Books and Analytical Papers > IMF Staff Country Reports

You are looking at 1 - 3 of 3 items for :

  • Type: Journal Issue x
  • Accounting and Auditing: Government Policy and Regulation x
Clear All Modify Search
International Monetary Fund. Monetary and Capital Markets Department
This Technical Note discusses the findings and recommendations of the Financial Sector Assessment Program for the Netherlands regarding auditor oversight, collective investment fund management, and regulatory issues. The legal regime and the day-to-day supervision activities conducted by the Netherlands Authority for the Financial Markets and the Dutch central bank are extensive and consistent with international expectations. The approach to the supervision of the small but growing crowd-funding sector strikes a fair balance between enhancing innovation and protecting investors. The Dutch regime for audits and auditor oversight also complies with the expectations of the International Organization of Securities Commissions and appears to work well in practice.
International Monetary Fund
Germany has a comprehensive legislative and institutional framework for the effective supervision of the securities markets. The overall level of compliance with the IOSCO principles is high. There are significant industry concerns about the implementation costs resulting from a rapidly changing legislative framework. The German Federal Financial Supervisory Authority (BaFin’s) overall approach to supervision relies very heavily on the flow of information, auditors’ reports, and compliance with legislative obligations. Regulators at both the federal and state levels work with a clear legal framework and clearly defined powers and responsibilities.
International Monetary Fund
The Netherlands Authority for Financial Markets (AFM) has developed a robust supervisory framework, which exhibits high levels of implementation of the International Organization of Securities Commissions Principles. The AFM’s efforts are complemented by The NetherlandsCentral bank's (DNB) program of prudential supervision, which is reasonable and credible. Gaps in the legal framework for issuers, and on management of collective investment schemes, in the case of the DNB, have imposed limitations. Their ability to react in a swift manner to emerging risks in the financial sector is limited.