a substantial amount of time in the preparatory phase has been devoted to eventually unsuccessful attempts to create a self-regulatory solution for the CRA industry.
Neither is it possible to extend the consultation period later in September: in view of the forthcoming elections, the European Parliament has agreed with the European Commission to accept the Commission proposals to be dealt in co-decision only by October 2008 at the latest. This implies that the Commission services will need to launch and finalise an Interservice Consultation in September 2008 in order to meet this deadline. Commission services will compensate the short consultation period by individually encouraging important stakeholders (including regulators, Member States and the CRAs) to participate in the public consultation.
It would be nice to think that the later delays redress some of the defects of the initial consultation, but I’m not so sanguine. Commentators suggest that the Commission may be trying to influence the Basel capital review process by moving quickly.