This article argues that the European Union (EU) has been instrumental in moving the United States (US) Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) from a policy of national treatment of foreign (non-US) issuers to a policy of mutual recognition of financial disclosure regulation based on convergence between US Generally Accepted Accounting Standards (GAAP) and international accounting standards (IFRS). Further, future initiatives based on a substantial equivalence model are under consideration by the SEC.The mutual recognition concept in financial regulation was a construct of the EU. Despite arguments that the US SEC should similarly engage in mutual recognition of foreign financial institutions and public company disclosure documents, the SEC insisted upon national treatment of foreign issuers and financial institutions. At the end of 2007, however, the SEC determined to accept IFRS rather than US GAAP in SEC filings by foreign issuers. Further, the SEC has suggested that it may permit foreign stock exchanges and perhaps foreign broker-dealers to engage in business in the United States based on mutual recognition if a foreign jurisdiction has a regulatory regime that is equivalent to the regulatory regime of the US in terms of investor protection. This significant change in SEC policy was largely the result of political pressure put on the SEC by the EU and a cooperative effort on the part of the SEC and the EU. On the other hand, securities regulatory reform in the EU made such cooperation possible.

Over the decade or so since the global financial crisis rocked EU financial markets and led to wide-ranging reforms, EU securities and financial markets regulation has continued to evolve. The legislative framework has been refined and administrative rulemaking has expanded. Alongside, the Capital Markets Union agenda has developed, the UK has left the EU, and ESMA has emerged as a decisive influence on EU financial markets governance. All these developments, as well as the Covid-19 pandemic, have shaped the regulatory landscape and how supervision is organized. EU Securities and Financial Markets Regulation provides a comprehensive, critical, and contextual account of the intricate rulebook that governs EU financial markets and its supporting institutional arrangements. It is framed by an assessment of how the regime has evolved over the decade or so since the global financial crisis and considers, among other matters, the post-crisis reforms to key legislative measures, the massive expansion of administrative rulemaking and of soft law, the Capital Markets Union agenda, the development of supervisory convergence as the means for organizing pan-EU supervision, and ESMA's role in EU financial markets governance. Its coverage extends from capital-raising and the Prospectus Regulation to financial market intermediation and the MiFID II/MiFIR and IFD/IFR regimes, to the new regulatory regimes adopted since the global financial crisis (including for benchmarks and their administrators), to retail market regulation and the PRIIPs Regulation, and on to the EU's third country regime and the implications of the UK's departure from the EU. This is the fourth edition of the highly successful and authoritative monograph first published as EC Securities Regulation. Heavily revised from the third edition to reflect developments since the global financial crisis, it adopts the in-depth contextual and analytical approach of earlier editions and so considers the market, political, institutional, and international context of the regulatory and supervisory regime.

The book provides an analysis of the emergence, evolution, and transformation of transnational securities regulation and of the influences from and the interactions between global regulatory powers in the field. Combining insights from law and political science, the work employs a two-tier complementary "on-the-books" and "in-action” approach. The more classical "on-the-books" approach draws on scholarship in United States and European Union securities regulation; transnational regulation and global administrative law; regime complexity; global governance studies; and the regulatory production of the International Organisation of Securities Commissions (IOSCO). The law in-action approach leverages the author’s experience as Compliance senior professional in a multinational financial institution as well as research interviews with senior IOSCO staff. The author’s findings enable the reader to develop an original understanding of IOSCO, its standards, and its unique place in the transnational regulatory arena. They also challenge the doxa that the US are the only driving regulatory power in the securities area when in fact, other regulatory powers are emerging – for the time being, the EU. The balance has shifted and regulatory compromises are achieved at different points in the rule making process.

The rapid integration of capital markets under EMU has triggered a debate on the remaining barriers to a true single market. Some have argued the need for a 'European SEC' to help overcome these barriers. This would be a step too far, however. Not only is there first a need for more regulatory harmonisation, which the European Commission is committed to achieving, but it would also require an amendment to the EU Treaty. Nor is it particularly desirable either, for securities markets will most likely evolve differently in the EU than they have in the US. Furthermore, some degree of regulatory competition can do no harm, and is implicit in the principles governing the single market, as long as it does not hamper market integration. This also fits with the current structure of market supervision in the EU, where the dividing line between regulation and self-regulation differs importantly from country to country.

This paper, aimed at professionals, scholars, and government officials in the field of securities regulations, compares the European (specifically the Market in Financial Instruments Directive MiFID) and U.S. securities regulations. The analysis focuses on the regulatory and supervisory framework, trading venues, and the provision of investment services. We show that although there may be regional differences in the structure and rules of current securities regulation, the objectives and some outcomes of regulation are comparable. Similarly, as the current global financial and economic crisis exposed gaps in securities regulations worldwide, regulators in both regions face similar challenges. This study will be particularly useful for World Bank member countries that are looking at either the European or U.S. regulations when conducting market reforms.

In 2007, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announced several new rules and proposals that will have the effect of reducing barriers to the cross-border issuance, investment and trading of securities. In addition to new rules pertaining to deregistration and accounting, the SEC is in the process of developing a detailed proposal concerning mutual recognition treatment for foreign exchanges and broker-dealers seeking access to the US market.In what can be best described as a new internationalization of US securities regulation, the SEC is embracing regulatory concepts and strategies that, until recently, were most often associated with the European Union's single market project: convergence, harmonization and mutual recognition. Just as these concepts have been applied to great effect in the European Union to bridge regulatory differences among the various EU member states, US adoption of these concepts and strategies raises the prospect of progress toward the development of a trans-Atlantic marketplace, creating benefits for US and EU issuers and investors alike. Given the impact such a regime would have on the development of the cross-border market, this essay explains why the SEC is undertaking this regulatory program right now, the status of the SEC's program and some of the challenges facing the program.