Journals / BDDK Bankacılık ve Finansal Piyasalar Dergisi / 2009 / Cilt: 3 - Sayı: 1

A proposal of settlement power Turkish capital markets

Türk sermaye piyasalarında uzlaşma yetkisi önerisi

Pages
37–62
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Secondly, it will create a steady income stream for investor education.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Settlement is an important part of the regulatory authority’s enforcement program in capital markets.
📊
Key Findings & Data:When compared to other countries, one of the major weaknesses currently characterizing Turkish securities markets in terms of enforcement powers is that regulatory authority (i.e. the Capital Markets Board of Turkey, CMB) has no power to enter into settlements with individuals and institutions that have breached the rules.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Secondly, it will create a steady income stream for investor education.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Türkiye · Turkey

Abstract

Settlement is an important part of the regulatory authority’s enforcement program in capital markets. When compared to other countries, one of the major weaknesses currently characterizing Turkish securities markets in terms of enforcement powers is that regulatory authority (i.e. the Capital Markets Board of Turkey, CMB) has no power to enter into settlements with individuals and institutions that have breached the rules. In this paper, we attempted to make a proposal of settlement for Turkish securities markets to fill this gap. If our proposal is taken into consideration, at least two positive outcomes are expected to be achieved. First of all, it can provide a flexible, quick and cost-effective alternative to non-negotiated litigation or certain administrative sanctions. Secondly, it will create a steady income stream for investor education.

Özet

Sermaye piyasalarında uzlaşma, düzenleyici otorite ile düzenlemeleri ihlal eden taraf arasında, normal resmi yaptırım sürecine girilmeksizin karşı tarafa uygulanacak yaptırımlar konusunda karşılıklı olarak anlaşmaya varılması sürecidir. Yabancı ülkelerde yaygın bir şekilde uygulanan ve IOSCO Prensiplerinde önerilen bu yetkinin Türkiye’de bulunmaması önemli bir eksiklik olarak değerlendirilmektedir. Çalışmamızda, bu alandaki mevcut boşluğun doldurulmasına katkıda bulunmak amacıyla Türk sermaye piyasaları için uzlaşma yetkisi önerisi yapılmaktadır. Önerimizin hayata geçirilmesi halinde, sermaye piyasalarımızda denetim sonucunda uygulanan yaptırımlardan etkin sonuçlar alınacağı ve yargı sürecine nazaran esneklik ve maliyet tasarrufu sağlanacağı düşünülmektedir. Ayrıca, sermaye piyasası yatırımcılarının eğitiminde kullanılmak üzere sürekli bir gelir kaynağı yaratılmış olacaktır.

🔖

Cite This Article

KILIÇ, S., ALP, A., ŞAHİN, A. (2009). A proposal of settlement power Turkish capital markets. BDDK Bankacılık ve Finansal Piyasalar Dergisi, Cilt: 3 - Sayı: 1, 37–62. https://ajindex.com/articles/147243

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. ASIC, Australian Securities and Investments Commission (2007), Regulatory Guide 100 Enforcable Undertakings, (http://www.asic.gov.au/asic/pdflib.nsf/LookupByFileName/EU_guide.pdf/$fli/ EU_guide.pdf; last visited on 01.11.2008
  2. Donaldson, W.H. (2003), Testimony Concerning Global Research Analyst Settlement, Speech Before the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs on 7 May 2003 (http://www.sec.gov/news/testimony/ts050703whd.htm; last visited on 01.11.2008
  3. FSA, Şnancial Services Authority (2007a), FSA Enforcement Information Guide, FSA, London (http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/doing/regulated/law/pdf/enf_procedure.pdf;last visited on 01.11.2008
  4. FSA, Fnancial Services Authority (2007b), FSA Enforcement Annual Performance Account 2006/07 Procedure, FSA, London. (http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/annual/ar06_07/enforcement_progress.pdf;last visited on 15.12.2008
  5. FSA, Şnancial Services Authority (2008a), FSA Enforcement Guide, FSA, London. (http://fsahandbook.info/FSA/extra/4755.pdf; last visited on 01.11.2008
  6. FSA, Şnancial Services Authority (2008b), FSA Handbook: Decision Procedure and Penalties Manual, Chapter 5, Settlement Decision Procedure, FSA, London. (http://fsahandbook.info/FSA/html/handbook/DEPP/5/1; last visited on 01.11.2008
  7. FSA, Şnancial Services Authority (2008c), FSA Enforcement Annual Performance Account 2007/08 Procedure, FSA, London. (http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/annual/ar07_08/Enforcement_report.pdf; last visited on 15.12.2008
  8. IOSCO, International Organization of Securities Commissions (2003), Objectives and Principles of Securities Regulation, IOSCO
  9. Johnson D.L. (2007), “SEC Settlement: Agency Self-Interest or Public Interest”,Fordham Journal of Corporate and Financial Law, Vol.XII, May 2007
  10. Kılıç, S. (2008a), “Halka Açık Şirketlerin Kamuyu Aydınlatma, Şeffaflık ve Kurumsal Yönetim İlkeleri Açısından Mevzuata Uyum Kapasitelerinin Geliştirilmesi”,Active Bankacılık ve Finans Dergisi, Yıl:10, Sayı:56 (Temmuz-Eylül 2008
  11. Kılıç, S. (2008b), Sermaye Piyasası Düzenlemelerinde Fayda-Maliyet Analizleri: Teoriler, Araçlar ve Türkiye Üzerine Ampirik Bir Çalışma. İstanbul: İktisadi Araştırmalar Vakfı Ünal Aysal Tez Değerlendirme Yarışması Dizisi
  12. Llewellyn, D. (1999), The Economic Rationale for Financial Regulation, London, The Financial Services Authority (Occasional Paper Series, 1)
  13. NASD, National Assosiation of Securities Dealers (2003), NASD Announces $10- Million Eduction Fund: Investor Survey Un