SEC’s clarifications on adoption of legislative and regulatory framework
21/5/2009 9:12
The mission of the Securities and Exchange Commission to protect the market and the investors is often subject to criticisms. Those criticisms are the result of the effective enforcement of the legislative and regulatory framework of the Republic of Cyprus for the supervision of the market. This is SEC’s mission.
The restricted impacts of the global economic crisis on the Cypriot financial system are largely attributable to the regulatory and legislative framework and the more effective supervision of the market by the competent authorities. This is confirmed not only by the SEC but also by the state and the financial organizations and their officials, including the Vice Chairman of Marfin Popular Bank, Mr. Andreas Vgenopoulos.
It is worth noting that recently the International Monetary Fund evaluated the SEC with positive results within the framework of FSAP.
Mr. Vgenopoulos’ criticism yesterday does not concern SEC as an organization but the regulatory and legislative framework of the Republic. This framework, however, is fully in line with the Directives and Regulations of the European Union and is enforced equally for all. The only points that might differ from one country to another are the national discretions that the EU grants, which means that countries may adopt a different approach but the result must be the same. A similar case is the way that the prohibition of the purchase/selling of shares by the Board members of the listed companies and their related parties during the closed period is determined.
The closed periods might not be convenient for the companies or the Board members or their officials, but they safeguard the fair operation of the market and they protect the market and the investors from a possible abuse from persons who hold preferential information.
It must be stressed that the economic crisis did not lead the supervisory authorities in any of the EU member states to loose their regulatory and legislative framework. On the contrary, the regulations and the supervision were strengthened further, since the general perception was that a significant factor that caused the crisis was the ambiguities in the regulations and the supervision in both Europe and worldwide.
Mr. Vgenopoulos blamed SEC for “chasing” him and referred to Marfin Capital’s application to become active in Cyprus as Investment Firm. We can’t imagine that the decision for the transfer of the Head Office of Marfin Popular Bank to Greece is linked to the fact that the Commission approved the application of Marfin Capital within the timetable and not with summary procedures.
The legislator provided that if any of the supervised considers itself injured by SEC’s decision may appeal to the Supreme Court. This method has been selected by many companies, including Marfin Popular Bank.
SEC has been instructed to adopt the legislative and regulatory framework approved by the state equally for all supervised so as to secure the proper operation of the market and to protect the investors. It’s target is not to be likeable by certain companies and its officials.
The restricted impacts of the global economic crisis on the Cypriot financial system are largely attributable to the regulatory and legislative framework and the more effective supervision of the market by the competent authorities. This is confirmed not only by the SEC but also by the state and the financial organizations and their officials, including the Vice Chairman of Marfin Popular Bank, Mr. Andreas Vgenopoulos.
It is worth noting that recently the International Monetary Fund evaluated the SEC with positive results within the framework of FSAP.
Mr. Vgenopoulos’ criticism yesterday does not concern SEC as an organization but the regulatory and legislative framework of the Republic. This framework, however, is fully in line with the Directives and Regulations of the European Union and is enforced equally for all. The only points that might differ from one country to another are the national discretions that the EU grants, which means that countries may adopt a different approach but the result must be the same. A similar case is the way that the prohibition of the purchase/selling of shares by the Board members of the listed companies and their related parties during the closed period is determined.
The closed periods might not be convenient for the companies or the Board members or their officials, but they safeguard the fair operation of the market and they protect the market and the investors from a possible abuse from persons who hold preferential information.
It must be stressed that the economic crisis did not lead the supervisory authorities in any of the EU member states to loose their regulatory and legislative framework. On the contrary, the regulations and the supervision were strengthened further, since the general perception was that a significant factor that caused the crisis was the ambiguities in the regulations and the supervision in both Europe and worldwide.
Mr. Vgenopoulos blamed SEC for “chasing” him and referred to Marfin Capital’s application to become active in Cyprus as Investment Firm. We can’t imagine that the decision for the transfer of the Head Office of Marfin Popular Bank to Greece is linked to the fact that the Commission approved the application of Marfin Capital within the timetable and not with summary procedures.
The legislator provided that if any of the supervised considers itself injured by SEC’s decision may appeal to the Supreme Court. This method has been selected by many companies, including Marfin Popular Bank.
SEC has been instructed to adopt the legislative and regulatory framework approved by the state equally for all supervised so as to secure the proper operation of the market and to protect the investors. It’s target is not to be likeable by certain companies and its officials.
