2013年-IMF国际货币组织全球_France_Financial_Sector_Assessment_ProgramDetailed_Assessment_of_Observance_of_IOSCO_Objectives_and_Principles_of_Securities_Regulation_173页_1mb

Summary of the Financial Sector Assessment Program—Detailed Assessment of Observance of IOSCO Objectives and Principles of Securities Regulation in France

Core Content

This document provides a detailed assessment of the implementation of the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) principles and objectives of securities regulation in France, conducted as part of the Financial Sector Assessment Program (FSAP) in 2011. The assessment was based on the revised IOSCO methodology from 2011 and the legal and regulatory framework in place as of June 2013.

Main Findings

1. Implementation Level

• France has a high level of implementation of IOSCO principles.
• The legal framework is robust, granting Autorité des Marchés Financiers (AMF) and Autorité de Contrôle Prudentiel (ACP) broad powers in licensing, supervision, investigation, and enforcement.
• There are robust cooperation mechanisms between AMF and ACP, including monthly meetings and a joint institutional cooperation mechanism (Pôle Commun).

2. Regulatory Structure

• The twin peaks model is used, with:
  • AMF responsible for market supervision and market abuse enforcement.
  • ACP responsible for prudential supervision of investment service providers (ISPs) and market infrastructure providers.
  • Haut Conseil du Commissariat aux Comptes (H3C) oversees external auditors.
• No self-regulatory organizations (SROs) exist in France, and associations of ISPs and FIAs have limited supervisory roles.

3. Market Structure

• Equity markets:
  • 586 companies listed on Eurolist (Paris segment) as of end-2011.
  • Market capitalization was €1,197 billion, with a daily turnover of €4 billion.
  • Alternext Paris and Marché Libre are notable trading venues, offering products for SMEs and microcaps.
• Bond markets:
  • 233 issuers had outstanding debt issues on Euronext-Paris.
  • The bulk of bond trading occurs OTC.
• Collective Investment Schemes (CIS):
  • 12,182 CIS registered at end-2010.
  • AUM by CIS reached €1,474 billion, with money market funds representing one-third of this.
  • Discretionary mandates increased by 10% compared to 2009.
• Structured products:
  • The market remains small compared to total household investment flows.
  • Gross subscriptions in 2010 were €13 billion, but they slowed down in 2011.

4. Investment Service Providers (ISPs)

• 368 ISPs (excluding PMCs) as of end-2011, with 100 investment firms (IFs).
• Credit institutions dominate the retail market.
• Portfolio Management Companies (PMCs):
  • 590 PMCs as of end-2011, with 512 managing CIS.
  • Bank subsidiaries manage over 60% of total AUM.
• Financial Investment Advisors (FIAs):
  • AMF has a limited number of onsite inspections and sanctions against FIAs due to resource constraints.

5. Governance and Independence Concerns

• Board representation includes industry and government interests, which may compromise independence.
• The Ministère de l’Economie et des Finances (MoF) has a non-voting representative on AMF and ACP boards, which can request second deliberations.
• Industry representatives are allowed on Boards and enforcement committees, but conflict-of-interest provisions are in place.
• Resource limitations at the AMF and ACP are a concern, particularly in market surveillance and inspections.

6. Enforcement Challenges

• AMF has a hands-on enforcement culture, but on-site inspections and sanctions are limited due to capacity issues.
• ACP has limited use of formal enforcement powers.
• Criminal enforcement faces challenges.

7. Market Fragmentation

• Market fragmentation in Europe affects transparency and oversight.
• The MiFID review presents an opportunity to address these issues at the European level.

Key Recommendations

• The AMF should strengthen its inspection program for ISPs and FIAs.
• The ACP should adopt a more enforcement-oriented culture and increase the frequency of capital adequacy reporting.
• The H3C needs more resources and direct enforcement powers to improve auditor oversight.
• Industry representation on regulatory boards should be reduced to preserve independence.
• Legislative limits on the number of staff at AMF and ACP could impede supervision.
• The ACP should be given a more formal role in prudential rule development.
• Harmonization of supervisory approaches across the European Union is needed to address level-playing-field issues.

Conclusion

The assessment concludes that France has made significant progress in implementing IOSCO principles, but governance and independence concerns remain. Enforcement and resource limitations are key areas for improvement, and European-level cooperation is essential to address market fragmentation and ensure consistent regulatory standards.