WhatsApp Previous articleLimerick venues announce cancellations and closuresNext articleRiverfest postponed and arts venues cancel Cian Reinhardthttp://www.limerickpost.ieJournalist & Digital Media Coordinator. Covering human interest and social issues as well as creating digital content to accompany news stories. [email protected] Advertisement Facebook Linkedin Print Twitter Email 07/05/18 REPRO FREEThe skies of Limerick will transformed into an explosion of colours during the Riverfest fireworks extravaganza on the Shannon.Riverfest 2018 drew over an estimated 100,000 people to the banks of the Shannon for the biggest celebration yet with this yearÕs line-up bursting with big-name acts and unmissable events.The festival is a carnival of activity and variety, with thrilling new attractions including the first ever visit to Ireland by the Seabreacher Shark Ð a dare-devil aquatic spectacle in an 18ft Ôshark-craftÕ that can travel at speeds of up to 80km per hour.Picture Sean Curtin True Media.Limerick City and County Council regretfully announced today that Riverfest 2020 has been postponed, in the interests of public health.High level meetings have been taking place in the council around Riverfest 2020 since the cancellation of the Limerick St Patrick’s Day Parade and Limerick International Band Championship due to concerns about COVID-19 (Coronavirus) on Monday last (09 March 2020).Sign up for the weekly Limerick Post newsletter Sign Up Last year more than 120,000 people enjoyed the city’s biggest festival, the majority of them in the Riverfestival Village based around Arthur’s Quay Park.Due to the nature of Riverfest, in which large numbers gather in Limerick city centre to celebrate and enjoy themselves, Limerick City and County Council organisers have recommended that it now be postponed, meaning it will not take place on the May Bank Holiday weekend this year.Mayor of the City and County of Limerick Mayor Cllr Michael Sheahan said: “It is disappointing that we have to postpone Riverfest but it is the right decision to make. What is most important now is the health of the people of Limerick, especially those who are elderly and vulnerable to infection. We will look at the possibility of rescheduling the festival later in the year but again this is dependent on COVID-19.”Chief Executive of Limerick City and County Council Dr Pat Daly said: “The decision to postpone Riverfest 2020 is being done on the most up-to-date public health advice from the Department of Health and an overriding desire not to put the collective health of the people of Limerick and visitors to Limerick at unnecessary risk.”“Our Management Team is meeting daily to discuss the COVID-19 pandemic and we are following all guidelines and advice given to us by the Department of Health. Everyone should be following this advice.”“Riverfest, like the St Patrick’s Festival, is an important event for the economy of Limerick from a business, societal and tourist point of view, but the health of the people of Limerick and the nation is paramount at this particular time.”A date for a re-scheduled Riverfest for later in the year will be announced in due course and is dependent on the ongoing COVID-19 situation. NewsCommunityRiverfest 2020 to be postponed due to ongoing concerns about COVID-19By Cian Reinhardt – March 12, 2020 229
It marks a clarification of the position of the FSB, which, in late 2013, would not be drawn on whether pension funds would be classified as systemically important.Its 2014 consultation on non-bank institutions also did not directly address the status of the pensions industry.The consultation, which will run through the end of May, asked respondents to explain why pension funds should be excluded or, alternatively, if the risks associated with the failure of a pension fund should warrant their inclusion as systemically important entities.Mark Carney, chairman of the FSB and governor of the Bank of England, said the second consultation was an important step towards identifying those NBNI bodies deemed too big to fail.“It will also enhance authorities’ understanding of the risks to global financial stability posed by the activities of entities in financial markets, including the distress or disorderly failure of non-banks and non-insurers,” he said.However, pension funds could still be affected by new layers of regulation through their involvement with larger asset managers, with the consultation suggesting there could be an absolute threshold of $100bn (€92bn) in assets to trigger a manager’s inclusion.“In addition to ‘size’, the FSB and IOSCO also considered the possibility of setting additional materiality thresholds based on ‘global activities (cross-jurisdictional activities)’,” the consultation said.“However, since data regarding the international activities of NBNI financial entities are often not disclosed or reported to the relevant authorities, the FSB decided not to set additional materiality thresholds based on ‘global activity’.”An absolute threshold based on assets under management could also impact a number of pension funds through their ownership of large asset managers, such as ABP’s ownership of APG and several large Dutch schemes’ stakes in MN.Cecile Sourbes explores whether a pension fund can be too big to fail,WebsitesWe are not responsible for the content of external sitesLink to FSB consultation on NBNI entities of systemic risk to financial system Pension funds are not to be classed as systemically important financial institutions but could still be subject to increased regulatory burdens proposed for ‘too big to fail’ asset managers.A consultation by the Financial Stability Board (FSB) and the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) on which non-bank, non-insurer global institutions should be classed as systemically important financial institutions (NBNI G-SIFIs) suggested that pension funds could be excluded.It said pension funds posed a low risk to “global financial stability and the wider economy due to their long-term investment perspective”.The FSB’s paper also suggested pension funds were likely to be captured by additional regulation due to their relationship with asset managers but sought advice on whether the reasons for excluding the industry as a whole were sound.