The New Financial Regulatory Paradigm: A transatlantic perspective. CEPS Policy Brief No. 287, 21 March 2013

This CEPS Policy Brief reviews key aspects of the new financial paradigm in a transatlantic perspective, focusing on the general approach in EU and US legislation in response to the financial crisis and the G-20 commitments and specifically as regards the extraterritorial implications. Following discussion of the institutional setting, conclusions are offered on what these changes mean in the context of the recently proposed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. In comparing the EU and the US efforts in re-engineering their regulatory regimes in response to the financial crisis, the paper finds, with the notable exception of the banking union, serious grounds for concern that the outcome may be an even more fragmented European financial market, access to which for third-country institutions is highly problematic.

Banking Union with a Sovereign Virus. The self-serving regulatory treatment of sovereign debt in the euro area. CEPS Policy Brief No. 289, 27 March 2013

In many eurozone countries, domestic banks often hold more than 20% of domestic public debt, which is an unsatisfactory situation given that banks are highly leveraged and that sovereign debt is inherently subject to default risk within the euro area. This paper by Daniel Gros finds, however, that the relative concentration of public debt on bank balance sheets is not just a result of the euro crisis, for there are strong additional incentives for banks in some countries to increase their sovereign. His contribution discusses a number of these regulatory incentives – the most important of which is specific to the euro area – and explores ways in which euro area banks can be weaned from massive investments in government bonds.

The Dutch wish-list for a lighter regulatory touch from the EU. CEPS Commentary, 1 July 2013

The Dutch government set out the results of its review of EU competences on June 21st, under the slogan “European where necessary, national where possible”, claiming that the EU does not adequately respect the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. It published a list of 54 points for corrective action, which Michael Emerson assesses in this new CEPS Commentary. The political significance of this initiative is heightened because it comes alongside the UK's ongoing review of EU competences, although unlike the British, the Dutch make no mention of secession, treaty changes or repatriation of competences.