Blog Post

The consequences of Switzerland’s lost equivalence status

Due to a spat between the European Commission and the government of Switzerland over the negotiation of an institutional framework agreement, equity securities that are listed on Swiss exchanges are banned from being traded on stock exchanges in the European Union. This blog post reviews the background of this incident and assesses the consequences for companies listed in Switzerland as well as EU investors investing in Swiss equity securities.

By: and Date: July 25, 2019 Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance

Relations between Switzerland and the European Union are governed by a collection of roughly 120 bilateral agreements. In 2014 the two parties started negotiating an institutional framework agreement which would govern the interpretation and application of these agreements in practice and regulate the adaptation of the agreements to new circumstances if necessary. By the end of last year, the Swiss Federal Council, the executive branch of the Swiss federal government, and the European Commission came up with a draft agreement.

To get ratified in Switzerland, the agreement will most likely have to be submitted to a popular vote. To ensure broad public support, the Swiss government decided in January to publish the draft agreement for consultation with national stakeholders. In June, in a letter to the European Commission President Juncker, the Swiss Federal Council wrote that these consultations showed a need for further clarifications and assurances, particularly on the three aspects of state subsidies, wage protection and the EU citizens’ right for free movement.

In his response, Mr Juncker agreed to provide clarifications but ruled out any renegotiations and urged swift ratification of the agreement before the end of his Commission Presidency in October. However, following this exchange, the Swiss Parliament instructed the Federal Council to pursue additional negotiations or to take other appropriate measures to improve the draft agreement with respect to the three aspects mentioned in the Federal Council’s letter.

Frustrated with what it perceives as a lack of commitment from Switzerland, the European Commission decided to not renew the “recognition of equivalence” of Switzerland’s financial market rules as of July 1st. Since January 2018, the EU Markets in Financial Instruments Directive and Regulation (MiFID II and MiFIR) restrict EU investment firms’ choice of trading venues. Specifically, stocks that are traded in the European Union cannot be traded on stock exchanges of third-countries that are not recognized as having prudential and business conduct requirements which are equivalent to the ones in the EU. In 2017 when the Commission had to grant equivalence status to a range of important financial partner countries, the equivalence decision for Switzerland was limited to one year with an extension made contingent on “progress made towards the signature of an agreement establishing that common institutional framework”.

As the shares of the largest Swiss stock companies are traded both in Switzerland and on European exchanges, the ceasing of Switzerland’s equivalence status would effectively have banned EU investment firms from trading these shares on the Swiss stock exchanges. As a result, participation of European investors on the Swiss stock exchange could have collapsed. To prevent this from happening, the Swiss government prohibited shares of Swiss companies which are listed or traded on a Swiss stock exchange from being traded on EU exchanges. Now that they are no longer traded on exchanges in the European Union, the restriction under MiFIR no longer applies to Swiss equities which means that EU investment firms are released from the requirement to trade them on EU trading venues. The final result of these legal manoeuvres is that since July 1st, shares of companies listed on the Swiss stock exchange are no longer traded on EU exchanges and EU investors are instead buying and selling these shares through providers on the Swiss stock exchange or on other trading venues outside of the EU.[1]

Figure 1: Prices and volumes of Swiss Market Index and Euronext 100 Index (6-month average = 100)

Source: Bruegel based on Bloomberg.

 

In the short run these new circumstances had not too much of an effect on Swiss equity markets. A newspaper reported on July 1st that market participants expected hardly any impact on trading in Swiss equities. Figure 1 shows the prices of the Swiss Market Index (SMI), Switzerland’s blue-chip stock market index, and Euronext 100, a blue-chip index of the Euronext exchange. Prices are normalized to 100 being the average daily closing price of each index in the first half of 2019 (January to June). The figure shows that the SMI moved largely parallel to the Euronext index since the first of July. The trading volume of the SMI has increased since the beginning of July and has been rather volatile compared to the Euronext 100 Index (figure 1) but not out of the range of what has been observed over the last 3 months.

Figure 2 shows that the overall volume of traded shares on the SIX Swiss Exchange has remained within the range of earlier months and moved close to the trends observed on the Euronext exchanges in Amsterdam and Paris. In conclusion, for the time being, the loss of equivalence has left Swiss equities and the Swiss stock exchange not worse nor better off.

Figure 2: Trade volumes on SIX Exchange in Zurich and Euronext in Amsterdam and Paris (6-month average = 100)

Source: Bruegel based on Bloomberg.

 

[1] Shares that are cross-listed in Switzerland and in the EU continue to be tradable on Swiss and EU trading venues.


Republishing and referencing

Bruegel considers itself a public good and takes no institutional standpoint. Anyone is free to republish and/or quote this post without prior consent. Please provide a full reference, clearly stating Bruegel and the relevant author as the source, and include a prominent hyperlink to the original post.

Read article More on this topic More by this author
 

Opinion

More Europe or less Europe?

Europe is often a ship with multiple captains. The boat moves forward in calm seas, but when the slightest wind puts it off course, it is not easy to steer that boat. It is not so much a question of more Europe rather than less, but of achieving ‘one Europe’. A ‘more-or-less Europe’ is an invitation to go nowhere.

By: Maria Demertzis Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: April 14, 2021
Read article More on this topic More by this author
 

Opinion

The EU-China investment deal may be anachronic in a bifurcating world

Ultimately, only time will tell if this landmark trade agreement will be productive and counter the potential bifurcation of international value chains.

By: Alicia García-Herrero Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: April 6, 2021
Read article More by this author
 

Opinion

Will COVID accelerate productivity growth?

The COVID-19 pandemic has prompted an increasing number of rich-country firms to reduce their reliance on global supply chains and invest more in robots at home. But it is probably too soon to tell whether this switch will increase productivity growth in advanced economies.

By: Dalia Marin Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance, Global Economics & Governance Date: February 10, 2021
Read about event
 

Past Event

Past Event

Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism: Greening the EU trade?

Assessing CBAM from a trade perspective.

Speakers: Suman Bery, Luis Garicano, Emily Lydgate and André Sapir Topic: Energy & Climate, Global Economics & Governance Date: February 4, 2021
Read article Download PDF More on this topic
 

External Publication

China and the WTO: Why Multilateralism Still Matters

An examination of China’s participation in the World Trade Organization, the conflicts it has caused, and how WTO reforms could ease them.

By: Petros C. Mavroidis and André Sapir Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: January 28, 2021
Read article Download PDF More on this topic
 

External Publication

Getting America Back In The Game: A Multilateral Perspective

How can friends of the multilateral system re-engage the United States under President-elect Biden?

By: Richard E. Baldwin, Chad P. Bown, Jonathan T. Fried, Anabel González, André Sapir and Tetsuya Watanabe Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: January 28, 2021
Read article More on this topic More by this author
 

Opinion

RCEP對亞洲影響積極,無阻價值鏈重組

總體而言,雖然RCEP成員之間在市場准入上實際提升幅度有限(例如中國和澳洲),但這一協定的意義在於讓世界意識到,亞洲仍然依賴中國市場,亞洲國家不能錯過中國放寬市場准入的機會,即使幅度有限。

By: Alicia García-Herrero Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: January 21, 2021
Read article More on this topic More by this author
 

Opinion

Résilience : la nouvelle boussole

Pour surmonter le choc de la pandémie de Covid-19, l’économiste écarte, dans sa chronique, l’idée d’un repli protectionniste, mais suggère de passer d’un objectif de réduction des coûts à celui de la réduction des risques.

By: Jean Pisani-Ferry Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: January 18, 2021
Read article More on this topic More by this author
 

Blog Post

The double irony of the new UK-EU trade relationship

The Trade and Cooperation Agreement signed between the European Union and the United Kingdom goes against six decades of UK efforts to avoid being economically disadvantaged in Europe. Tracking the evolution of the EU-UK relationship over the last 60 years can help in understanding this.

By: André Sapir Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: January 12, 2021
Read article More on this topic More by this author
 

Blog Post

Has the European Union squandered its coronavirus vaccination opportunity?

The European Union’s purchases of frontrunner coronavirus vaccines are insufficient for the population’s near-term needs. The shortfall could have healthcare consequences and might delay economic reopening. Lessons should be learned for future pandemics.

By: J. Scott Marcus Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy Date: January 6, 2021
Read article More on this topic More by this author
 

Blog Post

When the future changes the past: fiscal indicator revisions

The 2020 pandemic economic shock has led to reassessment of fiscal policy measures in 2018 and earlier, because of faulty measurement of unobserved output gaps and structural balances. The current period of suspension of EU fiscal rules should be used to design a better fiscal framework.

By: Zsolt Darvas Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: January 5, 2021
Read article Download PDF More on this topic
 

Policy Contribution

Deglobalisation in the context of United States-China decoupling

After decades of increasing globalisation, there now seems to be a slowing, or even a turn to deglobalisation, meaning decelerating trade and investment and reduced global value chains. This trend seems to have accelerated because of the United States’ push to contain China in the context of their strategic competition. So far, however, there is less evidence of deglobalisation in terms of financial flows.

By: Alicia García-Herrero and Junyun Tan Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: December 21, 2020
Load more posts