1

2 European Systemic Risk Board Governance: Steering Committee: 3 central bankers, 3 chairs of ESAs, 1 Commissioners, 1 Finance Minister delegate General Board Only consultative Tasks: define, identify and prioritise all macro-financial risks; issue risk warnings and give recommendations to policy makers, supervisors and public; monitor follow-up of the risk warnings; liaise with international counterparts; Based within ECB

3 European Supervisory Authorities Governance: 1 Steering Committee of chairs of 3 ESAs Per authority: Chairs of 27 national functional supervisors Tasks: single rulebook; harmonise supervisory practices; strengthen the oversight of cross-border groups (participate and mediate in colleges) and supervise pan- European entities (CRAs, CSDs, CCPs); establish a central European supervisory database. Upgrade of CEBS, CESR, CEIOPS

4 Legal basis Best would be EU Treaty change, but this is excluded Within current Treaty: Art. 95: to complete single market, can be adopted in QMV, but with EP co-decision Art. 308: unanimity, only EP consent Art : to extend ECB powers for banking supervision, but with unanimity Pushes to limits of EU competence In pract. 4 regulations and 1 Council decision

5 EU agencies 28 EU regulatory agencies exist today e.g. Food agency, Pharmaceutical agency, Eurocontrol No general rule regarding their powers, governance, funding, etc. Average employment 200 persons Legal base could be challenged: the authorities could never have more competences than the delegating authority See Meroni (1958) & Enisa (2004) ECJ cases

6 Evaluation ESRB: Main problem is of conceptual and institutional nature Better to have it as consultative only committee, reduces conflicts with central bank (and supervisors) difficulty of predicting systemic risks Cfr. debate on US Systemic Risk Council ESFS: Enormous workload ahead: main problem is of organisational and operational nature Will member states accept supervisory powers? Mediation in colleges has fiscal implications

7 Comparing EU and US debate US: Debate mainly focused on Systemic Risk Council Strengthening of supervisory powers of Fed other reforms disappointing EU: Debate mainly focused on ESFS No formal increase in powers of ECB, maintains clear distinction btw. supervisory and monetary Could in long term lead to more unified structure, but maintains too much of a functional approach