Abstract

We explore the concept of prudence consistent with Directive 34/2013. There are three strands to our argument: economic, regulatory and legal. From an economic perspective, we demonstrate that neither historical cost nor fair value are designed to achieve long-run operational stability. Regarding regulation, we show that Directive 34 has significantly changed the concept and implications of prudence, in the name of increasing usefulness and relevance. Our legal considerations centre on the Gimle case of 2013, applying its logic to the new regulatory scenario. We note also the concept of the ‘European Public Good’. At various times the EU has suggested four specific components: protection of financial stability, the lack of hindrance to the economic development of the Union, and the objectives of sustainability and long-term investment. To achieve these objectives within the EU we show that it is necessary to follow the logic of our arguments.

摘要

我们探索与第34/2013号指令一致的审慎概念。我们的论点包括三个方面：经济，监管和法律。从经济角度看，我们证明历史成本和公允价值都不是为了实现长期运营稳定性而设计的。关于法规，我们表明，第34号指令以提高实用性和相关性为名，显着改变了审慎性的概念和含义。我们的法律考虑因素集中在2013年的Gimle案上，将其逻辑应用于新的监管情景。我们也注意到“欧洲公共物品”的概念。欧盟在不同时期提出了四个具体组成部分：保护金融稳定，不妨碍欧盟经济发展以及可持续性和长期投资的目标。