Regulación financiera de calidad: los principios de Lord Hill

Nos duele que nuestros hermanos británicos nos abandonen porque, en el fondo, no somos tan distintos y porque, en los tiempos que corren, la unión hace la fuerza —curiosamente, una “fuerza débil”, como las recomendaciones de buen gobierno de las sociedades cotizadas, pero que es la mayor confirmación de lo acertado de nuestros planteamientos comunes—.

Ellos se marcharán, pero nos dejan grandes dosis de sentido práctico y su forma de hacer negocios y finanzas. Precisamente, el modelo de supervisión bancaria del Banco Central Europeo participa en gran medida de la forma de ser y hacer anglosajona.

El artículo 50.1 del Tratado de la Unión Europea contempla la retirada de un Estado de la Unión, pero el mismo artículo, en su apartado 6, prevé el reingreso (“Si el Estado miembro que se ha retirado de la Unión solicita de nuevo la adhesión…”). Cuesta creer que esta relación concluya como la de un matrimonio mal avenido. A veces, segundas partes fueron buenas. El tiempo dirá.

Jonathan Hill ha sido Comisario de Estabilidad Financiera, Servicios Financieros y Mercado de Capitales de la Unión desde noviembre de 2014. El 25 de junio de 2016, tras el referéndum, presentó su dimisión, que será efectiva el 15 de julio de 2016.

Apenas unos días antes de su salida de la Comisión Europea, Lord Hill nos ha dejado una serie de impagables principios sobre regulación financiera que, como él mismo admite, ojalá alguien le hubiera enseñado cuando comenzó su ardua labor. Si esto es lo que ha aprendido en menos de dos años, qué no habría aprendido en un mandato completo (cinco años). Parece que perdemos una mente lúcida.

Estos principios son los que transcribimos a continuación. Para su mejor comprensión, los sistematizamos separándolos y numerándolos.

Keynote speech by Commissioner Jonathan Hill at Bruegel on the Call for Evidence: “The impact of the EU regulatory framework for financial services”

First

“Don't imagine that legislation is a science. It is not. It is a series of judgements. Clever people can make it sound as though there is only one answer. But it's not true. So always be open to doubt and to admitting that you might have got those judgements wrong”.

Second

“Recognise that the broader economic and political environment in which regulations are drawn up change over time. So keep an open mind. Be ready to change as the facts change. Looking again at legislation is not a sign of weakness. It's a sign of self-confidence. Only people who are unsure of themselves – or madly over sure of themselves – could argue that everything they have done is perfect and mustn't be looked at again”.

Third

“Be brave enough not to regulate. Here, I am afraid that the incentives for politicians and regulators are generally not aligned with good regulation. No one wants to have a finger pointed at them for doing nothing. Politicians tend to want to be seen to be part of the action. It is hard to do nothing when you're surrounded by people whose job it is to do something. But resist. Acting too soon can be as much of a mistake as acting too late. And long after the politician has put out his press release and moved on, business is still living with the consequences”.

Fourth

“Always work as hard as possible to understand the impact of what you are doing on the marketplace. As a regulator you cannot expect to win popularity prizes with the businesses you regulate. But you should seek to avoid unnecessary conflict between the regulator and the regulated. And always work with business to make sure you understand the real world consequences of what you do”.

Fifth

“Keep it simple. A lot of regulation is so complicated that only a handful of people can possibly understand. It's like some high priesthood speaking in a special language that is beyond the comprehension of mere mortals. But complex legislation is good only for lawyers and compliance officers. It is bad for values-based leadership. It weakens individual responsibility. It leads people to ask "can I get away with it?" rather than "is it the right thing to do?" It eats away at trust in law making”.

Sixth

“Try to legislate in a way that can accommodate the rapid pace of technological change. Most legislation is, by its nature, backward looking, paper-based, related to old products and challenges. That is why developments with so-called regulatory sand boxes are so interesting – where regulators and regulated work together in the interest of encouraging innovation and business growth. If I had been here longer, this is an approach I was keen to encourage, spreading best practice across Europe”.

Seventh

“Aim for an international approach, but don't be a slave to it. It makes a lot of sense to work on agreed international principles so that you can reduce the practical difficulties of reaching equivalence decisions after the event – as I have had to do with the United States on CCPs. That is why I have been working to strengthen regulatory cooperation with the US and to set up an Asia-Pacific forum. But at the same time, you should be prepared to deviate from the work of global standards-setting bodies like the Basel Committee if you think their conclusions are too sweeping or fail to take into account the particular circumstances of the very diverse European banking sector. And always remember that regulators are herd animals too – they are as prone to group think as everybody else”.