New rules to facilitate the listing of securities

Patrik Lundqvist (S)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for approval of our reservation in the matter.

We Social Democrats are, of course, not opposed to the bill in its entirety. There are several reasons to proceed with these proposals, which are also a direct consequence of EU legislation. As is always the case with issues originating from the EU, however, the individual countries have a reasonably large scope for action.

The government has chosen to handle this in a way that has caused several of the referral bodies to raise a warning finger. One can, for example, read in Stockholm University's referral response that they point out that Sweden does not suffer from the problems that have caused the EU to act to increase the willingness to invest in small companies. Sweden is, in fact, going against the trend in the EU, the UK, and the USA, where the number of listed companies is decreasing.

In Sweden, we already have an increasing number of companies before these changes are implemented. We do not need the medicine that the EU is prescribing in Sweden, but we are taking large risks to get the side effects that risk following along. It would have been fully possible to proceed more slowly. In many ways, it would have been more reasonable to adopt a precautionary principle here instead of pushing for full capacity.

The Government proposes that the threshold for the prospectus requirement shall be raised from 2.5 to 12 million euro. It is a very substantial increase, and it is being implemented despite serious warnings from the Swedish Financial Supervisory Authority, the Swedish Economic Crime Authority, and the Consumer Agency. These authorities point out that weakened information requirements risk making it easier for unscrupulous actors to exploit investors, especially small-scale savers.

The Swedish Economic Crime Authority highlights the risk that individuals lacking oversight risk being deceived into investing in companies that are not viable or that were never intended for anything other than deceiving people out of money. Criminals can exploit the rules to deceive citizens.

Together with the Consumer Agency, the importance of demanding information in Swedish is also highlighted. The EU allows for the possibility of providing information in English or the country's own language, and here the government has chosen not to demand that the information must be available in Swedish.

The Financial Supervisory Authority writes in its referral that the proposals involve an unjustified deterioration of investor protection and transparency in the market. The proposals also risk weakening the willingness to invest, which is the opposite of what the ambition should be, Madam Speaker. Furthermore, it is written that this in the long run can complicate capital procurement, primarily for small and medium-sized enterprises, and that the proposals thus risk counteracting the very purpose of the regulation. It is quite serious criticism.

Madam Speaker! We do not, of course, oppose the development of the capital market, but the development must not occur at the expense of consumers' security or at the expense of the fight against economic crime. This applies especially because those who risk being hit hardest are those who have the least money, who have the fewest resources to find out what actually applies, and who suffer the greatest harm from being deceived.

Therefore, we demand that the government returns with an evaluation of the effects of the new system. If the risk of fraud increases, if consumer protection is weakened, and if the willingness to invest decreases, we must act as quickly as possible to strengthen the protection for individuals in the market. It is not sufficient to refer to the different trading venues' own rules and hope that they will do the job.

Madam Speaker! We want a secure capital market, and we want to protect small savers. We want to counter economic crime and criminal elements, and we do not want to see more people lose their savings to fraudsters who exploit loopholes in the regulatory framework. But this is exactly how we have arrived at the situation we are in today, with criminals in the welfare system and in the labor market – through simplifications and adjusted limits that have made the meshes in society's net so large that criminals can even own court buildings.

I again move for approval of our reservation and hope that the government as soon as possible, regardless of what happens during the proceedings in this chamber, returns with a regulatory framework that ensures that individuals in Sweden who wish to invest in the market are also protected when they do so.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Jan Ericson (M)

Madam Speaker! Sweden has become one of the world's most dynamic countries for capital markets and entrepreneurship. Our stock market is almost twice as large as our GDP. We have more listed companies per capita than almost any other country and a strong stock market. Within the EU, Sweden is perceived as a model when it comes to the capital market.

We have a broad popular savings. The capital market in Sweden is not something only for the rich, but something that all hard-working Swedes actually get a share of through their pension – and perhaps also through their own savings on the stock market, in shares or funds. This is no coincidence, but is the result of political decisions that have protected ownership, savings, and access to capital.

Did you know, by the way, that it was the then Minister for Finance and Moderate Party leader Gösta Bohman who, in the 1970s, pushed through the first tax-advantaged savings, which later developed into universal savings and has since been further developed into a variety of household savings in different securities and funds? Thanks to a Moderate minister in the 1970s, this saving has given Swedish households the opportunity to share in the value development in Swedish business.

I have a background as, among other things, an investment advisor in the banking world, and I remember so many ordinary employees – even those with slightly lower incomes – who had been part of the tax fund savings and the allemansfond savings from the start and had accumulated million amounts in these funds. If they have kept the money in those funds during the nearly 20 years that I have been a member of Parliament, the amounts have grown further, in a dramatic way.

Having your own savings provides security and independence and ensures that people can manage various life crises financially. A portion of the savings ends up in Sweden, often in securities in different ways, and in the end, one contributes to growing companies being able to obtain liquidity. Now we are also further strengthening the incentives for saving by making the first 300,000 kronor in investment savings accounts tax-free.

The capital market is not static, however – regulations change, and competition between countries is increasing. If Sweden is to continue to be an attractive place to start companies that can grow and then be listed, we must also dare to modernize our rules, and that is what this report is about. We are now proposing changes that simplify and facilitate the listing of securities, especially for smaller and growing companies. It is about lowering unnecessary thresholds, reducing administrative burdens, simplifying prospectus rules, and making the regulatory framework more proportionate.

The opposition paints a picture in the debate of diminished investor protection and lowered requirements. They worry that the market will become less secure. With my experience from this activity, I actually think that is an incorrect picture. This is not an irresponsible deregulation, and it is not an abolition of protection. Instead, it is a modernization of how the protection is designed. The investor protection remains, the transparency requirements remain, and the supervision remains.

What we are doing is adapting the regulatory framework so that it is reasonable in relation to the companies' size and the scale of capital raising. If we do not do this, we risk something else, namely that companies choose to opt out of the Swedish market. We risk that capital seeks itself to other countries, that fewer companies take the step toward listing, and that fewer Swedish savers get the opportunity to invest in growth. It would actually be a betrayal of both entrepreneurs and households.

In response to the Social Democrats' motion, I just want to point out that all legislation is evaluated continuously and that, in addition to the government and the Riksdag, we have several agencies whose specific task is to monitor these types of issues. I therefore do not see any reason to decide on a follow-up in any specific order in this particular issue. I can also note that the Social Democrats are not requesting a rejection of the proposition itself, but rather what they want is an evaluation. Such an evaluation will, of course, be conducted as usual.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal and against the reservation.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 25 February.)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)