OpenLobby.EU
Explore

Assogestioni - Italian Investment Management Association

Assogestioni

Assogestioni is the Italian association representing the interests of asset management companies.

Lobbying Activity

Meeting with Giovanni Crosetto (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur)

6 Nov 2025 · Securitisation Framework

Meeting with Maria Luís Albuquerque (Commissioner) and

22 Oct 2025 · SIA

Meeting with Didier Millerot (Head of Unit Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union)

23 Sept 2025 · Sustainable finance framework, focus SFDR

Meeting with Lauro Panella (Cabinet of Commissioner Maria Luís Albuquerque)

22 Jul 2025 · Exchange with Assogestioni

Response to Supplementary pensions – review of the regulatory framework and other measures to strengthen the sector

21 Jul 2025

The Communication on the Savings and Investments Union highlights the pivotal role of supplementary pensions in ensuring adequate retirement income and building institutional investors to support EU competitiveness. This goal, outlined since the 2015 and 2020 CMU action plans, requires a new level of ambition and concrete action, especially from Member States which retain exclusive competence over pension system design. The EU can play a key supporting role, particularly by guiding and facilitating national reforms. Legislative initiatives (IORP II Directive and PEPP regulation reviews) should aim to simplify existing rules, not add new burdens. Overregulation is not the path to increased take-up of supplementary pensions or stronger consumer protection. In our view, two reforms - if clearly framed and properly implemented - can significantly improve the coverage and efficiency of supplementary pension systems: (1)Automatic enrolment: to counter inertia and procrastination, automatic enrolment with opt-out should be introduced. The mechanism should be adapted to existing national schemes and not require the creation of new a public scheme. The Commission could promote it, at least as a general principle, within IORP II Directive, in line with the Recommendations 2 of the OECD Good Design of Defined Contribution Pension Plans, while fully preserving Member States autonomy in deciding whether and how to implement such a mechanism (2)Life-cycle default strategies: automatic enrolment needs a default investment option. Life-cycle strategies adjust the risk profile over time, offering the potential for higher long-term returns and enabling greater equity exposure in pension portfolios. These pillars, if supported by: (a)appropriate tax incentives (b)clear and accessible information (e.g. through pension tracking systems) (c)and flexible decumulation options (avoiding an excessive focus on annuities) can create a more inclusive and attractive pensions landscape. To provide feedback across all the areas covered by the Commissions initiative, we set out the following considerations and proposals: 1. IORP II Directive: (a)The revision should preserve the minimum harmonisation approach. (b)Diversified portfolios, including unlisted securities and alternative assets, can enhance long-term returns, but should remain a medium- to long-term objective. Their adoption depends on adequate scale, expertise, and the presence of well-developed private markets. (c)In the short term, it may be more realistic and appropriate to focus on increasing participation and raising exposure to listed equity through the implementation of automatic enrolment and life-cycle investment strategies. (d)IORPs must retain full discretion under the prudent person principle, in order to act in the best interest of members and beneficiaries. The regulatory framework should not impose obligations to invest in specific assets or set minimum allocations. 2. Personal pensions and the PEPP: (a)Personal pension products are essential, especially for workers not covered by occupational schemes (b)PEPPs could contribute to this objective and be more effective if simplified by removing: (i)the fee cap for the Basic PEPP (ii)the requirement for mandatory advice for the Basic PEPP (iii)the obligation to open multiple sub-accounts (c)PEPPs could be offered in the workplace to extend coverage but should complement and not replace or compete with IORPs (d)The aim should not be to generate competition with national schemes but to allow eligible existing products to transition into PEPPs. 3. Pension Tracking System: PTSs are essential to improve citizens understanding and awareness of their pension entitlements. They should therefore be made more widely available and include information on all pillars of the pension system.
Read full response

Assogestioni urges SME-focused tax incentives for EU investment accounts

7 Jul 2025
Topic — The European Commission is creating a blueprint for retail savings and investment products.
Message — The association wants the EU blueprint to maintain existing national schemes while setting only minimum standards. They argue that tax breaks should require a portion of investments to go toward small and medium-sized businesses. They also suggest that financial providers should handle tax reporting to simplify the process for individual investors.123
Why — This would protect Italian investment models and increase assets managed by association members.4
Impact — Large-cap corporations may lose retail investment as capital is redirected toward tax-advantaged small businesses.5
Read full response

Assogestioni calls for simplified EU sustainable finance disclosure rules

29 May 2025
Topic — The EU is reviewing sustainable finance rules to improve clarity and prevent greenwashing.
Message — Assogestioni proposes a two-tier disclosure system distinguishing risks from claims. They recommend replacing current categories with a single, flexible reporting template.12
Why — Merging reporting obligations would reduce administrative burdens and operational costs for investment firms.345
Impact — Public transparency advocates lose detailed information as the group seeks to simplify online disclosures.6
Read full response

Assogestioni warns against data gaps in Taxonomy reporting simplification

26 Mar 2025
Topic — The European Commission is proposing simpler Taxonomy reporting to reduce corporate costs.
Message — Assogestioni supports streamlining reporting templates but opposes the proposed opt-in regime for companies below 450 million euros in revenue. They also reject the 10% materiality threshold and the exclusion of companies with fewer than 1,000 employees from KPI calculations. The association warns that these changes could create significant gaps in corporate sustainability data.123
Why — Asset managers would avoid complex administrative burdens and maintain access to reliable sustainability data.45
Impact — Smaller companies would lose reporting flexibility and face mandatory Taxonomy disclosures instead of exemptions.6
Read full response

Meeting with Isabel Benjumea Benjumea (Member of the European Parliament) and Euronext and Fidelity International

21 Feb 2024 · ECON Files

Response to Postponement of deadlines within the Accounting Directive for the adoption of certain ESRS

19 Dec 2023

Assogestioni strongly believes in the need of a regulatory framework that can ensure that sustainability reporting standards for companies are complete, clear and useful in identifying and assessing the impact of their activities on workers, communities, consumers and the environment, impacts often related to the specificity of the sector to which the company belongs. Sustainability data reported by companies underpin the information needed by financial market participants for their own reporting purposes respectively under the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR). The discrepancy in both timing and the mandatory nature of reporting between investee companies under ESRS and asset managers under SFDR poses significant potential operational difficulties and require further clarifications by the Regulator. A delayed adoption of sector-specific standards and the consequent postponement of the respective reporting obligations of in-scope companies would hamper the effectiveness and comprehensiveness of sustainability reporting made by undertakings under CSRD. Assogestioni promotes the adoption, by 30 June 2024, of sector-specific standards. A timely adoption of the sectoral standards is considered essential, both for the full implementation of SET 1 ESRS by the undertakings and for the provision of a complete and comparable information needed to FMPs to assess the sustainability of investments and accomplish their own disclosure requirements under SFDR . In support of the position of the Association, the following reasons should be mentioned, better explained in the attached document: Sector-specific ESRS could provide guidance in sector-agnostic ESRS implementation and in the process of assessing the materiality of sustainability issues; EFRAG's capability for timely publication, having EFRAG made substantial progress in drafting 5 high-impact sector standards in 2023. In conclusion, we urge the Commission to reconsider the proposed delay in adopting ESRS for specific sectors. Where a postponement in the adoption of the sector-specific ESRS to June 2026 is deemed inevitable, the European Commission should guarantee the adoption by June 2024 of at least the 5 high-impact sector standards already developed by EFRAG, already covered by GRI standard such as Oil and Gas, Mining, Road Transport, Textiles, and Agriculture, Farming, and Fishing (AFF). Please find attached Assogestioni complete feedback.
Read full response

Assogestioni urges equal data sharing rules for big tech

31 Oct 2023
Topic — EU proposal to expand customer data sharing across diverse financial services sectors.
Message — They want all participants to share data equally to prevent imbalances with tech giants. They also suggest limiting data scope and extending implementation timelines.123
Why — This would protect European asset managers from market dominance by foreign digital firms.45
Impact — Consumer groups would lose direct influence over data sharing schemes if relegated to advisory roles.67
Read full response

Meeting with Marco Zanni (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur)

20 Sept 2023 · Retail Investment Strategy

Meeting with Florian Denis (Cabinet of Commissioner Mairead Mcguinness)

20 Sept 2023 · Retail Investment Strategy

Assogestioni Urges Broader Scope for EU ESG Rating Regulation

1 Sept 2023
Topic — The European Commission's proposal to regulate the quality and reliability of ESG ratings.
Message — The organization requests broadening the regulation's scope to include ESG data estimates while providing clearer exemptions for internal ratings used by investment firms. They also advocate for a level playing field between EU and non-EU providers and standardized transparency for service contracts.123
Why — Asset managers would benefit from more reliable data for investment decisions and reduced legal friction in their own client reporting.45
Impact — Third-country ESG providers would face stricter compliance burdens, losing the competitive advantage of only following voluntary international standards.6
Read full response

Assogestioni warns against mandatory cost benchmarks for investment funds

8 Aug 2023
Topic — A proposal to improve retail investor confidence and participation in capital markets.
Message — They want the EU to remove mandatory cost benchmarks and investor reimbursement requirements. They also request a longer implementation period.123
Why — Removing benchmarks avoids price regulation and maintains current competitive fee structures for managers.4
Impact — Investors would lose the ability to receive direct refunds for excessive fund charges.5
Read full response

Assogestioni warns against rollback of EU sustainability reporting standards

6 Jul 2023
Topic — New rules specifying the sustainability information companies must disclose under the Accounting Directive.
Message — Assogestioni urges the Commission to restore the ambition of the original technical advice. They argue that key climate and social data must be mandatory for all companies. This ensures investors receive information needed to meet their own legal reporting requirements.12
Why — Standardized mandatory reporting reduces the risk of investment managers failing their own legal disclosures.3
Impact — Smaller companies would face higher costs by losing the flexibility of materiality-based reporting.4
Read full response

Meeting with Marco Zanni (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur)

4 Jul 2023 · Retail Investment Strategy

Meeting with Irene Tinagli (Member of the European Parliament, Committee chair)

13 Apr 2023 · Courtesy meeting

Response to Facilitating small and medium sized enterprises’ access to capital

27 Mar 2023

Assogestioni, the Italian Investment Management Association, welcomes the opportunity to respond to the consultation. Please find attached the response of Assogestioni.
Read full response

Meeting with Axel Voss (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur) and BUSINESSEUROPE and

8 Mar 2023 · Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence

Meeting with Andrea Beltramello (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Valdis Dombrovskis)

27 Feb 2023 · retail investment strategy

Meeting with Florian Denis (Cabinet of Commissioner Mairead Mcguinness)

27 Feb 2023 · main current files

Response to Long Term Investment Funds – Review of EU rules

25 Mar 2022

Assogestioni welcomes the proposal of the Commission for the review of the ELTIF Regulation which, taking into account most of the considerations of the Association, identifies measures aimed at improving the attractiveness of ELTIFs by making them more flexible, in terms of investment policy and redemption policies, and more accessible to retail investors. However, with reference to the abovementioned topics, Assogestioni has some considerations that are better detailed in the Position Paper attached to this feedback.
Read full response

Response to Alternative Investment Fund Managers – review of EU rules

24 Mar 2022

Overall, Assogestioni welcomes the Commission’s proposal for the revision of the AIFM and UCITS Directives, except for some considerations with reference to the new proposals on the subject of a) delegation; b) loan originating funds; c) liquidity management tools; d) supervisory reporting; e) disclosure to professional investors. For more details, please see the Position Paper attached to this feedback.
Read full response

Response to EU Anti-money laundering supervisor

29 Nov 2021

Assogestioni supports the European Commission's approach of ensuring harmonised rules throughout the internal market with the proposed Regulation (AML Regulation) and establishing a new Authority for Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism (AMLA). The lack of a harmonised regulatory framework has led to significant differences in the application of AML/CTF obligations and has created uneven conditions of competition by giving an advantage to obligated entities established in Member States with less strict rules. For that reason, we welcome the European Commission's proposals for greater harmonisation of Customer Due Diligence (CDD) measures, including more detailed rules to identify the beneficial owner(s) of corporate and other legal entities. A clearer set of rules, including directly applicable provisions, will ensure more consistent application of the framework. Assogestioni also agrees with the approach of giving AMLA the task of issuing RTS, ITS and guidelines to detail CDD, third-party performance and outsourcing measures. In this regard, we believe that for the appropriate application of the AML rules, it is crucial that the delegated acts on CDD and third-party performance should take into account the characteristics and distribution models of investment funds, in order to achieve a clear and proportionate regulatory framework with respect to the level of risk of these products. For that reason, it is vital that the staff of AMLA include experts from the asset management industry and from the competent departments in this field of existing supervisory Authorities. Only in this way the new Authority will be able to take appropriately into account the sector-specific business models of the asset management industry in both supervisory and regulatory activities.
Read full response

Response to Revision of EU rules on Anti-Money Laundering (new instrument)

18 Nov 2021

Please see our attached response
Read full response

Response to Quick Fix to the UCITS Directive

9 Sept 2021

Assogestioni welcomes the opportunity to provide feedback on the Commission’s proposal of amending Directive 2009/65/EC regarding the use of key information documents by management companies of undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITS). We strongly welcome the proposal that avoids the coexistence of the PRIIPs KID and the UCITS KIID which would have a negative outcome in terms of overall clarity and understandability of the EU disclosure requirements with two different pre-contractual information documents to made available to investors from the end of the exemption period referred to in Article 32 of the PRIIPs Regulation. However, we invite the European Commission to go further to ensure a level playing field for all market actors and remove all obstacles to the internal market for financial services and products. In the absence of further changes or clarification to the UCITS Directive, only manufacturers subject both to PRIIPs Regulation and UCITS Directive must provide a PRIIPs KID for professional investors and probably keep updating the main elements of the key information for UCITS no longer offered to the public. Therefore, we urge the Commission to tackle the two misalignments between the UCITS and the PRIIPs framework. In line with the PRIIPs regulation, it should be: - reconsidered the need for the professional investor to receive any KI(I)D, especially a KIID, and - clarified the pre-contractual function of the KIID, to avoid updating a KID for UCITS no longer marketed to the public. As regard the timing for the transitional arrangements referred to in Article 32 and the synchronization of dates between UCITS and PRIIPS framework, we appreciate the proposal, but we believe essential to maintain at least a twelve-month period for the practical implementation of the amended technical provisions. Please find attached detailed comments and proposed amendments to the UCITS Directive.
Read full response

Response to Quick fix to the PRIIPs Regulation

9 Sept 2021

Assogestioni thanks for the opportunity to provide feedback on the proposal for a regulation amending Regulation (EU) No 1286/2014 as regards the extension of the transitional arrangement for management companies, investment companies and persons advising on, or selling, units of undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITS) and non-UCITS. The proposed regulation provides for an extension of 6 months (from 31 December 2021 to 30 June 2022) of the transitional regime to ensure legal certainty for the sector and the competent authorities in the preparation phase for the application of the new rules of the amended delegated regulation (EU) 2017/653 and amended Directive 2009/65/EC. We appreciate and strongly support the need to synchronize the application dates of the discipline. However, the delay in the adoption (and publication) of the amendments of the delegated regulation (EU) 2017/653, based on the draft regulatory technical standards jointly presented by the ESAs on February 3, 2021, reduce the implementation period of the new regulation. This leave PRIIP manufacturers and distributors available a period shorter than the originally envisaged term of twelve months. More time is needed for practical implementation. The changes require significant implementation efforts involving numerous departments and expertise. Furthermore, the PRIIP value chain involves many stakeholders who are dependent on each other. For example, many PRIIPs offered by insurance firms have investment funds as their underlying and require data and documents produced by the providers of such funds to comply with the PRIIPs Regulation. Since the new rules will be applied simultaneously to both parties, this requires a long structural dialogue between them to agree on data exchanges. To ensure an orderly and regular implementation and application of the revised delegated regulation, we hope that an implementation period of at least 12 months is maintained and therefore that it is adequate as soon as possible, and in any case before 31 December 2021, the deadline for the proposed exemption. To this end, we propose for an extension until 31 December 2022 (Option 1) or, if there is room for further reflections, an extension of the deadline of 35 working days beyond 31 December 2022 (Option 2). Option 2 would allow an orderly transition from the UCITS KIID to the PRIIPs KID as the replacement would take place on the annual update of the UCITS KIID, if the UCITS KIID rules were still in effect . The proposal ensures the presentation to investors of the updated results of the year just ended and avoids the preparation of two different KI(I)Ds in the course of 2022 (a UCITS KIID at the beginning of the year and a PRIIPs KID in the second part of the year) with the consequences implications for all the actors involved. Should the need for more time for practical implementation be shared, please also note that it is also important to coordinate L1 e L2 as well. Article 14(2) of the current PRIIPs RTS, as currently stated in Article 18, allows insurers to use the UCITS KIIDs for the provision of information on underlying funds for MOPs until 31 December 2021. With the new published RTS adopted by the Commission, it is proposed to extend such deadline to 30 June 2022 (Article 1(13) and Article 2). Therefore, a further quick amendment of the L2 text may be required if the new adopted RTS cannot be amended in time for their publication in the Official Journal of the European Union before 31 December 2021. We reiterate, therefore, the importance of having an orderly transition from the UCITS KIID to the PRIIPs KID. Please see the file attached for more information on the possible amendments of L1 proposed.
Read full response

Response to COM Delegated Regulation specifying the information referred to in art. 65.9 of the PEPP Regulation

18 Dec 2020

Assogestioni’s response to the European Commission’s consultation on the draft of delegated regulation supplementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1238 with regard to product intervention Assogestioni, the Italian Investment Management Association, welcomes the opportunity to reply to the European Commission consultation on the draft delegated regulation supplementing Regulation (EU) n. 2019/1238 with regard to product intervention. Since the outset, Assogestioni has been a strong supporter of creating a framework for a pan-European Personal Pension Product (PEPP). At this stage we believe that the delegated acts of the PEPP regulation should ensure an effective level playing field between providers. We appreciate that the factors to be applied by EIOPA to monitor the market for PEPPs shall include the costs of capital guarantees in the case of Basic PEPP. In this regard, article 1.1 m) of the draft regulation sets out that EIOPA shall consider the pricing and associated costs of PEPP, taking into account the following: (i) the use of hidden or secondary charges; (ii) charges that do not reflect the level of service provided; (iii) the costs of guarantees or costs that do not reflect the actual cost or the fair value of the capital guarantee in the case of a Basic PEPP Nonetheless, we believe it is important that the delegated regulation establishes a clear and transparent methodology for assessing the fairness of the pricing of the capital guarantee provided. The Regulatory Technical Standards (RTS) submitted by EIOPA to the Commission on 14 august 2020 sets out that the cost of guarantees is excluded from the cost cap for the Basic PEPP. In our opinion, the exclusion of the cost of guarantees from the fee cap would distort the level playing field between PEPP providers especially in the absence of criteria on how to price and implement long-term guarantees correctly. This would create an incentive for providers offering a capital guarantee to shift a portion of the other costs (which should be included in the fee cap) to the cost of the guarantee. Furthermore art. 12.5 of the RTS sets that “where relevant, the PEPP provider shall be able to provide evidence that the respective costs are directly linked to the capital guarantee request by the national competent authority or EIOPA”. Without a harmonized methodology the national competent authorities (NCAs) would have to adopt their own criteria to assess the evidence provided by PEPP providers and this would lead to different standards at a national level. For that reason, we believe that it is crucial to develop a harmonized, robust, clear and transparent methodology on how to define the price of long-term guarantees, enabling EIOPA and NCAs to check the fairness of the pricing of the capital guarantee provided.
Read full response

Response to Capital markets – research on small and mid-sized companies and fixed income (updated rules in light of the COVID-19 pandemic)

11 Sept 2020

Assogestioni, the Italian investment management association , share the objective of the Commission to contribute to a wider research coverage for SMEs and increase their visibility for investors. The amendment of the current regime for research on small and mid-cap issuers with the introduction of an optional regime and a broader definition of an SME are positive steps forward. Available SME research stimulates institutional investors’ interest in SMEs stocks and thus supports secondary market liquidity. Assogestioni also welcomes the proposals to adapt the regime applied on research on fixed income instruments. We agree with the Commission’s point that, as research costs on fixed income are not embedded in spreads, introducing the unbundling rules added to compliance costs and let to additional fees required to obtain research. However, the proposed changes lead to challenges and several practical and interpretative questions. To avoid further regulatory complexity and drawback, we believe it is important to alleviate the administrative burden in the practical application, which could increase compliance costs and deprive the intended rule-change of much of its useful effect. Finally, as this proposal alone may not have the expected impact, we support the Commission continuing its work to enhance the visibility of small and mid-cap issuers and to make public listing more attractive to SME. Detailed comments on the proposal The optional regime. We find valuable the optionality of the regime proposed. Asset managers should not be obliged to manage in parallel a bundled regime for SMEs and fixed income instruments and an unbundled regime for the rest of their assets in portfolio. The definition of SME. The proposal states that “the research is exclusively provided on issuers which did not exceed a market capitalisation of EUR 1 billion during a period of 12 months preceding the provision of the research” (Article 1(10)(a)). As regards the size threshold, we support the higher amount of 1 billion, which captures more companies than the MiFID SME definition. However, a still higher threshold is advisable based on the market structure in several member-states. If the market capitalisation threshold is set too low, this could reduce the interest of institutional investors, given that they typically don’t invest much into very small cap names. Regarding the timing of the threshold calculation, it is unclear how the determination should be made: referring to a specific point of time or to an ongoing (rolling) basis. This led to several practical and interpretative questions. In order to minimize set-up costs and the regulatory burdens, and thus make the proposal more attractive, ESMA should be empowered to provide, and annually update, a list of qualified SMEs meeting their national threshold. The threshold should be assessed at the last (trading) day of the year and allow for new companies below the threshold coming to the market during the year. The regime for fixed income instruments. We support the Commission when it recognises that trading in fixed income instruments is fundamentally different from equity trading and bid-ask spreads did not change. With this in mind, we suggest to change the definition of “research” in recital 28 to make clear that “research” for the purposes of the unbundling regime described in article 13, is research on instruments capable of trading on a bundled basis, i.e. equities. In any case, it is unclear how the requirement for the application of the derogation (Article 1(11)(a)) could apply to fixed income instruments. To facilitate implementation, we believe that this condition should only apply on research on SMEs. It should also be clarified that the reference to “fixed income instruments” implies that all research on issuers referring to fixed instruments fall within the scope of application.
Read full response

Response to New competition tool

30 Jun 2020

Assogestioni is the Italian investment management association. Assogestioni’s membrs include UCITS managers, AIFs, portfolio managers and open-ended pension schemes. Assogestioni represents the interests of all Italian investment managers and the majority of foreign investment managers operating in Italy, consisting in more than 60 investment groups managing assets in excess of 2.2 trillion Euros. The mission of Assogestioni is to promote growth and innovation in the asset management industry through the development of efficient regulation and market conditions and the promotion of high standards of investor protection. Since 1984, Assogestioni has been representing the interests of the industry towards institutions and market authorities, actively contributing to the debate on regulation at the domestic and European level. Assogestioni’s ID number in the EU Transparency Register is 89046007765-76. For more information, please visit www.assogestioni.it. Assogestioni supports the EU Commission inception impact assessment as well as the public consultation inviting comments on the need for a possible New Competition Tool that would allow addressing structural competition problems in a timely and effective manner. The rapid digitalisation of society and the economy is creating new risks to fair competition in both digital and non-digital markets, by making it easier for market power to become concentrated in the hands of those companies best able to monitor their customers and competitors’ behaviour. This initiative is also of relevance to the financial services sector and the buy-side companies represented by our association. The buyside associations AFG, Assogestioni and BVI as well as EFAMA previously communicated to the Commission the risks to competition in the financial services area created by digital platforms, financial market data sources and the market data distributors. We therefore support a New Competition Tool which should not solely apply to the digital sector, but should have a broader application to other sectors, including the financial services sector. We especially support the idea behind the new competition law tool to enable the Commission to intervene before the „tipping“ of a market to occur, i.e. the intervention point where a company in a network or platform market takes almost the entire market share due to its network and access to data and customers (Option 3). Under today's tool kid, that the Commission can only intervene after a company became market dominant, and then its powers are restricted to the classical competition law tools, which are too limited to deal effectively with single- and double-sided digital data platforms. Digital markets develop very quickly, and network effects can easily lead to monopolies or almost-monopolies where the company with the network advantage can dictate how the entire market works. The most common example is Google which became the common search engine and later started to monopolise downstream and neighbouring markets, such as shopping tools and internet advertising. Another example is Amazon which uses its dealers’ data to boost its own brands and sales. But also, the proposed merger of an exchange and benchmark provider, LSE/FTSE with the second largest market data distributor globally, Refinitiv, raises concerns for the digital economy. The EU Commission has issued statements both on Amazon and LSE/Refinitiv recently. The new tool will limit the risks that the competition authorities step in too late going forward.
Read full response

Meeting with Andrea Beltramello (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Valdis Dombrovskis)

20 Nov 2019 · Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive review, European Long-term Investment Funds

Meeting with Andrea Beltramello (Cabinet of Vice-President Valdis Dombrovskis)

7 Feb 2019 · Sustainable Finance, ESAs Review, Capital Market Union, PRIIPs

Meeting with Valérie Herzberg (Cabinet of Vice-President Jyrki Katainen) and European Express Association

3 Dec 2014 · Capital Markets Union

Meeting with Nathalie De Basaldua Lemarchand (Cabinet of Commissioner Jonathan Hill)

2 Dec 2014 · Introductory Meeting