[ad_1]
Exactly 25 years have passed since the introduction of the EU Directive (No. 9 of 1997) regulating the compensation of investors of failed intermediaries, and the prospects for reform are dimming again. In particular, the minimum limit of €20,000 per investor will continue to be in force. This is the threshold already introduced in Italy (first in the form of an ECU), while other countries have higher levels. The latest report of the National Guarantee Fund highlights that priorities in Brussels are different. The arrival of the war may help focus efforts elsewhere in this delicate international stage.
Reform Failure
The European Commission said that one of its priorities is to complete the Capital Markets Union and the Banking Union and called for a review of the banking crisis management framework and the improvement of the deposit insurance mechanism. The proposal to amend the 9th Directive of 1997 on the investor compensation system has been withdrawn, and there is no indication of a possible review of investor compensation regulations in the plans presented in Brussels. The purpose of the fund, in which SIM, Sgr and other intermediaries participate, is to provide protection for investors in participating entities in the event of compulsory administrative liquidation, bankruptcy or preventive settlement of the participating entities. The compensation limit is €20,000 per investor if the investor’s credit record is passive.
When the rules apply
«In the event of an intermediary default, explains Gianluigi Gugliotta, Secretary General of Assosim, the Fund intervenes and assumes only “restorative” obligations, that is, obligations arising from the inability of the intermediary to return to its clients securities or liquid assets in its possession, as in the case of misappropriation of funds by a disloyal employee of the same intermediary. For example, money was stolen but not deposited in the cash register. If, on the other hand, the collapse was caused by a faulty investment strategy of the intermediary, the Fund would not intervene. ”
Scrolling through the list of operations makes it clear that none have been carried out for more than 10 years. “The latest IMF intervention dates back to the defaults before the entry into force of Mifid 1 (September 2008), which strengthened organizational and behavioral safeguards and made it more difficult to carry out misappropriation schemes,” Gugliotta continues. “A positive sign. However, there has been talk for some time about reforming the current reimbursement regulations to increase the reimbursement ceilings and the fund financing system, but this process has not yet taken place.”
Interventions
Since the entry into force of the Directive and its subsequent transposition, the IMF has intervened or may be called upon to intervene in 39 insolvency proceedings in the quarter century of the current regulatory framework. , enacted by Decree of November 14, 1997, n. 485, replacing Directive No. 9 of 1997.
[ad_2]
Source link
