Baltic region is traditionally treated as similar and comparable when analysed on the macroeconomic level. The major difference is faced when the analysis is performed for the corporate bond market – the weight of Latvian publically traded corporate bonds among the three countries- Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia- reached 94% by the number of issues quoted. With 47 corporate bonds listed in Nasdaq Riga, Latvian corporate bond market demonstrated the rapid growth and recognition of corporate bonds as the source of alternative to bank lending financing method (Nasdaq Baltic, 2017). There are no obvious macro or microeconomic evidence for Latvia meeting more favourable conditions for corporate bond market development than Lithuania and Estonia The increasing role of the capital market as the alternative to the traditional to Europe banking sector is strongly supported by the European Commission (EC). In 2015 the EC announced the Capital Market Union (CMU) initiative and respective action plan as the reaction to the challenges faced by both banking sector and small and medium enterprise (SME) segment in Europe. As integrated and more diverse capital markets will decrease the cost of funding for companies, the objective of the CMU is to make the financial system more resilient in all 28 Member States including Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia (European Commission, 2017). While several steps like proposal to modernise the Prospectus Directive have been made, further actions based on the review of regulatory barriers to SME admission on public markets and SME growth markets and review of European Union corporate bond markets, focusing on how market liquidity can be improved made in 2017 will follow (European Commission, 2015). The aim of this article is to analyse the level of development of the biggest Baltic corporate bond market- Latvian corporate bond segment and to reveal the potential CMU introduction effect. The paper applies Financial Sector Development Indicators (FSDI) framework developed by The World Bank (World Bank, 2004) to the country cluster as defined by Bending et al (2014). The paper relates the results to CMU action plan developed by the European Commission. The article estimates that Latvian corporate bond market is highly developed compared to the peers selected where the only lagging area is size. The article concludes that reviving securitisation, participation in European Long Term Investment Funds and developing European private placement market should be prioritised for Latvia within CMU framework. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5755/j01.eis.0.11.18147

中文翻译：

---

等待资本市场联盟：拉脱维亚公司债券市场的地位

在宏观经济层面上，波罗的海地区传统上被视为相似且具有可比性。当对公司债券市场进行分析时，将面临主要差异-拉脱维亚，立陶宛和爱沙尼亚这三个国家之间拉脱维亚公开交易的公司债券的权重达到了所引用发行数量的94％。拉脱维亚公司债券市场在纳斯达克里加（Nasdaq Riga）上市，共有47家公司债券，显示出公司债券的快速增长和认可，已成为银行贷款融资方法的替代来源（Nasdaq Baltic，2017）。拉脱维亚没有比立陶宛和爱沙尼亚更能满足公司债券市场发展更有利条件的宏观或微观经济证据。欧洲委员会（EC）大力支持资本市场作为欧洲银行业传统替代品的日益重要的作用。 。欧盟委员会于2015年宣布了资本市场联盟（CMU）倡议和相应的行动计划，以应对欧洲银行业和中小企业（SME）部门面临的挑战。由于一体化和更加多样化的资本市场将降低公司的融资成本，CMU的目标是使包括拉脱维亚，立陶宛和爱沙尼亚在内的所有28个成员国的金融体系更具弹性（欧洲委员会，2017年）。虽然已经采取了一些步骤，例如对招股说明书指令进行现代化的提案，但基于对中小企业在公开市场和中小企业增长市场上的准入壁垒的审查以及对欧盟公司债券市场的审查，采取了进一步行动，重点是如何改善市场流动性随后将在2017年做出（欧洲委员会，2015年）。本文的目的是分析最大的波罗的海公司债券市场-拉脱维亚公司债券市场的发展水平，并揭示潜在的CMU引入效应。该文件将世界银行（世界银行，2004年）开发的金融部门发展指标（FSDI）框架应用于Bending等人（2014年）定义的国家集群。该文件将结果与欧洲委员会制定的CM​​U行动计划联系起来。文章估计，与拉脱维亚公司债券市场相比，仅落后于规模的同行是高度发达的。文章得出结论，应在CMU框架内优先考虑恢复证券化，参与欧洲长期投资基金以及发展中的欧洲私募市场。DOI：http：//dx.doi.org/10.5755/j01.eis.0.11.18147