Brussels, 02/12/2014 (Agence Europe) - Could the American reform of the money market funds, from which the rapporteur at the European Parliament on this dossier, Neena Gill (S&D, UK), drew her inspiration, be transposed into the European market?
This question took up the whole of the debate at the economic committee of the EP, on Monday 1 December. The coordinators of the competent committee should theoretically examine the calls made by several MEPs for an impact assessment. Gill said that she was open to this if it would not jeopardise the timetable. In the report she presented to the parliamentary committee, Gill distanced herself from the Commission's text, which proposes a liquidity buffer of 3% of the total assets in the CNAVs, funds which promise a consistent yield. Gill argued that the introduction of a liquidity buffer is not the right approach and recommends the creation of a new category of CNAV: 'EU government CNAV MMF funds', CNAVs which invest the majority of their assets in the public debt of the EU countries (EUROPE 11201).
Acknowledging that the dossier has been on the table for a while, Brian Hayes (EPP, Ireland) stressed that in the United States, the work took six years. “We have to go into greater detail, show a sense of proportion”, he recommended. The American reform concerns 10% of the funds, whilst in the EU, the aim is 80% of CNAVs, he pointed out. “We have to look at what is happening outside the EU”, said Syed Kamall (ECR, UK), “but we have to see whether it is adapted to our markets”. Kamall called for an impact assessment before taking “the gamble”.
The French MEP Sylvie Goulard (ALDE) said that she was “concerned by the scale of the departure” from the Commission's text. She stressed the differences between the American market and the European one. “We need to see whether the practices from another system of funding the economy are appropriate for ours”, she said. Petr Jezek (ALDE, Czech Republic) questioned whether this would send out the wrong political message to the states, which may interpret it as meaning that they did not need to worry about their public debt. Eva Joly (Greens/EFA, France) suggested that the report might allow the status quo to be maintained. Another MEP added that it was not a proposed compromise on the Commission's text, but an entirely new proposal.
Sven Giegold (Greens/EFA, Germany) had this message for the Commission: “are you not defending your proposal?”. “We know that the American situation transposed into Europe would have different results, this is why we proposed this (liquidity) buffer (…), whilst defending our position, we want to be productive”, replied the Commission representative. (EL)