TA的每日心情 | 慵懒 2020-7-26 05:11 |
---|
签到天数: 1017 天 [LV.10]大乘
|
本帖最后由 Dracula 于 2016-6-28 20:16 编辑
现在欧元区的金融业务主要是在伦敦进行,英国银行要进行欧元区的业务需要EU Passport,如果英国离开欧盟,这个Passport很可能就没了,伦敦金融业的一大块业务就没了,伦敦会很难维持其世界金融中心的地位。因此很多在伦敦的银行现在已经要把一些业务转到卢森堡巴黎或法兰克福。
这是金融时报的报道
Passporting question looms large for banks in the UK
Prime minister David Cameron’s resignation speech contained pretty cold comfort for foreign nationals from Europe — “there will be no immediate changes in your circumstances”, he promised, without specifying whether “immediate” applied for only a matter of days or weeks. It is a painful uncertainty for the 3m people from other EU countries living in the UK, and a crucial issue for the City of London, 11 per cent of whose workers hail from elsewhere in the EU.
But an even bigger visa question applies at a corporate level. Will City-based financial services groups continue to be able to “passport” their services into the rest of the EU under single market rules?
In the run-up to the EU referendum, most banks expressed a conviction that their London-based trading operations — which most of them use as hubs for serving clients from across the EU — would be at risk in the event of Brexit. For many, this was their biggest single argument for standing on the Remain side of the debate. If the “passport” allowing them to operate across the single market is revoked along with the UK’s exit from the EU, much of the logic for basing European operations in London evaporates.
But City of London optimists spent the weekend clinging to an abstruse chunk of EU legislation they believe could save them from chaos in the months and years ahead.
Under articles 46 and 47 of the new incoming Markets in Financial Instruments Regulation (Mifir), many of the rights accorded to EU “passport” holders under the current regime can be extended to non-EU countries and their financial services groups.
The broader rule book governed by the new Markets in Financial Instruments Directive, or Mifid 2, comes into force, in January 2018. So, given that it would take a good two years for the UK to disentangle itself from the EU, the transition could be smooth.
Well, perhaps. But there are at least three serious caveats.
First, the Mifir provisions relate only to segments of the businesses that currently benefit from passporting rights. Asset managers that have “Ucits” funds domiciled in the UK for distribution throughout the EU are not aided by the rules. Nor are insurers, such as Lloyd’s of London, who rely on passporting rules to deal with clients across the region. The securities trading part of banks’ operations would be covered, along with any “ancillary services”, such as margin loans. But straight corporate loans and other banking services, such as cross-border private banking, would not.
Second, whether or not the UK could take advantage of the Mifir provisions is uncertain. In theory, it should be able to, because it meets the guideline for “equivalent” standards of regulation. But that could change. If, for example, Britain revokes the part of the EU bank capital rules that cap bankers’ bonuses — a rule that was as unpopular with British policymakers as it was with City bankers — the EU Commission, which must decide on Mifir eligibility, could cry foul. There is also an element of political risk. Senior figures in France, such as Gérard Mestrallet, president of the Europlace lobby group, have already argued that UK-based entities should not be allowed to passport into the EU. They see a chance to boost Paris as a financial centre instead.
Third, there is no precedent to act as a guide. A similar provision in rules governing hedge funds and other specialist investors — the so-called Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive — has not worked well, with regulators restricting its application unexpectedly.
The whole topic has divided the City’s legal advisers. Barney Reynolds at Shearman & Sterling and Jonathan Herbst at Norton Rose, for example, think the Mifir provisions could be the answer to the City’s big Brexit concerns. Damian Carolan at Allen & Overy and James Palmer at Herbert Smith Freehills are more cautious. The truth is that these new rules might be a handy fallback for big financial groups to put into their contingency plans. But the more radical, and more costly option, of moving people to other EU locations, probably still needs to be Plan A.
|
|