Rules-based vs. principles-based regulation in the UK banking sector. Does Brexit matter? - Law and Economics Yearly Review
The founder of Corvinus Capital, Martin Berkeley, recently coauthored with Dr Andrea Miglionico of University of Reading Law School a paper titled: 'Rules-based vs. principles-based regulation in the UK banking sector. Does Brexit matter?'
The article examines the potential impact of Brexit in the context of the banking sector as it relates to UK credit institutions and the recognition measures for foreign banks. In doing so it seeks to analyse and put light upon the quest for coordinating these measures under practitioner lenses. This in turn is intended to aid reflection on how Brexit changes might best be adapted in UK banking regulation. The first part of this article addresses the regulatory approaches from a theoretical perspective, arguing whether it is still relevant to discuss the distinction between principles-based and outcomes-based regime. The second part of the article explores the effects of Brexit in practice, focussing primarily on investor protection and passporting arrangements. The article argues that the MiFID directive represents the legislative framework to achieve mutual recognition among banks and to avoid the risk of de-regulation in the UK financial markets. The article concludes with some observations on the potential divisive impact of Brexit on UK regions, particularly how Brexit might best be regulated if the UK remains within the European Economic Area
A full copy of the paper can be found in the Law and Economics Yearly Review, Vol 6, Part1, 2017, pp.146-169. ISSN 2050-9014 or by following the link below: