slide1 n.
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
Lic. Francisco Astelarra Superintendent March 2001

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 14

Lic. Francisco Astelarra Superintendent March 2001 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 64 Views
  • Uploaded on

Lic. Francisco Astelarra Superintendent March 2001. Structure of the Portfolio of the FJP - December 2000 - Information provided by the different member countries. Value of the FJP and relation with the GNP - through 12-31-2000 - Information provided by the different member countries.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Lic. Francisco Astelarra Superintendent March 2001' - diandra


Download Now An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
slide1

Lic. Francisco Astelarra

Superintendent

March 2001

slide2

Structure of the Portfolio of the FJP

- December 2000 -

Information provided by the different member countries

slide3

Value of the FJP and relation with the GNP

- through 12-31-2000 -

Information provided by the different member countries

MEMBER COUNTRIES FJP (million of U$S) % OVER GNP

Argentina 20.381 7.0

Bolivia 841 9.8

Chile 35.886 47.0

Colombia 3.590 5.1

Costa Rica 350 2.3

El Salvador 350 3.4

Mexico 17.216 3.2

Peru 2.753 5.1

Uruguay 811 3.9

slide4

Relation of the FJP and Public Debt

- December 2000 -

Information provided by the different member countries

MEMBER COUNTRIES % OVER PUBLIC DEBT

Argentina 9.5

Bolivia 53.1

Chile 61.1

Colombia 7.6

El Salvador 16.3

Mexico 11.2

Peru 1.2

Uruguay 11.0

slide5

1.

  • Denmark
  • 8.56
  • 2.
  • 7.97
  • Finland
  • 7.80
  • 3.
  • Australia
  • 7.47
  • 4.
  • Canada
  • 7.43
  • 5.
  • Ireland
  • 7.36
  • 6.
  • Sweden
  • 7.16
  • 7.
  • New Zeland
  • 7.16
  • 8.
  • Singapoore
  • 6.85
  • 6.78
  • 9.
  • Luxemburg
  • 10.
  • 6.76
  • Switzerland
  • 11.
  • 6.75
  • U. Kingdom
  • 6.63
  • 12.
  • Germany
  • 6.36
  • 13.
  • U.S.A.
  • 6.17
  • 14.
  • Holland
  • 6.04
  • 15.
  • Iceland
  • 5.95
  • 16.
  • France
  • 5.87
  • 17.
  • 5.74
  • Belgium
  • 18.
  • 5.73
  • Norway
  • 5.39
  • 19.
  • Hong Kong
  • 5.32
  • 20.
  • Israel
  • 5.30

COMPLIANCE TO TRANSPARENCY NORMS IN THE MAIN MARKETS

  • good = 10, bad = 0
  • 21.
  • Spain
  • 22.
  • Austria
  • 23.
  • Portugal
  • Japan
  • 24.
  • Hungary
  • 25.
  • Chile
  • 26.
  • South Africa
  • 27.
  • Poland
  • 28.
  • 29.
  • 30.
  • Corea
  • Italy
  • Malaysia
  • 31.
  • 32.
  • Brazil
  • 33.
  • Indonesia
  • 34.
  • Colombia
  • 35.
  • China
  • Argentina
  • 36.
  • 37.
  • Mexico
  • 38.
  • Greece
  • 39.
  • India
  • 40.
  • Turkey

Source: Mc Kinsey / The World Competitiveness Yearbook 1999

slide7

Problem Observed in the Legal Frame

  • Public Offer Law

Absence of:

    • Transparency regulations
    • POL Regulation with legal range
    • Tipify fraudulent practices
slide8

Problems Observed in the Legal Frame

  • Protection to minority investors
    • Insufficient requirements of information to control groups
    • Right to accounting value recess
  • Regulatory and Impositive Arbitrations
    • Lack of coordination between regulators
    • Need of neutral impositive treatment
slide9

Incorporation of international standards

  • Chile (sanctioned POS Law)
  • Argentina (project to be presented to Congress)
  • Peru (project underway of being sanctioned)
  • Mexico (Better practice Code in the Mexican Stock Market)
  • Colombia (Value Superintendence Resolution)
slide10

Benefits of adopting better practices

  • Higher transparency and access to the Board of Directors decisions
  • Higher number of counterparts for the operations
  • Better affiliate interests protection mechanisms.
slide12

Law of Better Practices for the Societies Governing and Defense of the Minority Shareholder Rights

  • Transparency
    • Creation of Figure and Regulation of the Financial Services Consumer Rights
    • Elevates with Rank of Law Transparency Requirements in Public Offer. Penalization by law of the use of priviledged information offense
    • POS Regulation (inexistent in current law)
    • Regulates Participation of Locators and Practices of Market Stabilization
    • Modernizes Legislation in defense of Minority Rights
    • Creation of the Special Guarantee Fund for entrustees protection
slide13

Law of Better Practices for the Societies Governing and Defense

of the Minority Shareholder Rights

  • Government of the Societies
    • Instaurates a Diferentiated Regime for Open Societies
    • Make flexible Capital Structure for Stock Companies
    • Improve Conflict Resolution Mechanisms
    • Instaurate a minimum of External Directors
    • Regulation of recess rights (Instaurate equitable price)
ad