April 28, 2024

European Lawmakers Expand Power of Central Bank Over Top Lenders

The legislation contains provisions that would give the European Parliament somewhat more oversight of a supervisory body, operating under the aegis of the central bank, when the body assumes its new authority. The vote is an important development, but not the final one, in a winding process that began in early 2012, during one of the most fevered periods in the euro zone financial crisis.

To take effect, the measure still needs approval from European Union governments, though that is expected to be a formality. The Single Supervisory Mechanism, the body it creates, is expected to start work during the autumn of 2014 after the European Central Bank conducts a “stress test” on the lenders coming within its purview.

The idea is that the central bank would do a better job than national supervisors of nipping financial problems in the bud so that governments would not need to resort to bank bailouts that destabilize the euro and penalize taxpayers. Once up and running, the new supervisory authority will have a range of powers to intervene when it detects problems, including the ability to conduct inspections that could lead to sanctions on banks or their managers.

The measure is the first step toward a broader, Europewide vision of banking. The next stage of that effort, creation of a single system for shutting or restructuring banks, is under way. But progress has been slowed by the reluctance of Germany to commit to a banking union that could lead to euro zone nations’ being responsible for one another’s debts.

Even so, the approval on Thursday was among the “most important votes of this parliamentary term,” Michel Barnier, the European Union commissioner overseeing financial services, told lawmakers after the vote. The law, he said, will help to “improve and restore confidence our citizens have in our system, as well as the confidence of the rest of the world in our system.”

Mario Draghi, president of the European Central Bank, issued a statement hailing the vote as “a real step forward in setting up a banking union, which is a core element of a genuine economic and monetary union.”

Lawmakers had delayed the vote, originally scheduled for Tuesday, reflecting demands for more power to oversee the central bank.

The approval came only after the president of the European Parliament, Martin Schulz, told members that Mr. Draghi had agreed to “strong parliamentary oversight” resulting in “a high degree of accountability.”

Under the agreement, the central bank agreed to share detailed records of meetings of the supervisory body with the Parliament, but the bank would not be required to provide copies of the minutes of the body’s meetings.

The European Parliament also would share power with European Union member governments over selection of the head and the deputy head of the supervisory board. And the Parliament’s influential Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee would have the right to summon the supervisory board’s head for hearings. But the Parliament would not have the power to veto actions taken by the supervisory authority or by the central bank’s governing council.

The demands by the Parliament, the legislature of the European Union, were signs of its growing assertiveness.

In his statement, Mr. Draghi said: “We will do our utmost to put in place all organizational requirements, with the aim of assuming our supervisory responsibilities one year after the legislation enters into force, and look forward to working with national authorities to contribute to the restoration of confidence in the banking sector.”

The new Single Supervisory Mechanism will be compulsory for the largest banks operating in the euro area. European Union countries that are not part of the currency bloc can opt to put their banks under the system. Banks with headquarters outside the European Union but with subsidiaries there, like some big American lenders, could see some of their subsidiaries come under the purview of the single supervisory authority.

The lawmakers, meeting in Strasbourg, France, voted 559 to 62, with 19 abstentions, to put the single supervisory body under the aegis of the central bank.

Originally, France and the European Commission called for all 6,000 euro area banks to be directly overseen by the new supervisory structure. But Germany successfully resisted that plan, arguing that supervising so many banks would make the central bank’s job unmanageable. The government in Berlin faced intense pressure from a powerful domestic banking lobby trying to shield many small savings banks from closer scrutiny.

Germany nonetheless agreed to let the European Central Bank, at its discretion, step in and take over supervision of any euro zone bank.

In most cases, only banks holding assets worth 30 billion euros, or $40 billion, or those holding assets greater than 20 percent of their country’s gross domestic product would be directly regulated by the European Central Bank. Central bank officials say that means in practice that about 130 banks, representing about 85 percent of bank assets in the euro zone, would fall under the direct oversight of the new supervisory authority under a formula agreed to by finance ministers last December.

Separately, a senior European Union court official said in an opinion on Thursday that one of the rules devised by European Union officials to stem the euro crisis should be rolled back.

The official, Niilo Jaaskinen, an advocate-general at the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg, said the agency that oversees the European Union’s financial markets should not be allowed to ban short-selling in any member state. The British government had challenged the rules, saying they went beyond the jurisdiction of the agency, the European Securities and Markets Authority, based in Paris.

Opinions handed down by advocates-general are not binding on judges. But judges follow the advice in a majority of cases when they make a definitive ruling months later.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/13/business/global/european-lawmakers-expand-power-of-central-bank.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Corner Office | Selina Lo: Selina Lo of Ruckus Wireless, on Leadership vs. Management

Q. Do you remember the first time you were someone’s boss?

A. When I was a student at Berkeley, a real estate company hired me to computerize all its investment listings.  I started there part time in my junior year, and when I graduated, it needed me to stay on for another year to finish the project.  And one of the things it offered me, as an incentive, was to let me manage a programming team. And that was my first time being a manager. The other programmer obviously felt that I wasn’t qualified to manage her. And it was not something I enjoyed.

As a young manager, I had no idea what to do other than supervise the actual work. I also felt that as a manager, the one thing you do is you take care of your people.  So we were flying on a business trip, and when we got off the plane, I said, “Hey, remember your briefcase.”  I was just looking out for her.  But she took it as me micromanaging her. And that got escalated up to my boss, and I just thought, “Wow, why would anybody want to manage people?” 

Then I went to Hewlett-Packard, where I had two mentors, and they really showed me how to get things done within the organization, both on the formal and informal track. And during my six years there, I actually got trained on a lot of the formality of being a manager, and the responsibility. 

But I still did not want to be a manager. I decided that I liked to touch things and to do things too much.  Part of being a manager is that you have to deal with other people’s pace and style of doing things.  I didn’t want to have to deal with that, and throughout my H.P. career, I would completely excel on everything in my performance review except for teamwork.  They would always say, you have to respect other people’s opinions.     

Q. So what changed?

A. When I was young and very single-mindedly focused on my career, I realized that you have to be a manager to move up.  And so, even though I resisted management all those years at H.P., when I moved on to another company, management was offered to me again, and I accepted it because I felt it was good for my career. I thought that H.P. was incredibly political. But little did I know what politics really meant.  In my next job there were different camps, and a hostile environment. That reinforced my feelings about not wanting to be a manager.   

And because of that experience, I swore to myself that if I had any control of the environment, it would never be political. I would never let internal problems become the agenda, and that has been the theme in my career since then. So the next goal for me was, how do I get myself into an environment where I can control who I hire? That was really why I got into this whole start-up thing.   

Q. And so how has your leadership style evolved?

A. I’m impatient.  I can occasionally get emotional, and sometimes when you’re too passionate about something, it can become disruptive. However, the one thing I learned is that a lot of people actually respond well to that because it means you can cut through all the stuff and get things done. That was what I lived for — to get things done, and really be the cheerleader for those people who want to move faster than the system is moving. 

But I also had a wake-up call. One of my employees told me that he wanted to report to another person. He said my pace was just way too fast for him, and I was just way too abrupt, that I was too demanding and expected people to know what I wanted just by osmosis. He also told me that I created too much stress for him and that he was having trouble sleeping. And I thought, really?  It had not occurred to me that people would actually have a physical reaction to my style.  And so that was a wake-up call.  I was greatly humbled.   

There’s a Chinese proverb that doesn’t translate very well, but it’s basically a spoonful of sugar, a spoonful of tar.  Tar is like the Chinese medicine, the herbal thing that is always very bitter, and that was me. And so, people love me and hate me at the same time.  But I thought that was O.K.  The problem I had was the balance. I’m sure, even today, people love me and hate me at the same time.  Today, I’m much more mindful of that balance.  But in those days, the hate part completely dominated the love part.    

Q. You joined Ruckus in its infancy, so you had a chance to set the culture early on. What did you decide to do?

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=4f687ba8278c7ef8a9e12ffc29320d53