Volume 16, Issue 5

This study analyses the most important regulations for asset-backed securities and covered bonds devised after the global financial crisis in Europe. The study presents three perspectives of these regulations. It discusses the premises and context of these regulations and highlights the asymmetric treatment of these two instruments. The premises of the regulations are inspired by the market criticism and are not in line with the theoretical understandings of securitisation. Moreover, most of these regulations are influenced by the situation in the US market and there is a need to recalibrate these regulations on European realities. The asymmetric treatment given to these instruments is also a matter of concern as it may harm the funding-base diversification. The study emphasises that regulations must be reconsidered and aligned with the European realities creating a level playing field for all the market players and instruments.

In response to the global financial crisis, the European System of Financial Supervision (ESFS) was created in 2010. Supranational bodies were established for different financial sectors to act as supervisors of sorts for national-level supervisors in EU Member States. This article focuses on how the system was adapted to three EFTA States that are not part of the EU but form the internal market along with EU Member States through the EEA Agreement – Iceland, Norway and Lichtenstein (EEA EFTA States). The aim is to clarify how ESFS has been incorporated into the EEA agreement and to discuss whether this a workable solution for the EEA EFTA States that have not transferred their sovereignty by name in the same manner as the EU Member States. One issue is whether the adaptation has gone beyond the limits of the two-pillar structure, as all initiative and work stem from the EU supranational bodies and not the EFTA pillar.

Five countries became members of the Eurasian Economic Union – an international organization of regional economic integration. The Republic of Kazakhstan, the Russian Federation, and the Republic of Belarus signed the international Treaty in the city of Astana, Kazakhstan on May 29, 2014. The Republic of Armenia and the Kyrgyz Republic acceded to the Treaty later. Harmonized regulation of financial markets should be one of the initial areas of cooperation, with the aims of creating a single financial services market within the EAEU and ensuring non-discriminatory access to the national financial markets of each of the member states. The EAEU member states have already entered into the initial stage of developing the Eurasian common market in financial services. A considerable part of the work should be carried out by a supranational financial market regulation body, which is to be established by 2025 according to the EAEU Treaty. Such financial integration in the EAEU has only been in progress for a limited time period and many of the key steps are yet to be done. The existing national-markets development level is highly non-homogeneous and is in need of further development. In such circumstances, a relevant question related to the study of foreign experience arises. European Union started to form its single financial services market in 1973, and since then it has gained certain experience in financial markets integration. This research paper is dedicated to the issue of necessity and possibility of using the EU experience in the course of the EAEU Single market development. The issue will be addressed in terms of political, legal, academic, and practical aspects. The article is of a general, theoretical legal character, which is why emphasis will be placed on legal and doctrinal questions. Special attention will be paid to an analysis of the Eurasian Economic Union Treaty and its Protocols. The work will be based on the academic research and opinions of Russian and foreign authors.

Robo-advisers are online financial adviser services that use algorithms to create investment recommendations without human input. They deliver advice at low costs and they are growing in popularity. However, the nature of the interaction between client and machine raises many legal questions under the applicable EU regulation. This article argues that robo-advisers provide investment advice within the meaning of the Second Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFiD2). They are subject to authorisation by the national regulator and ongoing conduct requirements. It might be tempting to introduce regulatory sandboxes to address the persisting legal uncertainties in practice, but such a regulatory change does not seem likely in the near future. Instead, regulatory arbitrage should be reduced by a uniform application of the MiFiD2 framework throughout the EU. Regulators and courts should also be aware that software replacing human advisers diverges from the basic idea of human interaction that forms the basis of contract law. Investment firms are able to use new technology in the services they provide. However, as this means introducing new risks for investors, the investment firm should be subject to a strict liability regime for failures of the respective technology (for example, the unavailability of the service).

In only one decade, cryptocurrencies have witnessed significant growth, with Bitcoin being the most dominant one. They are not efficient payment methods, although they bring some benefits linked to the underlying technology they use (Blockchain). In reality, they function more as investment assets than as payment instruments and pose various risks, which are very similar to those encountered on capital markets (price volatility, fraud, market manipulation). In order to deal with these risks, regulation should apply to intermediaries who provide services in relation to cryptocurrencies, such as crypto wallets, operation of crypto exchanges and brokerage. To this end, the European legislator should consider two options. It could, on the one hand, bring cryptocurrency service providers within the scope of the existing financial services regime and thus modify MIFID II in order to include cryptocurrencies in the list of financial instruments. The European legislator could also, on the other hand, aim at creating a new appropriate and proportionate regime that draws on the existing one. Insofar as the existing regulatory framework was not designed with cryptocurrencies in mind and as some of the current rules may not be tailored to the specificities of these assets, the second option is preferable.