110 likes | 212 Views
CESR, OAMs and XBRL. Rome, 20 April 2010 Lee Piller Director for Financial Information. CESR and its role in Europe. Committee of European Securities Regulators Established June 2001 3 main objectives: - Improve co-ordination among securities regulators
E N D
CESR, OAMs and XBRL Rome, 20 April 2010 Lee Piller Director for Financial Information
CESR and its role in Europe • Committee of European Securities Regulators • Established June 2001 • 3 main objectives: - Improve co-ordination among securities regulators - Act as an advisory group to assist the EU Commission - Work to ensure more consistent and timely day-to-day implementation of community legislation in the Member States • Most work proliferated through working groups and common consensus • Will be transformed into an EU Agency effective 1 January 2011 2
A pan-European OAM network • Transparency Directive requirement: one officially appointed mechanism (OAM) per member state • Such networks should be linked • EC Recommendation in 2006: - Harmonised searching facilities - Common input formats - Common types of regulated information - Interconnection with national company registeries - Entrusted to a single supervisory body 3
Where are we today? • Most member states have an OAM - 40% run by competent authority - 40% run by Stock Exchanges - c.20% run by third party • CESR has set up a network based on the MiFiD database • Covers 7,200 equity instruments • No debt instruments covered • Interim solution needs re-visiting in CESR’s September 2010 report to the Commission 4
CESR’s current work • Current system based on Model C • CESR required to report to Commission in September 2010 on effectiveness of model • A chance to re-consider model that delivers the best solution. • Not meeting requirements • Two possibilities - Build on Model C- already in place - Create single database 5
Path two – single European OAM • Single, centralised OAM • Not necessarily envisaged by TD • More flexibility • Would not require coordination amongst 29 member state OAMs in the future BUT • National investment already made? • Loss of value added services? 7
Comparison of the two approaches • Both satisfy stipulations set out in the 2006 EC Recommendation • De-centralisation means more complexity • Costs? • Further discussion necessary 8
XBRL • Currently no single access point but this could change • CESR has no power to impose but again this could change • CESR’s Call for Evidence (October 2009) • 39 responses • Largely supportive 9
XBRL – Considerations for CESR • Want to achieve automated searching and flexibility in how the data can be manipulated • Solution needs to fulfil needs of both regulators and users • Regulators would require: - Flexibility - Support - Low cost - Straight forward to use • Need to look at - Where our members are - Fellow European regulators (CEBS, CEIOPS) - Further afield (US, Japan) - Other uses (e.g. Credit Rating Agencies) 10
Conclusion • Some have advocated XBRL for a long time • CESR sees the merit in XBRL as a common format potentially within a pan-European database • Need to assess the impact on issuers and regulators • Co-operation with other organisations is key • Now is the time to act 11