EUROFI Konferenz in Brüssel - Zwei Reden Eine neo-liberale Ansicht der Kommission zum Verhältnis von Banking und Verbraucher von Neelie Kroes, Kommissarin für Wettbewerb mit dem Titel Härterer Wettbewerb bei Verbraucherbankgeschäften - Drohung oder Verheißung? und kritische Worte von BEUC Chef Jim Murray Märkte statt Sozialpolitik. So könnte man die Rede von Neelie Kroes auf der von uns bereits im vorab kritisierten Konferenz von Anbietern im Europaparlament in Brüssel überschreiben. Aus Verbrauchersicht fielen in dieser Rede zwei Dinge auf: 1. Die angekündigten Bedrohungen wurden mit keinem Wort erwähnt. Der Markt enthält nur Verheißungen. Das marktwirtschaftliche Bekenntnis nahm keine Notiz von regionalen Verteilungsproblemen, dem Überleben kleiner Banken, von Überschuldung und Zugangsproblemen, von Entpersonalisierung und sozialer Preisdiskriminierung, von Marktmacht, von Community Reinvestment und verantwortlicher Kreditvergabe. 2. Das Wort "Verbraucher" kommt 11 mal vor aber immer ist der Verbraucher dabei Nutznießer, Beobachter des Marktes. Wir dokumentieren diese elf Stellen und haben Ihnen jeweils eine Überschrift zugeordnet, die wir übersetzen. GROSSE BANKEN SIND DER MOTOR DES WETTBEWERBS “Big banks like Dexia … It is part of the new breed of increasingly pan-European banks, that are bringing new competitive products to consumers across the EU.” VERBRAUCHER BRAUCHEN NUR WETTBEWERB - “competitive financial services sector … manages and generates wealth for consumers and investors” - “maximise the competitiveness of the sector. Everyone will benefit - both businesses and consumers throughout Europe.” - “But tougher competition is mostly … a promise that we make to consumers and to society as a whole.” “that competition in the retail banking sector is lagging behind, to the detriment of consumers and small businesses.” WETTBEWERB BRINGT DIE BANKGEBUERHEN RUNTER - “Payment Cards: It indicated weaknesses in competition and a range of market barriers. These problems are sustaining the high payment card fees that firms are being charged. These high fees are then passed on to consumers as a kind of tax.” VERBRAUCHER WOLLEN AUSWAHL UND INNOVATION - “Current accounts and related services: Firstly, from the consumer perspective. We will ask whether there is sufficient choice and innovation in the market. And, crucially, we will ask whether it is easy enough to compare and switch between providers. BANKZUSAMMENSCHLUESSE SIND ERMUTIGEND - “This increasing trend of cross-border mergers is encouraging. Such mergers bring greater competition - and the evidence suggests that they lower prices for consumers.” NATIONALE GESETZGEBUNG HINDERT DEN WETTBEWERB - “in some member states current banking legislation lacks procedural transparency and creates legal uncertainty. This uncertainty is damaging for industry and ultimately for consumers” ES STEHT ALLES ZUM GUTEN FUER DEN VERBRAUCHER IN EUROPA - “We are seeing important progress for businesses and consumers throughout Europe, and are already witnessing the benefits.” CONSUMER POLICY is COMPETITION POLICY - “to open-up markets; to create new opportunities for the best firms; and to deliver more benefits for consumers. … By ensuring that competition policy and internal market policy continue to work hand in hand, we are committed to meeting the challenge.” ******************************************************* JIM MURRAY, DireKtor des Büros der Europäischen Verbraucherorganisationen BEUC in seiner Ansprache an den Kongress unterstreicht darin, dass die Verbraucherrepräsentation nicht ausreicht, dass dies in einem Parlament nicht der Fall sein dürfte und dass er bei den ihm gestellten Fragen mehr Fragezeichen setzen als Antworten geben kann. Insbesondere teilt er nicht den Glauben, dass Verbraucherpolitik sich in Wettbewerbsmassnahmen erschöpfen kann und sieht im Prinzip der gegenseitigen Anerkennung allenfalls eine zukünftige Möglichkeit. 1. In thanking you for inviting me to address this important event I must add that I regret that there are so few representatives of consumer organizations among the speakers at a conference on the theme of retail financial services. Of course, this is a conference organized by industry and in a sense they are entitled to invite or not invite anyone they wish but it is also a conference that is being held in the European Parliament. For the future I hope that the Parliament will be able to reduce this particular kind of “democratic deficit” and find a way to ensure a wider range of voices in events hosted by the Parliament itself. 2. In the meantime I will try to pack into a few minutes many of the points that might have been spread out across different sessions if I had more allies here. I am somewhat of a pessimist regarding the possibility of achieving even in the medium a single market in retail financial services with a high level of consumer protection. At any rate there are massive challenges to be overcome. For example: • Financial services are inherently complex products. There are few other areas where there is so great an asymmetry of information and power between provider and consumer. Few consumers fully know and understand the charging rules for overdrafts and credit cards, and are utterly dependent on others when it comes to comparing and choosing more complex products. Competition in the market tends to manifest itself not necessarily in better products but in more complex, bundled and convergent products. To take an extreme case some 30,000 financial products have been identified in the UK market since 2002. • Financial services are an intangible and complicated mix of legal rights and obligations. Unlike tangible goods and indeed many services, financial service products may change simply by crossing a border, from one legal regime to another. • In terms of consumer welfare, the market in financial services is not efficient - in that far too many consumers make choices (or more often are persuaded to make choices) that are sub-optimal in terms of their own specific needs and the other options available. Too often, marketing wins over substance. (Some claim that consumer education is the answer; indeed if consumers were adequately educated in the complexities of financial services they would not buy many of the products currently on the market.) • While financial markets do attract so-called rogue traders, it is the mainstream industry that has caused most damage to consumers through the mis-selling of pensions, endowment mortgages and other products most notoriously but by no means exclusively in the UK. Regrettably there are signs that equity releases will be the ‘next big scam”. Many providers of financial services do not in fact want a single market. For market operators, there is an implied bargain that the “burden” of harmonization of different national laws will be balanced by greater opportunities in the ensuing single market. There are providers of financial services (many regional banks and even perhaps some national ones) who do not see free movement as an opportunity and are therefore even less inclined to accept the “burden” of harmonisation. This makes it even more difficult to harmonise at high levels of consumer protection. • While financial services become more and more complex, the cries for “simpler” regulation intensify. At national level no member state has succeeded in developing a simple regulatory regime for financial services; is is reasonable to expect that we can achieve simplicity in harmonising 25 different sets of laws at European level? 3. The following questions have been posed by the organizers and I offer the following rather “telegrammatic”, ie very brief, responses (underlined) : • Can differences in consumer protection laws be explained by different customer needs across EU countries? for example for consumer credit or investment products This is a loaded question, designed to elicit a conclusion in favour of scrapping national laws because they do not meet “tangible consumer needs” Suppose we replace the term consumer protection laws by the term national language in the attached question, so that it reads “Can differences in national languages be explained by different needs across EU countries?” • What are the key points to focus harmonization on to guarantee an appropriate level of consumer protection and to enable the industry to develop sufficient synergies ? Information, the duty of best advice and some degree of standardization of financial service products. • How to implement efficiently targeted full harmonization to the benefit of consumers and industry players ? for example for consumer credit. • How to make sure the directive covers the key points for consumer protection and for the industry to develop the necessary synergies ? A high level of consumer protection and a capacity to adapt quickly to changes in the market place. • How to define the adequate level of harmonisation required, is it possible to define what "targeted" and "full" means ? I assume that full harmonization means maximum harmonisation in this context – and that all relevant “fully harmonized” rules must be made only at EU level and can be amended only at EU level. While the idea of harmonizing some areas and not others (targeted harmonization) has attractions it shold be done on a case to case basis and ot through the appoiation of a priori rules. • How to make sure there are no local adaptations on key points to be harmonized ? Presumably it is for the Commission to take action agaist a member state in breach of its obligations in this manner? • If targeted full harmonisation is not possible, what other alternatives are possible ? Can the 26th regime be an adequate alternative? Over a (very) long time, in some cases perhaps. • In what circumstances and on what consumer protection issues can mutual recognition be appropriate ? In the area of financial services and consumer protection, very few if any areas are appropriate for mutual recognition. • Can customer education be an adequate alternative or addition to consumer protection law in certain cases ? No. Consumer education is of course a good thing but there is a limit as to what can be achieved in trying to educate consumers about financial services, not to mention all the other things they are supposed to be educated about. • To what extent can industry-driven codes of conduct be a useful alternative or addition to consumer protection law ? Not as an alternative; maybe as an addition but experience to date gives little grounds for hope. • How could MiFID be implemented to benefit both industry players and customers ? How to avoid the potential averse effects for the industry? How to ensure an appropriate level of consumer protection ? ID: 37526 Autor(en): iff Erscheinungsdatum: 09.06.06     ECRC press release "Consumers Cold Shouldered" june06 (129782 Bytes) URL(s): Speech Neelie Kroes European Commissioner

World Partner       EU-Partner

Erzeugt: 09.06.06. Letzte Änderung: 14.06.06.
Information zum Urheberrecht der angezeigten Inhalte kann beim Institut für Finanzdienstleistungen erfragt werden. Aus fehlenden Angaben kann kein Recht zur freien Nutzung der Inhalte abgeleitet werden.