Jan. 16, 2015

Breaking news

Reading the press, for example Les Echos January 16, 2015, we learn that Standard & Poor's will sign an agreement of $ 1 billion with the US administration to avoid a trial.

One can only be amazed or even upset.

First, the agreement is not yet concluded. It would be in a month or two. How is it that we already know? Secondly, contracts, because the transaction is a contract listed by the Civil Code, are not intended to be public. How is it that we already know everything? The person who gave the information "was keen to remain anonymous." It would have suspected ......

Third, it is true that the regulation of rating agencies is a big issue. Special texts have been taken but academics think the right tools stay missing and that is probably the liability, general legal instrument, which is the most appropriate.

But the responsibility of commitment requires a trial, evidence, respect for the rights of defense, due processs,  legality of offenses and penalties.. Here, $ 1 billion is paid by the company only to avoid that opens a lawsuit against it. The allegation is the rating agency would have underestimated the subprime risk.

But on one hand everyone says that the rating agency has actually done the facts allegued since payroll so that the file doesn't open. On the other hand, and from the perspective of regulating the information that would be out of the trial, a trial being a form of crisis, will not come out.

So this sort of industry fof "Deals of Justice", apart from the fact that some describe the phenomenon as a "racket", isn't a "decriminalization" of regulation for a "civilized regulation" through the transaction contract. On the contrary, this movement that is spreading constitutes an increased repression whic diminishes rights of defense for the operator and information for the sector.

One can only be amazed or even upset.


Updated: Sept. 3, 2012 (Initial publication: Aug. 29, 2012)

Breaking news

Rating agencies are in the eye of the cyclone, due to the ambiguity of the situation: by their status, they are simple operators but by their role are almost regulators. Governing the markets, the banks can not for the moment dispense with them. However, the rating market is oligopolistic. On August 1, 2012, the association of German public banks complained that the prices practiced by rating agencies are monopoly pricing. What is remarkable is that this a complaint is made not to the European Competition Authority, the Commission, but to the European Banking Authority (EBA). Thus, regulation is a tool and a wider tool more than is the competition.

Updated: July 9, 2012 (Initial publication: July 1, 2012)

Breaking news

On June 19, 2012, the European Parliament adopted an extensively modified version of the draft text prepared by the European Commission on credit rating agencies. It does not address the issue of the concentration of the rating market, believing that this is a matter of competition and not of regulation. It reduces the scope of the rotation rule in three years and only for structured products. It requires agencies to issue a schedule of two or three dates in the year where they can change their sovereign debt notes. Next to these devices of ex ante regulation, Parliament adopts an ex post system, civil liability of agencies, in which it will be for them to demonstrate to investors that they have complied with the rules in force.

Updated: July 9, 2012 (Initial publication: July 3, 2012)

Breaking news

After an assessment critical rating agencies, on their role in the crisis, on the concentrated nature of the market of the notation, the report published on 18 June 2012 by the French Senate proposes a series of action to "detoxify" the system. It indicates with the same voluntarism that there is no fatality, it proposes that central banks resumed their role more firmly, that the States publish a call for tenders to encourage the emergence of a new European private actor to which the methodology will be imposed, we diversified the notes, we disciplined " ex-post" agencies by the game of responsibility, that we loosened the power of the agencies on the democratic entities, including States, that can prevent conflicts of interest.

Updated: June 4, 2012 (Initial publication: June 4, 2012)


Updated: Jan. 4, 2012 (Initial publication: Dec. 14, 2011)

Releases : I. Isolated Articles

Translated Summaries

In The Journal of Regulation the summaries’ translation are done by the Editors and not by the authors


While financial regulation aims at achieving market stability, regulating markets can sometimes take an ironic turn when regulations end up having consequences that differ from their original regulatory purpose. The article provides such an example of regulation’s irony: how a regulatory change in Germany led Moody’s to downgrade 12 banks, therefore weakening such institutions and consequently enhancing the current issues of market volatility and credit cost.



Bien que la réglementation financière vise à assurer la stabilité du marché, la régulation des marchés peut parfois prendre une tournure ironique quand la régulation finit par avoir des conséquences qui diffèrent de son objectif de régulation d’origine. L’article fournit un exemple de l’ironie de la régulation : comment un changement de réglementation en Allemagne a conduit Moody’s à déclasser 12 banques allemandes,, donc à affaiblir ces institutions et par conséquent à accroître les problèmes actuels de la volatilité du marché et le coût du crédit.


Quando la regolazione è volta ad ottenere la stabilità del mercato, l’evoluzione di questi mercati oggetto di tale regolazione può essere particolarmente ironica quando la regolazione ha delle conseguenze ben differenti da quelle originariamente prepostesi. Questo articolo cerca quindi di mettere in evidenza un esempio di questa ironia: in effetti, un cambio di regolatore in Germania ha portato Moody’s a tagliare il rating di 12 banche, indebolendo ancora di più tali istituzioni ed aumentando si conseguenza le questioni relative alla volatilità del mercato e del costo del credito.


Other translations forthcoming

Updated: Dec. 22, 2011 (Initial publication: Dec. 16, 2011)


Updated: Sept. 26, 2011 (Initial publication: July 4, 2011)

Bibliographic Reports : Symposiums


On May 20, 2011, a colloquium was held in Paris on the question of How should the Audit be regulated?, organized by The Journal of Regulation, l’Ecole de droit de la Sorbonne, and KPMG France, one of the Journal’s privileged partners. The participants were Jean-Luc Decornoy, Nathalie de Basaldua, Alain Couret, Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, Christine Thin, Stephen Haddrill, Claude Cazes, Etienne Wasmer, and Mara Cameran. The reflections and discussions bore upon the European Commission’s Green Paper on Audit Policy. The colloquium’s ambition was to discuss the methodological links that must guide the future of the Audit, both in relation to financial regulation and competition, and also to analyze what the inspirations for audit reform should be, especially by using the available economic studies. Each participant agreed that the most important goal was to ensure that the audit is of very high quality, and everything ought to converge towards this goal.



Relazione bibliografica (Convegno): Vers quelle régulation de l’audit faut-il aller? (Come dovrebbe essere regolato l’audit ?)

Il 20 maggio 2011, si è tenuto a Parigi un convegno sulla questione di come dovrebbe essere regolato l’audit, organizzato da The Journal of Regulation, da l’Ecole de droit de la Sorbonne e KPMG France, partner privilegiato della rivista. I partecipanti erano Jean-Luc Decornoy, Nathalie de Basaldua, Alain Couret, Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, Christine Thin, Stephen Haddrill, Claude Cazes, Etienne Wasmer e Mara Cameran. Le riflessioni e le discussioni si sono concentrate sul Libro Verde della Commissione europea sulla politica in materia di audit. L’ambizione del convegno era di studiare i nessi metodologici che devono costituire le linee guida dell’audit, tenendo conto della regolazione finanziare e della libera concorrenza. Il convegno mirava inoltre ad analizzare le possibili piste di una riforma dell’audit, sulla base anche di studi di tipo economico. Ogni partecipante ha sottolineato che lo scopo più importante era quello di assicurare un’attività di audit di grande qualità, e che tutti gli sforzi dovrebbero convergere verso tale scopo.


Informe bibliográfico (Simposio): ¿En qué dirección debe dirigirse la regulación?

El 20 de mayo del 2011 se llevó a cabo un coloquio en París sobre la cuestión de “Cómo debe regularse la auditoría?” organizado por The Journal of Regulation, l’école de droit de la Sorbonne y el KPMG France, uno de los asociados principales de esta publicación. Los participantes incluyen Jean-Luc Decornoy, Nathalie de Basaldua, Alain Couret, Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, Christine Thin, Stephen Haddrill, Claude Cazes, Etienne Wasmer, and Mara Cameran. Las reflecciones y discusiones se centraron sobre el Papel Verde de la Comisión Europea sobre la política auditiva. La ambición de este coloquio era de discutir las conexiones metodológicas que deben guiar el futuro de la Auditoría, tanto en relación con la regulación de finanzas y la competencia, y también de analizar cuáles deben de ser las inspiraciones para la reforma de la auditoría, especialmente al usar los estudios económicos disponibles. Cada participante concertó que el objetivo más importante era de asegurar que la auditoría sea de alta calidad, y que todo ha de converger hacia este objetivo.



Informe bibliográfico (Symposium): vers quelle régulation de l’audit faut-il aller ? Como deveria a auditoria ser regulada?

Em 20 de maio de 2011, um colóquio foi realizado em Paris sobre a questão Como deveria a auditoria ser regulada?, organizado por The Journal of Regulation, l’Ecole de droit de la Sorbonne, e KPMG France, um dos principais parceiros deste periódico. Os participantes foram Jean-Luc Decornoy, Nathalie de Basaldua, Alain Couret, Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, Christine Thin, Stephen Haddrill, Claude Cazes, Etienne Wasmer, e Mara Cameran. As reflexões e discussões surgiram a partir do Informe Verde sobre Política de Auditoria da Comissão Europeia. O propósito do colóquio foi discutir as ligações metodológicas que devem guiar o futuro da auditoria, ambos em relação com regulação financeira e concorrência, e também analizar quais deveriam ser as inspirações para a reforma da auditoria, especialmente usando os estudos econômicos disponíveis. Todos os participantes concordaram que o objetivo mais importante seria assegurar que a auditoria é de alta qualidade, e que tudo deve convergir para este objetivo.

Padrão contábil – Alternativa financeira – Auditoria – Mercado de auditoria – Falência – Big Four – Certificação – Colóquio – Concentração – Confiança – Conflito de interesses – Cooperação – Custo – Agência de notação – Operador crucial – Definição – Deontologia – Mercado desregulado – Eficiência – Europa – Mercado europeu de auditoria – Comissão Europeia – Especulação – Crise financeira – Mercado financeiro – Futuro – Mercado global – Objetivo – Informe Verde sobre auditoria – Incentivo – Independência – Informação – Informação assimétrica – Fórum de auditoria internacional – Itália – Auditoria conjunta – Responsabilidade – Gerente – Votação obrigatória – Mercado – Expectativas de mercado – Micro economia – Acaso moral – Opacidade – Opinião – Perímetro – Preço – Lucro – Bem público – Interesse público – Serviço público – Qualidade – Economia real – Informação do risco – Ceticismo – Responsabilidade social – Risco sistêmico – Raciocínio teleológico – Trust – Reino Unido – Estados Unidos da América.*


* Em The Journal of Regulation, estas palavras-chave são fornecidas pelo Editor e não pelo Autor.



Other translations forthcoming.

Updated: Aug. 31, 2011 (Initial publication: July 8, 2011)