OpenLobby.EU
Explore

Bundesverband für strukturierte Wertpapiere

BSW

Der Bundesverband für strukturierte Wertpapiere (BSW) ist die Branchenvertretung der 15 führenden Emittenten derivativer Wertpapiere in Deutschland.

Lobbying Activity

Meeting with Tatyana Panova (Head of Unit Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union)

8 Dec 2025 · Discussion on PFOF

Response to Recommendation on savings and investment accounts

8 Jul 2025

The German Structured Securities Association (Bundesverband für strukturierte Wertpapiere, BSW) welcomes the opportunity to respond to the European Commissions call for evidence for a recommendation on savings and investment accounts. Please find attached our response to the call for evidence.
Read full response

Response to Revision of EU rules on sustainable finance disclosure

28 May 2025

The German Structured Securities Association (Bundesverband für strukturierte Wertpapiere, BSW) welcomes the opportunity to respond to the European Commissions call for evidence for an impact assessment on the revision of the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR). Please find attached our response to the call for evidence.
Read full response

Response to Savings and Investments Union

5 Mar 2025

BSW believes that there is an urgent need to improve the existing securities services regulatory framework to attract more retail investors to invest their savings in the EU capital market. Currently, a large proportion of EU citizens' savings are either not invested in securities at all or invested in securities of non-EU countries. Therefore, it is important to ensure that EU companies can be provided with the capital they urgently need for their transformation, and, simultaneously, that investors can generate long-term returns on their savings enabling them to build up wealth for their retirement. We have noted with great interest the guidelines provided by President Ursula von der Leyen. We would like to point out that we support the request that regulation should be less bureaucratic and that new proposals should be evidence-based. The fact that this is emphasized by the President confirms our perception that the approach was different in the past. An illustration of severe shortcomings in this regard is, e,g., the Retail Investment Strategy. Preparatory studies commissioned by the EC contradicted research conducted by the industry itself. Methodological questions remained unanswered or only covered part of the addressed regulatory issues. In particular, the draft Value for Money requirements do not appear to have been sufficiently evaluated. Another example of missing careful evaluation and triggering massive consequences is the payment for order flow (PFOF) ban. Even the German supervisory authority BaFin concluded in its study 2022 that for smaller order volumes, in particular, the execution of retail originating orders on PFOF trading venues was predominantly beneficial and transaction costs were better (read lower) than on the reference markets. The MiFID ruleset came into force more than 20 years ago. Against this background, it would be a good opportunity to start a thorough, scientifically safeguarded and research-based analysis of how the number of retail investors and the assets they invest in has developed. In Germany, the number of securities accounts has fluctuated constantly between 30 and 35 million over the last 20 years. However, there have been some shifts. The number of securities accounts at online and neo-brokers has increased sharply in recent years, currently around 12 million according to a BSW survey. Many of these online and neo-brokers have been able to offer very favorable conditions based on PFOF-generated income. Investors who were able to trade for one euro or even free of charge without having a lower quality of execution of their orders made increased use of these options. Given this positive experience for retail investors, the restrictive PFOF ban introduced in March 2024 is entirely inconsistent with the EU Commission's objective of providing easy and affordable access to capital markets. Therefore, the PFOF ban should be lifted. BSW proposals Postpone draft regulations based on the Retail Investment Strategy. No regulations should come into force that will quite likely be modified in the course of the SIU. Conduct a thorough and unbiased impact assessment of retail investment behavior that also takes into account the competitiveness in comparison to non-EU capital markets. Recalibration of level 1, 2 and 3 and the role of ESAs: The provisions of level 1 should be formulated in more specific terms, in order to allow harmonized interpretation by the ESAs, but not to provide the ESAs the ability to create de facto regulations themselves. Market-driven solutions must take precedence over highly regulated instruments. Plans for a simple product should be abandoned. Simple does not mean free of risk. Retail investors should have barrier-free access to capital markets. For more detail of the BSW position reference is made to the attached pdf-document.
Read full response

Meeting with Joachim Schuster (Member of the European Parliament)

29 Aug 2023 · retail investment strategy

Response to Retail Investment Package

28 Aug 2023

DDV (Deutscher Derivate Verband) appreciates the efforts of the European Commission (EC) to progress towards more protection, and further facilitation and empowerment of retail investors in its proposal for an Omnibus Directive as regards the strengthening of Union retail investor protection rules. To achieve these objectives, a cross-sectoral approach, in particular through aligning the MiFID II and the IDD, is highly welcomed. Facilitating access to the category of professional clients on request is going in a positive direction, as well as a required high level of qualification for advisors and the strengthening of financial education. Furthermore, the necessary catch up of the regulatory framework with digital developments is well reflected. It is also comforting that additional competences are granted to supervisory authorities to act against unregulated players who act unfairly. The efforts to reduce the information overload are laudable but should be taken a step further. Other aspects of the EC proposal deserve further reflection to avoid a counterproductive outcome. Although DDV welcomes the recognition by the EC that a full ban on inducements would have significant unforeseeable effects, it takes a critical view on the partial ban of inducements on non-advised business. This would lead for the retail clients to negative consequences such as the reduction of the product range, the increase of costs, thereby potentially nudging them out of the regulated sphere where they will face riskier and potentially fraudulent offers. Therefore the ban should not affect the entire non-advised business, but only the pure execution-only business (Art. 25 (4) MiFID II). The design of an added-value test may also be contemplated. In the context of inducements, the replacement of a quality enhancement test with a best interest test should not focus only on costs and poses many practical questions, which will require clarification. The Value for Money (VfM) proposal, which has rightly been integrated in the Product Governance process, poses many questions. In case such approach would be pursued, it should be principle-based with a clear frame for Level 2 and details established in cooperation with the industry. A differentiated and proportionate approach should be followed, with exemptions or adapted regimes for financial instruments with specificities. This should include qualitative elements and foresee streamlined reporting obligations. The differences between advised and non-advised services should be reflected. The creation of regulator-defined cost and performance benchmarks in particular may give rise to many hurdles, ranging from the respect of the free competition principle (with the risk of price regulation) to their challenging set up (linked in particular to the high number of products and diversity). They should at least be defined in collaboration between the national competent authorities and the industry. Mechanisms which have proved their value should not be transformed for the mere sake of change. DDV sees the introduction of the assessment of the capacity to bear losses in the appropriateness test as an intrusive and impractical approach. The warnings regarding particularly risky products already exist and function properly; DDV stands ready for an open and constructive dialogue with ESMA in case works regarding a more granular definition would be carried out. To conclude, some proposals are difficult to assess, as their details will be ironed out at Level 2. Clear guidance at Level 1 should be set and supervisory authorities should involve the industry in the design of Level 2 provisions. DDV would like to plead for an entry into force after the final Level 2 measures are taken, due to the numerous and simultaneous necessary developments.
Read full response

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

7 Mar 2023

The DDV welcomes the opportunity to provide input on the European Commissions proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulations (EU) 2017/1129, (EU) No 596/2014 and (EU) No 600/2014 to make public capital markets in the Union more attractive for companies and to facilitate access to capital for small and medium-sized enterprises (PR II which is part of the Listing Act Package). For further details, please refer to our feedback in the attached file.
Read full response

Meeting with Andrea Beltramello (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Valdis Dombrovskis) and Bundesverband deutscher Banken e.V. and

18 Jan 2023 · Retail investment strategy. ETFs.

Meeting with Florian Denis (Cabinet of Commissioner Mairead Mcguinness) and Association Française des Marchés Financiers

11 Dec 2020 · PRIIPS

Response to Strengthening the consideration of sustainability risks and factors for financial products (Regulation (EU) 2017/565)

6 Jul 2020

The DDV welcomes the opportunity to provide comment on the present consultation on integrating sustainability factors and preferences into the product governance obligations in MiFID II. The DDV recognises that aligning the real economy with sustainability is one of the most important and demanding challenges facing today’s international community. Given the central role of financial markets, it is understandable that they have been identified as a potentially effective mechanism to reach this objective. The members of the DDV are willing to contribute to this objective and have been actively involved in setting standards for sustainable investment products for almost two years. Our main positions in this consulation are the following:  - Requirements for suitability and product governance go hand in hand and should not be dealt with separately.  - Structured products de facto fall under the SFDR, however they have yet to be specifically considered.  - The introduction of a new product category “through the backdoor” should be avoided.  - The consistency of regulation needs to be ensured, including the order in which regulation is introduced. Please find attached our DDV position paper which included a detailed description of the above positions.
Read full response