2011年-IMF国际货币组织全球_Sweden_Financial_Sector_Assessment_Program_Update_Detailed_Assessment_of_Observance_on_IOSCO_Principles_and_Objectives_of_Securities_Regulation_82页_852kb

Summary of Sweden: Financial Sector Assessment Program Update—Detailed Assessment of Observance on IOSCO Principles and Objectives of Securities Regulation

Core Content

This document presents a detailed assessment of the implementation of the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) Principles and Objectives of Securities Regulation in Sweden's financial sector, conducted as part of the Financial Sector Assessment Program (FSAP) in 2011. The assessment was carried out by an IMF staff team and highlights the strengths and areas for improvement in Sweden’s regulatory framework.

Main Findings

A. Principles for the Regulator (Principles 1-5)

• Operational Independence and Resources: Finansinspektionen (FI), the Swedish financial regulator, has operational independence concerns due to its reliance on parliamentary funding and the lack of sufficient resources to meet current and future demands. The high turnover of experienced staff further strains its capacity.
• Accountability and Transparency: FI is highly accountable and its structure is well described, with reasonably transparent processes. However, the process for representation before imposing major sanctions (such as license revocation) could be enhanced.
• Legal and Regulatory Framework: FI operates under a unitary model, licensing and supervising all financial entities, including banks, investment firms, insurance companies, and exchanges. While the legal framework is robust, there are interface issues between different statutes that may affect enforcement effectiveness.

B. Principles for Self Regulation (Principles 6-7)

• Self Regulation Role: Self regulation is well established in Sweden, with the Swedish Securities Council (SSC) and the dominant stock exchange, NASDAQ OMX, playing key roles.
• Accountability of Exchanges: Despite being self-regulatory bodies, the listing rules and decision-making powers of exchanges are set out in statutory law, which can create ambiguity regarding their accountability to FI.

C. Principles for Enforcement (Principles 8-10)

• Enforcement Capabilities: FI has comprehensive powers for inspections, investigations, and enforcement, including delegation to the SSC in takeover situations.
• Resource Constraints: Limited resources restrict the ability to carry out effective enforcement and compliance activities. The maximum fine amount is considered too low, and the use of discretion to not fine certain entities can indicate enforcement weaknesses.
• Sanctions and Discouragement: The dissuasive power of current sanctions for market abuse is seen as needing review to ensure they are effective deterrents.

D. Principles for Cooperation (Principles 11-13)

• Cross-Border Cooperation: FI has established extensive cooperation through Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs) and Letters of Intent with regulators in Sweden and the European Economic Area (EEA). The recent removal of the "Swedish interest" constraint on information sharing has improved cooperation potential.
• Multilateral MoU: FI's ability to become a full signatory to the IOSCO multilateral MoU is expected to enhance its reputation in cross-border regulatory cooperation.

E. Principles for Issuers (Principles 14-16)

• Shareholder Protection: Sweden has strong shareholder protections and high-quality accounting and auditing standards that are current with international developments and sometimes exceed them.
• Listing Requirements: The Nordic Growth Market (NGM) and NASDAQ OMX Stockholm have established listing criteria, including minimum market value, ownership structure, and profitability requirements. NASDAQ OMX Stockholm remains the dominant exchange, though its market share has declined.

F. Principles for Collective Investment Schemes (Principles 17-20)

• CIS and UCITS: There are 921 Collective Investment Schemes (CIS) in Sweden, of which 519 are UCITS and 402 are special funds. AUM reached a record level of SKr 1.706 trillion in 2010.
• Management and Oversight: These schemes are managed by 105 authorized firms, mostly fund management companies and investment firms. The Swedish Consumer Protection Agency (CPA) oversees unfair marketing practices, and the FI ensures compliance with regulatory requirements.

G. Principles for Intermediaries (Principles 21-24)

• Intermediary Activities: Intermediaries such as banks and investment firms are required to hold licenses for securities-related activities. Most banks in Sweden are licensed for securities business, with the four major banks being dominant.
• Regulatory Oversight: FI supervises intermediaries through periodic reporting and on-site inspections. It has adopted a more risk-based approach, particularly for large and complex groups.

H. Principles for Secondary Markets (Principles 25-29)

• Market Structure: NASDAQ OMX Stockholm is the dominant stock exchange, with electronic trading systems and a central limit order book (CLOB) for share trading.
• Trading Venues: There are also three Multilateral Trading Facilities (MTFs) in Sweden, and 42% of equity trading occurred outside NASDAQ OMX in 2011.
• Competition and Costs: Increased competition since 2007 has led to a decline in exchange trading fees, which is beneficial for investors. However, the absence of a "last trade tape" and "best bid and offer" has increased search costs for institutional investors, though the European Commission is addressing this through its MiFID review.

Key Information

• Regulatory Authority: Finansinspektionen (FI) is the primary regulatory body responsible for securities regulation in Sweden.
• Legal Framework: The regulatory structure is based on the unitary model, with FI overseeing all financial services, including banking, insurance, and securities.
• Market Dynamics: NASDAQ OMX Stockholm remains the dominant exchange, though competition from other MTFs has increased.
• Accounting Standards: Sweden has high and current accounting and auditing standards, often exceeding international norms.
• Enforcement Challenges: Limited resources and a low maximum fine amount pose challenges to effective enforcement.
• Self Regulation: Exchanges and other self-regulatory bodies operate under statutory law, which may affect clarity in accountability.

Conclusion

Sweden has a strong and well-developed regulatory framework for securities markets, with high levels of compliance with IOSCO principles. However, there are areas requiring improvement, particularly in the areas of operational independence, enforcement capabilities, and the clarity of self-regulatory accountability. Enhancing these aspects could further strengthen the effectiveness of Sweden’s financial regulation.