Ah, now I understand why EU finance law is so fucking awful

The European Parliament\’s economic and monetary affairs committee today
voted to revise draft EU legislation on investment funds (the UCITS
directive), with a total sector value of almost EUR 6.3 trillion in
funds. The vote on the legislation, which is being shepherded through
the European Parliament by Green draftsperson/rapporteur Sven Giegold,
also includes provisions on remuneration and performance fees.

The whole lot is actually being written by a Green. Someone who, by definition, knows precisely fuck all about either finance or economics.

Aren\’t we lucky to have an entire continent ruled this way?

16 thoughts on “Ah, now I understand why EU finance law is so fucking awful”

  1. So Much For Subtlety

    They are going to replace bonuses with Even Higher Bran Diets?

    Oh please God, please, let them try.

    All the more work for London, alas, but the sooner it all collapses, the better.

  2. FWIW, I’m told that the Euro-Greens are actually not too bad on finance. Unlike the insane ones here – the EuroGreens actually have a shot at power (Germany for example) and therefore tend not to be mad. They also are not beholden to bankers and thus are more open to ideas like making banks have more capital.

  3. Ken,

    I have an historic bridge, with moveable ramps on both sides, in London to sell. Are you interested?

  4. Probably the relevant point about this guy is not his Green umbrella, but the fact that he’s a founder member of a German lobby group seeking to tax the financial sector.

  5. I’m sure everyone will have their own horror story of EU finance legislation to tell, but for my own industry (insurance) it’s the ongoing shambles that is Solvency II.

    Years of development work by companies, literally billions in costs for uk companies alone and it still looks like it won’t ever be implemented.

    To quote out host: hang ’em, hang ’em all.

  6. Wait a mo! Wasn’t the 2008 Climate Change Act drafted by Bryony Worthington, who was seconded to the DECC from Friends of the Earth by Ed Miliband? Surely no more sound and sensible legislation has been passed in the history of Parliament. The inspiring story of a Green hijacking our legislative process is told here.

  7. Steady on, Hugo. You’ve mentioned Bryony. Connolley will be along in a mo to deny she was ever a green fifth columnist.

  8. @ GlenDorran
    Not that it was ever going to be any use because Lloyds of London had to uplift the Solvency II capital requirement by more than one-third to meet their standards and the lecture by an actuarial expert to investment analysts that I attended showed how the EU regulators were tweaking every element of Solvency II so that it would not actually impact on Continental insurers.
    This doesn’t prove that UKIP is right, just makes it harder for me to argue reform rather than abolition of the EU.

  9. Sorry to go off topic- but I’m having trouble accessing this site.

    When I go to TimWorstall.com I get a page that hasn’t been updated since March 18th.

    I can come to individual pages if I click on a direct link to a new post.

  10. Ross – refresh the page, and it should come back up to date. (Actually, that problem applies to individual post pages as well, so you might well not see this…)

    In relation to the actual post, surely we’re already screwed when they’re distributing funds at the level of 700+ million people, let alone when the distribution is determined by a Green? I just hope that 6.3 trillion euros is the industry size figure rather than the amount available to be spent by the EU.

    The ‘provisions on remuneration and performance fees’ would definitely sound like the kind of attack on bankers that Ian B was suggesting.

  11. The ‘provisions on remuneration and performance fees’ would definitely sound like the kind of attack on bankers that Ian B was suggesting.

    The only attack on bankers I’m seriously suggesting is ending government systems that flood them with cheap new money, rather than continuing to do that then trying to claw some back in arbitrary taxes.

    I mean, it would be nice to hang a few as well, but purely for the entertainment value, not as an economic policy. We could do it with a lottery. Mind you, Goldman Sachs would probably win yet more billions gambling on which of their employees were going to the gallows, so probably not then.

  12. Ian – I was unclear, I apologise. I meant as in the kind of attack you were suggesting that this might be, not that you were advocating an attack.

  13. Fund managers present no systemic risk, took no money from government and (largely) work for private companies. I struggle to see what justification (beyond spite, envy and general hatred) can justify state intrusion into how much individuals get paid. ANd while we are at it, how come nobody that works for any of the troika is liable to pay much if any income tax?

  14. I am continually amazed by the amount of information available on this subject. What you presented was well researched and well worded in order to get your stand on this across to all your readers.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *