OpenLobby.EU
Explore

European Fund and Asset Management Association

EFAMA

EFAMA represents the European fund and asset management industry, advocating for regulations that support long-term investments and investor value.

Lobbying Activity

Meeting with Helene Bussieres (Head of Unit Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union)

8 Jan 2026 · Market integration and supervision package – comments on asset management

Meeting with John Berrigan (Director-General Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union) and

5 Dec 2025 · Reporting under Article 7d of EMIR (Regulation (EU) No 648/2012)

Meeting with Philippe Thill (Cabinet of Commissioner Maria Luís Albuquerque) and Invest Europe and

28 Nov 2025 · Exchange on the development of Level 2 and 3 measures in the area of AML.

Meeting with Philippe Thill (Cabinet of Commissioner Maria Luís Albuquerque)

17 Oct 2025 · Exchange on the Retail Investment Strategy

Meeting with Helene Bussieres (Head of Unit Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union)

16 Oct 2025 · Future policy and regulatory developments on the SFDR, SIU review, UCITS and ELTIF

EFAMA Urges EU to Simplify Overlapping Digital Financial Rules

14 Oct 2025
Topic — The European Commission is seeking to simplify and streamline its digital regulatory framework.
Message — EFAMA calls for AI Act implementation that avoids duplicating existing financial sector obligations. They request clear distinctions between AI providers and deployers to reduce regulatory friction. The group also advocates for simplified cybersecurity reporting templates and extended filing deadlines.123
Why — This approach would significantly lower compliance costs and reduce fragmentation across digital legislation.45
Impact — Supervisory authorities may lose the granular data needed to monitor systemic risks effectively.6
Read full response

Meeting with Sven Gentner (Head of Unit Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union) and BNP PARIBAS

7 Oct 2025 · CSRD/ESRS

Meeting with Ralf Seekatz (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur) and AMUNDI AM

6 Oct 2025 · Verbriefung

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

25 Sept 2025 · Regulatory developments relevant for the asset management sector

Meeting with Tilman Lueder (Head of Unit Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union)

24 Sept 2025 · Board on pensions reform

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

18 Jul 2025

EFAMA welcomes the European Commissions Call for Evidence on Supplementary Pensions and supports the Savings and Investments Unions goals to develop supplementary pensions and to provide savers with adequate retirement investment opportunities. Improving transparency for savers Transparency is key to raising awareness about the importance of investing and enabling individuals to make informed decisions for retirement. Pension Tracking Systems (PTS) are important tools to do so. We advocate for: Developing PTSs in all Member States and across all pillars (state, occupational, and personal) to provide a holistic view of retirement income, while recognising that integrating personal pension data may be challenging depending on national market structures. PTS must be clear, concise, and user-friendly. A limited set of indicators, such as savings, contributions, and projected retirement income, will help savers monitor their retirement outlook and stay engaged with the platform without being overwhelmed. Improving transparency for Member States Pension dashboards help Member States assess pension adequacy and coverage, allowing them to identify gaps and tailor effective policies. To maximise their impact, dashboards should: Build on existing EU reports (Pension Adequacy, Ageing, and Fiscal Sustainability); which provide insights on Member States retirement systems but lack complete data on supplementary pensions. Ensure data comparability across Member States to support the development of a consistent, EU-wide dashboard. Supporting auto-enrolment mechanisms We encourage the EU and Member States to advance auto-enrolment in occupational pensions. This approach has proven highly effective in increasing citizens participation in such schemes. We recommend: Designing default schemes using life-cycle investment strategies, taking higher risks early in careers and shifting to more conservative allocations near retirement. Phased implementation, starting with larger employers and progressing to smaller ones, along with gradual contributions increases. Minimum contribution levels to ensure adequate retirement outcomes. Attractive tax incentives to encourage participation from both employees and employers. Discouraging opt-outs and early withdrawals, while allowing temporary contribution reductions. Revamping the PEPP We support the Commissions plans to revise the PEPP. To do so, the following barriers to its uptake should be addressed: Removing the 1% fee cap. Promoting life-cycle strategies for the Basic PEPP without imposing the current overly restrictive risk-mitigation techniques and stochastic modelling requirements. Allowing Basic PEPPs to be offered without mandatory financial advice. Making national subaccounts optional to reduce administrative burdens and encouraging market entry. PEPPs should benefit from the same tax benefits as national pension products. PEPP providers should be allowed to offer PEPPs as an occupational pension, which could serve as a complementary option to existing occupational pension schemes. This will expand coverage and increase demand for PEPPs. Reviewing the IORP II Directive The review of the IORP II Directive is an opportunity to improve IORPs capacity to invest productively, generate greater long-term value to members and beneficiaries, and improve operational efficiency. We recommend: Promoting life-cycle strategies in defined contribution schemes. Encouraging portfolio diversification, including allocations to equity and alternative assets where relevant, while ensuring investment decisions remain the responsibility of fiduciaries. Recognising the benefits of scale, which can lower costs and improve governance, risk management, and portfolio diversification. Improving cross-border activity by reducing the regulatory burdens on cross-border IORPs. Integrating IORPs into national PTSs to improve transparency on retirement savings.
Read full response

EFAMA Urges EU-Wide Savings Accounts with Substantial Tax Incentives

7 Jul 2025
Topic — The consultation explores a European blueprint for savings and investment accounts to boost retail participation.
Message — EFAMA calls for savings accounts that support a long-term perspective and provide access to a broad range of assets. They advocate for significant tax incentives and simplified reporting to encourage regular investment habits among retail savers.123
Why — The association's members would see increased assets under management by channeling retail savings into diverse investment products.45
Impact — National tax authorities may lose revenue from dividends and capital gains due to proposed tax exemptions.6
Read full response

Meeting with Sven Gentner (Head of Unit Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union)

3 Jul 2025 · EFAMA views on ESRS and VSME

Meeting with Stéphanie Yon-Courtin (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur)

6 Jun 2025 · Retail Investment Strategy

EFAMA Urges EU to Recognize Asset Management as Strategic AI Sector

4 Jun 2025
Topic — A consultation on boosting industrial AI adoption and competitiveness across strategic European sectors.
Message — Financial services should be formally recognised as a strategic sector within the strategy. The Commission must ensure simplification and alignment between the AI Act and existing financial frameworks. EFAMA recommends developing sector-specific financial data spaces to unlock untapped AI potential.12
Why — Strategic recognition would lower compliance costs and unlock massive AI-driven productivity gains for managers.3
Impact — Privacy organizations lose out as EFAMA seeks more flexible interpretations of data protection rules.4
Read full response

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

2 Jun 2025 · Exchange with asset managers on the integration of EU capital market

Meeting with Nicolo Brignoli (Cabinet of Commissioner Valdis Dombrovskis) and Insurance Europe and

22 Apr 2025 · FIDA

Meeting with Jessika Roswall (Commissioner) and

28 Mar 2025 · Roundtable “Investing in Water Resilience”

EFAMA urges alignment between corporate reporting and investor needs

26 Mar 2025
Topic — This initiative seeks to simplify and reduce costs of EU Taxonomy reporting for companies.
Message — EFAMA demands that corporate data reductions are reflected in investor requirements to maintain regulatory consistency. They oppose an opt-in regime for partial reporting to avoid information gaps. Simplification should focus on removing irrelevant data rather than exempting entire companies.123
Why — Aligning reporting rules prevents asset managers from having to estimate missing corporate sustainability data.45
Impact — Reduced reporting limits transparency for retail investors seeking to align their portfolios with green goals.67
Read full response

Meeting with Leonie Bell (Head of Unit Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union)

14 Mar 2025 · Integrated reporting

Meeting with Larisa Dragomir (Cabinet of Commissioner Maria Luís Albuquerque), Riikka Torppa (Cabinet of Commissioner Maria Luís Albuquerque)

12 Mar 2025 · Exchange on relevant market and regulatory developments

Meeting with Tilman Lueder (Head of Unit Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union)

7 Mar 2025 · Pan-European Pensions Product (PEPP)

Meeting with Tatyana Panova (Head of Unit Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union) and BVI Bundesverband Investment und Asset Management e.V.

5 Mar 2025 · Discussion on the ESMA’s final report regarding transparency requirements for bonds

Meeting with Maria Raffaella Assetta (Head of Unit Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union) and Insurance Europe and

4 Mar 2025 · EU financial services industry associations debrief on EU-UK Financial Regulatory Forum

Response to Savings and Investments Union

3 Mar 2025

EFAMA reiterates its unwavering support for the SIU projecttogether with the simplification objectiveas essential to restoring the EUs competitiveness. As highlighted by the Letta and Draghi reports, the EU and Member States urgently need to act together to develop deeper and more integrated capital markets and address the significant savings and investments mismatch in the EU. Asset managers, as key allocators of capital, stand ready to play their part. Mobilising EU savings more effective A necessary condition for the SIU Strategy to succeed is to turn more EU citizens into investors and promote an investment culture that empowers them to confidently take ownership of their financial well-being. Instead of creating new simple, low-cost products that already exist and risk damaging the UCITS brand, this can be achieved by: - Substantially simplifying the investors journey starting with the RIS, which, in its current form, does exactly the opposite by introducing new complexities and regulatory burdens and puts an excessive focus on costs - improving financial literacy and the understanding of the benefits of investing - preserving access to professional advice for all investors - boosting retirement savings by informing citizens about their expected retirement income (pension tracking systems), implementing auto-enrolment mechanisms for occupational pension schemes - supporting long-term savings through adequate tax incentives - Encouraging Member States to establish investment savings accounts that are easy to use (building on digital solutions) and offer access to a broad range of investments (including UCITS and other investment funds) - Conducting a PEPP review to reduce the costs of production, advice, and administration and increase its potential market Making more investments available for EU companies The EU economy would benefit from developing alternative sources of financing for companies. We see ELTIFs 2.0 and Loan-originating AIFs as very effective financing tools, in particular for innovative start-ups and scale-ups. Likewise, revitalising the securitisation market in Europe will not only expand investment opportunities by providing investors with diversified, high-quality assets but also strengthen Europes capital markets by improving access to financing for EU businesses. Fostering greater market integration and efficiency in capital markets While greater market integration is not an end in itself, it is essential to tackle regulatory barriers and rent-seeking behaviors in infrastructure services that contribute to persistent market fragmentation and higher costs for all users. The goal is to increase genuine competition in our markets while eliminating national obstacles and promoting interoperability. Market efficiency would greatly benefit from: - A substantial reduction of duplicative reporting requirements - Increased EU regulatory consistency, e.g., in sustainable finance - Establishing a Consolidated Tape delivering on its promise of becoming the golden source of reasonably priced, quality data - Taking bold measures to address the ever-increasing cost and reliability of market and ESG data, starting by strictly enforcing existing rules on data costs and encouraging competitive and efficient markets for the provision of data, along with proper regulation of benchmark administrators - Recognising the transformative power of DLT in reducing costs and improving efficiency throughout the value chain, while expanding the range of investments that are accessible to retail investors - Bring down remaining tax barriers to EU cross-border investments, e.g. by facilitating WHT reclaims across EU MS - Removing gold-plating barriers to the cross-border distribution of funds Enhancing supervisory arrangements Supervisory authorities should prioritise achieving greater supervisory convergence by fully using their existing powers and facilitating the exchange of supervisory data across authorities.
Read full response

Meeting with Helene Bussieres (Head of Unit Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union)

25 Feb 2025 · AIFMD/UCITS /Securitisation/MMFR review

Meeting with Maria Raffaella Assetta (Head of Unit Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union) and Insurance Europe and

9 Jan 2025 · EU-UK Financial Regulatory Forum

Meeting with Gilles Boyer (Member of the European Parliament) and Insurance Europe and

3 Dec 2024 · CMU

Meeting with Stéphanie Yon-Courtin (Member of the European Parliament) and Insurance Europe and

3 Dec 2024 · Savings and Investments Union

Meeting with Stéphanie Yon-Courtin (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur)

24 Oct 2024 · Retail Investment Strategy

Response to Applying a unique identifier for public transparency of OTC derivatives

10 Jul 2024

EFAMA supports the decision taken by the EU Commission in this proposed Delegated Act (DA) to mandate that MiFIR transparency requirements for OTC interest rate swaps (IRS) and OTC credit default swaps (CDS) shall be fulfilled by using a newly modified International Securities and Identification Number (ISIN) code. We also generally agree with the chosen set of relevant identifying reference data prescribed for these ISINs. We are especially supportive of the following elements of the proposed DA: Inclusion of the ISO 4914 Unique Product Identifier (UPI) code among the ISIN product attributes. This decision is receptive to the industrys requirement to move towards a more UPI-style derivatives identifier. We also understand the Derivatives Service Bureau (DSB) has already implemented this change and therefore this proposal involves no change to the existing OTC ISIN. Elimination of the daily rolling of the OTC ISIN for IRS products. This modification to the OTC ISIN will result in a more stable identifier for regulatory reporting. Continued inclusion of Term of Contract attribute (field 17 of Table 1) in whole year terms, allowing more easily for identification of the swap being traded and priced. We would still like to bring the EU Commissions attention to certain elements of the proposal on which we believe further calibration is needed: The additional stable attributes (fields 19 32 of Table 1) should not result in increased complexity in IT systems for the processing of OTC ISINs. We do agree that precisely identifying those OTC IRS that follow standard market convention is important to increase transparency and data quality. However, asset managers most often trade in IRSs following normal market conventions. Populating these fields could be problematic considering these values are not stored in their IT system. Updating these IT systems to store these values and populating these new fields would be overly costly for asset managers. We believe this issue could be best resolved if the DSB were to simplify the processing of such OTC ISINs, in particular by providing default values for these attributes. Transparency would be improved if different forward starting IRS received their own OTC ISIN. The way we interpret the Forward Term Indicator (field 18 of Table 1) is that it would not allow for different forward swaps to be distinguished (e.g., a 5Y IRS starting in 5 years would have the same ISIN as a 5 Y IRS starting in 2 years). This modification would make distinguishing the prices of such different IRS easier. Lastly, we would like to state that we strongly agree that the same OTC ISIN should apply across transparency, transaction reporting and EMIR requirements in order to reduce the cost of regulatory compliance for our members. Furthermore, we also support consistency in the use of OTC ISIN across different jurisdictions (notably the EU and the UK) to streamline the fulfilment of reporting requirements for those market participants who are subject to both EU and UK rules.
Read full response

Meeting with Gilles Boyer (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur) and Deutsche Börse AG

24 Jan 2024 · BMR

Response to Review of the scope and third-country regime of the Benchmark Regulation

23 Jan 2024

EFAMA supports the spirit of the revisions to the Benchmarks Regulation which seek to introduce greater proportionality into the regulation of index providers. We believe more proportionate rules would ensure the integrity of indices without disproportionately increasing costs for investors and hampering investment strategies, while also ensuring EU market participants have continued access to non-EU benchmarks on which they rely heavily. However, we believe the proposal goes much further than necessary by removing all non-significant benchmarks from the scope of the text the correct balance would best be struck by retaining certain minimum safeguards applicable to non-significant benchmarks for the protection of users and end investors.
Read full response

Response to Reporting reduction package - amendments to the ESA, ESRB and InvestEU Regulations

22 Dec 2023

The European Fund and Asset Management Association (EFAMA) welcomes the proposed Reporting Reduction Package, which will contribute to a reduction in the reporting burden through both better data sharing and the removal of duplications in reporting requirements. In this response, we recommend that the European Commission ensure that reporting duplications are not introduced in new policy initiatives or during on-going legislative reviews. We also recommend that the Commission promote a more systematic form of data exchange between public authorities supervising the financial sector, guaranteeing that financial institutions report supervisory data only once. Finally, as better regulation is essential for the development of effective public policies, we welcome that the Commission will have access to the supervisory information it needs to develop, or review, pieces of EU legislation. Following this same logic, we would also recommend that the Commission ensure that trade associations such as EFAMA have access to similar supervisory information in support of their evidence-based advocacy. These recommendations are further set out in the attached document.
Read full response

Response to Regulations specifying criteria and fees for the critical ICT third-party service providers in the financial sector

14 Dec 2023

The direct oversight of critical ICT third-party service providers (CTTPs) by one of the ESAs, as prescribed by DORA, will have significant impact on the further development of the European market of ICT services. With the increasing level of dependence on ICT services, it will also influence the business models of financial entities, with European asset managers among them. It is therefore of the utmost importance that the CTTPs designation process and sub-criteria included therein are well designed and calibrated. EFAMA welcomes the fact that the ESAs in their final Joint Technical Advice and the Commission have already included some of the comments provided by our industry. We would therefore like to concentrate on few remaining issues, with a more holistic approach towards the sub-criteria among them. Please find EFAMAs detailed response in the attached file
Read full response

Meeting with Stéphanie Yon-Courtin (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur)

11 Oct 2023 · Retail investment strategy

European fund managers urge including raw data in ESG rules

1 Sept 2023
Topic — This consultation seeks to improve transparency and reliability within the ESG ratings market.
Message — EFAMA recommends expanding regulation to include raw data providers for better market integrity. They also seek clearer definitions and exemptions for already regulated internal financial models.12
Why — Asset managers would gain legal certainty and protection against liability for unintentional greenwashing.34
Impact — Large ESG data providers would lose revenue from opaque pricing and high fee inflation.5
Read full response

Meeting with Mairead McGuinness (Commissioner) and

18 Jul 2023 · Distribution of Retail financial products

EFAMA warns reporting exemptions will create critical investment data gaps

7 Jul 2023
Topic — The European Commission is setting new sustainability reporting standards for large companies.
Message — EFAMA requests removing assessments for indicators that financial firms need for mandatory reports. They argue climate information is always material and should never be optional for companies.12
Why — Asset managers would avoid legal risks and costs from missing corporate sustainability data.3
Impact — Investors and regulators face higher greenwashing risks from inconsistent corporate sustainability disclosures.4
Read full response

Meeting with Esther De Lange (Member of the European Parliament)

29 Jun 2023 · EMIR - APA

Response to VAT in the Digital Age

3 Apr 2023

EFAMAs members' concerns are limited to the Digital Reporting Requirements (DRRs) (e.g. electronic invoices) that will be introduced. One of the aims of this DRR element of the proposal is to fight tax fraud (which can be hard to happen in transactions that are VAT exempt). We understand that the exemption to issue invoices for exempt supplies will remain available and these rules will not be impacted by the ViDA proposal. The modernisation and simplification of the VAT reporting obligations are to be welcomed by the concerned businesses, such as the investment management sector, but also by tax authorities that, otherwise would have to start handling a huge volume of data that most likely and ultimately would be useless because exempt services are not a source a VAT fraud. We welcome the consistency of the proposal and the fact that VAT-exempt services will not be covered by the new DDR. Hopefully, the requirements that already apply will not be changed by the ViDA proposal. With this solution, the proposal should allow tax authorities to focus on the real risk of tax fraud cases and should not create new burdensome procedures/compliance obligations that would represent new costs that in the end would be imposed on clients/consumers (e.g. end investors) for no reason. At first glance, this important proposal might not have a major impact on our industry that would continue to benefit from the exemption to issue invoices for exempt services of article 220.2 of the VAT Directive, which we understand is not affected by the ViDA proposal and that must be kept otherwise, its suppression would imply an additional administrative burden that would be useless due to the absence of VAT fraud in case of exempt services. Notwithstanding, as some actors in the investment management sector may perform VAT-taxable services (few) and they may have to deal with the new DDR rules we take the opportunity to raise our voice and share the following specific comments on the proposal: - Article 222 The two-day delay to issue and report invoices is extremely short, will lead to many practical difficulties and impose huge investments and will be detrimental to the qualify of the reported information. In this respect, we note that other reporting aimed at fighting against VAT fraud (e.g. DAC7 or Central Electronic System of Payment information (CESOP)) foresee a much longer delay. - Article 223 (to be deleted) Summary invoices must be maintained because they are an extremely useful tool in case of long-term relationships which is typically the case in the investment management industry. The fact that summary invoices are used in the case of long-term relationships indicates that the risk of fraud in these cases is limited. - Article 232 (to be deleted) It is proposed that the authorisation of the customer to accept electronic invoices should be removed as from 1st January [2024 deadline that Member States will have to adopt, publish and apply the ViDA proposal provisions]. This would require that all Member States unanimously agree with this proposal and the issuance of national guidance will be required. Suppliers and customers will need to update their systems and controls to send and receive invoices electronically. Consequently, with these challenges in mind, Member States should consider the introduction of an additional delay of one year and remove the authorisation of the recipient rule only as of 1st January [2025]. The transposition deadlines of the ViDA proposal will be challenging both for Member States and for businesses that should be allowed sufficient time to implement the new rules. We understand that these concerns will be examined in more detail by other affected and/or specialized stakeholders (namely business and tax authorities representatives that will be requested to implement the new rules from an IT perspective).
Read full response

EFAMA urges narrower scope for EU financial benchmark rules

29 Mar 2023
Topic — Reviewing the scope and third-country regime of the European Union Benchmark Regulation.
Message — EFAMA proposes narrowing the regulation to only include strategic benchmarks and making other usage free. They also want to extend the transition period until the end of 2025.12
Why — This allows asset managers to access global indices without facing high compliance costs.3
Impact — Large index providers lose their market advantage over smaller competitors without EU representation.4
Read full response

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

24 Mar 2023 · Retail investment strategy

Meeting with Agnieszka Drzewoska (Cabinet of Commissioner Mairead Mcguinness)

24 Mar 2023 · Retail investment strategy

Response to EMIR Targeted review

20 Mar 2023

Please see our response.
Read full response

Meeting with Florian Denis (Cabinet of Commissioner Mairead Mcguinness) and BlackRock and

20 Feb 2023 · Consolidated tape, MiFIR

Meeting with Frances Fitzgerald (Member of the European Parliament)

11 Nov 2022 · MiFIR review (assistant on behalf of MEP)

Meeting with Axel Voss (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur) and EUROPEAN TRADE UNION CONFEDERATION and

7 Nov 2022 · Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence

EFAMA urges EU to drop new interest deduction limits

29 Jul 2022
Topic — The EU is consulting on reducing the tax bias favoring debt over equity.
Message — EFAMA proposes introducing an equity allowance without additional interest deduction limitations. They suggest making these rules optional to provide flexibility and avoid burdensome compliance. The group also wants the definition of equity extended to include more financial instruments.123
Why — This approach preserves EU competitiveness and allows firms to avoid complex new tax reporting.45
Impact — Investors lose out if strict interest restrictions reduce the profitability of their holdings.6
Read full response

Meeting with Billy Kelleher (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur)

15 Jun 2022 · AIFMD

EFAMA urges dual advice models and aligned financial disclosures

31 May 2022
Topic — European Commission consultation on enhancing retail investor participation in capital markets.
Message — EFAMA supports keeping both commission and fee-based advice models for better accessibility. They propose aligning different financial disclosure rules to remove conflicting information for investors. Additionally, they call for consumer testing before new regulations are finalized.123
Why — The industry would avoid a ban on commissions and reduce regulatory costs.45
Read full response

Response to Central securities depositories – review of EU rules

25 May 2022

EFAMA warmly welcomes the publication of the CSDR Refit proposal. The EC has clearly taken onboard the feedback from market participants on the structural flaws in the design of the mandatory buy-in (MBI) regime and its potential for unintended consequences on capital market efficiency and resilience. It is surprising therefore that the CSDR Refit should contain any provisions for MBIs at all, given the negative impacts that are widely known and understood on bid-offer spreads, on market liquidity and on driving settlement onto non-EU CSDs. At the same time, we recognise and commend the efforts by the EC to address some of the provisions that lacked clarity (buy-in agent) or were simply lacking (pass-on mechanism, exclusion of certain types of transactions, payment symmetry). Despite these improvements, we firmly believe that MBIs, used in a more limited scope and under determined circumstances, are still a tool whose net effect will be negative for European capital markets. We are more apt to support a further recalibration of cash penalties to address any shortfall in settlement efficiency gains than to introduce mandatory buy-ins in Europe. Further increases in penalty rates should be the required next step in finetuning the settlement discipline regime. An increase in penalties would best be accompanied by an in-depth analysis of the root causes of continuing settlement fails. Such analysis, based on qualitative and quantitative data should help guide the next round of measures. Furthermore, there is the inclusion of a new provision (para 13a) empowering the EC to suspend MBIs for a certain category of instruments if there is a threat to financial stability or the proper functioning of financial markets. Firstly, it is questionable that the EC would access appropriate data quickly enough and put in place a suspension before significant damage to financial markets. The very need for such a suspensive provision points to the inherent problems associated with mandatory buy-ins.
Read full response

Response to Long Term Investment Funds – Review of EU rules

24 Mar 2022

EFAMA strongly supports the Commission's draft proposal amending the ELTIF Regulation where it addresses some of the major obstacles that have undermined the attractiveness of the ELTIF product since inception. The revised legal framework has the potential to transform ELTIF into a product of choice for a larger (retail) investor audience, all while serving the purposes of the Capital Markets Union (CMU). However, some important adjustments remain to be made for the ELTIF regime to reach its full potential as a competitive long-term investment option. The ELTIF draft proposal successfully removes the unnecessary barriers that have limited retail investors' access to long-term investment opportunities while preserving a sound investor protection framework that prevents retail investors from being exposed to excessive risks. The proposal strikes the right balance between flexible product rules and investor protection by removing the minimum investment amounts (i.e. the EUR 10.000 entry ticket and 10% aggregate threshold) while introducing an important alignment to the suitability test as defined by Article 25 of MiFID II. Moreover, the draft proposal safeguards important investor protection requirements that ensure that retail investors are exposed to a safe product. More specifically, a retail audience benefits from detailed and complete information via the AIFMD transparency requirements, including a prospectus, a KID, as well as periodical reports. Greater certainty for distributors at the point of sale is ensured by the cross-reference to the established suitability test under Article 25 of MiFID II, as complemented by the possibility for investors to withdraw from the investment agreement, redeem or transfer their units/shares, or raise complaints should they have concerns about actions taken by the ELTIF manager. The European Commission's draft proposal promises to improve ELTIF's attractiveness by broadening the scope of the current eligible asset universe, reducing the threshold of eligible investment assets to 60% of the ELTIF capital, removing the unnecessary barriers to retail investors while cross-referencing the suitability test requirement under MiFID II (Article 25), and adopting adequate diversification and concentration limits. For a successful take-up of ELTIF in the future, its chances would increase if the following aspects were considered: • Further clarifications (to also assist the future work of ESMA) are needed regarding the operational complexities for the proposed "Liquidity Window Mechanism", intended to allow investors to redeem their units during the life of an ELTIF; • To not materially alter the portfolio composition and investment strategies of existing ELTIFs, as well as on legal certainty grounds, it is crucial to include a grandfathering clause to prevent the new regime from becoming retroactive; • Securitisations as eligible investment assets remain limited to those conforming to the EU STS regime, thereby excluding a broader universe of national/non-EU ones. This may limit investment opportunities, as well as the diversification of the ELTIF's portfolio; • The attractiveness of the ELTIF product would benefit from a further increase of the UCITS-eligible asset to 50% of the ELTIF's capital so as to facilitate the management and offer of a slightly more liquid version of an ELTIF product to better meet retail investors' liquidity premium, and; • Even though the Commission has a limited scope to influence the tax treatment of ELTIF, we nevertheless believe that tax considerations should be addressed, as tax neutrality and tax incentives have proven to be an important obstacle in the take-up of the ELTIF product compared to other investment vehicles.
Read full response

Response to Alternative Investment Fund Managers – review of EU rules

21 Mar 2022

EFAMA welcomes the European Commission’s review of the Alternative Investment Fund Management Directive (AIFMD), setting out targeted improvements to key provisions in the current framework. Such targeted improvements will make strides in advancing the Capital Markets Union while maintaining the framework which has underpinned a decade of growth in the European Alternative Investment Fund (AIF) market and proven resilient even throughout recent market stresses. EFAMA supports the proposal’s intent to harmonise the availability of liquidity management tools (LMTs) across EU jurisdictions, while cautioning against the introduction of overly prescriptive rules. In general, LMTs should evolve in line with developments in the market and their activation should be at the manager’s discretion in light of the individual characteristics of the funds it manages. The association is also pleased to see the inclusion of certain Central Securities Depositories (CSDs) in the custody chain when providing services to UCITS and AIFs, which will enhance investor protection. EFAMA also welcomes the intention to reduce duplication among the numerous reporting regimes applicable to AIFs, while equally pointing out that this should begin with an improved exchange of data between public authorities, particularly with central banks. As UCITS funds are already subject to strict product rules, EFAMA also questions the utility of introducing a reporting regime for them. Existing product rules include restrictions on eligible assets, financial borrowing and derivatives trading, all of which limit the risks such funds may represent to the financial system. We remain cautious around some of the proposed changes to the delegation and outsourcing requirements and the unintended consequences such changes may have on a tried and tested delegation regime that works to the benefit of investors. Furthermore, EFAMA is of the view that the AIFMD should remain a manager directive. Creating product-specific rules within a framework designed to encompass all asset classes would risk creating anomalies between investment strategies and unintended obstacles to the marketing of, and access to, AIFs.
Read full response

Meeting with Nicolo Brignoli (Cabinet of Commissioner Mairead Mcguinness)

14 Jan 2022 · Financial literacy

Response to EU Anti-money laundering supervisor

17 Nov 2021

See our attached response.
Read full response

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

10 Nov 2021 · Review of the Markets in Financial Instruments Regulation

Meeting with Agnieszka Drzewoska (Cabinet of Commissioner Mairead Mcguinness)

9 Nov 2021 · Introductory discussion, financial literacy, retail investor.

Meeting with Florian Denis (Cabinet of Commissioner Mairead Mcguinness)

14 Oct 2021 · Mandatory Buy-In rules, CSRD review

Meeting with Florian Denis (Cabinet of Commissioner Mairead Mcguinness)

14 Sept 2021 · Mandatory Buy-In rules, CSRD review

Response to Quick Fix to the UCITS Directive

9 Sept 2021

The European Commission recently adopted amendments to the Packaged Retail and Insurance-based Investment Products (PRIIPs) Regulation and the Undertakings for Collective Investment in Transferable Securities (UCITS) Directive. However, in contrast to earlier plans, the adoption of the revised Regulatory Technical Standards (RTS) amending Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/653 has been postponed. Despite this fragmented process, the European Commission is proposing to maintain 1 July 2022 as the date of application of the new requirements to all product manufacturers, including those offering multi-option products (MOPs) with UCITS as underlying investment options. The unexpected delay in the adoption of the revised PRIIPs RTS would cut the implementation period for the industry by three months. This leaves PRIIPs manufacturers and distributors with only nine months instead of the original timeframe of 12 months to implement the new rules. The European Fund and Asset Management Association (EFAMA), European Association of Co-operative Banks (EACB) and European Savings and Retail Banking Group (ESBG)are, therefore, asking the European co-legislators to ensure that the financial industry has a reasonable twelve months to implement the new rules by 31 December 2022 (instead of 1 July 2022). This request for postponement is based on the assumption that the revised RTS are published in the EU Official Journal, at the very latest, by 31 December 2021. To follow through on this request, the timelines in the PRIIPs and UCITS quick fixes must be aligned: With regards to the UCITS ‘quick fixes, we are, asking the European co-legislators to change Article 2 to allow Member States until 31 December 2022 (instead of 30 June 2022) for the adoption and the publication of the measures, and that these come into effect from 1 January 2023 (instead of 1 July 2022). Moreover, the requirement to produce a UCITS KIID is maintained for professional investors. We regret this approach, as professional investors do not require the same level of protection as retail investors; they get much more detailed information, and more frequently, tailored to their needs. Maintaining the UCITS KIID for institutional investors will cause unnecessary costs and efforts, which would be needed for other projects or initiatives. Bearing in mind the goals of an efficient Capital Markets Union in Europe, we invite the European legislators to consider abolishing the UCITS KIID (and PRIIPs KID) for professional investors. Should professional investors even have the choice to receive a UCITS KIID or PRIIP KID, a PRIIP KID may need to be produced for professional investors, which is contrary to the wording of the PRIIPs Regulation (such as Recital 7 which states that “Investment funds dedicated to institutional investors are excluded from the scope since they are not for sale to retail investors.”) and which would create unnecessary costs. To date, no PRIIPs KIDs are produced for share classes reserved for professional investors and also professional investors do not receive a PRIIPs KID since the obligation is only triggered where the product is bought by a retail investor.
Read full response

Response to Quick fix to the PRIIPs Regulation

9 Sept 2021

The European Commission’s proposal to maintain 1 July 2022 as the date the new Level 1 and Level 2 requirements apply to all product manufacturers, despite the delay in publication of the RTS, cuts the implementation period for the industry by more than 2 months. The proposed implementation period is too short, especially for new rules that relate to communication with investors and potential investors. To achieve better trust and understanding among investors and potential investors, the market needs time to adapt and get it right first time and avoiding confusion, to the detriment of consumers and Europe’s economy. Implementing changes involves numerous departments and competences to interpret the new requirements; gather new data; make actuarial and financial calculations; properly plan and make changes to IT; redesign templates; test the calculations and design; legally assess the narratives and figures; translate them; adapt training for staff and distributors; and implement new website disclosure requirements, etc. The many stakeholders in the value chain are involved in implementation. Many PRIIPs sold by insurers are MOPs that provide investors with a combination of different underlying funds. Where these are UCITS, insurers need the data and documents produced by UCITS providers to comply. As the new rules apply to both insurers and UCITS providers, MOPs providers will need sufficient time to collect the data from UCITS providers — once available - and update all their existing pre-contractual information for MOPs, update and store all KIDs on their websites, etc. This requires extensive dialogue between insurers and asset managers to agree the practicalities of data exchanges. Too short an implementation period could lead to poor implementation or force operators to suspend the distribution of certain products, which would be detrimental to consumers’ participation in the capital markets and trust in the information they receive. To ensure an orderly implementation, we urge for a 12-month implementation period from the adoption of the RTS proposals as the minimum time needed for all products and all market participants. A synchronised application date for all products (IBIPs, UCITS, MOPs, etc.) and providers (insurers, asset managers, etc.) for both the Level 1 and Level 2 amendments is key. In particular, Article 18 of the current PRIIPs RTS - which allows insurers to rely on the derogation in Article 14(2) of the PRIIPs RTS and to use the UCITS KIIDs for the provision of information on underlying funds for MOPs - is independent of any changes to the date of application of the UCITS exemption. The extension of the UCITS exemption will therefore not prevent Article 14(2) from expiring in December 2021, as currently stated in Article 18. This would pose significant practical difficulties for providers currently making use of the derogation in Article 14(2), as they would be required to produce their own PRIIPs KIDs for each underlying fund by the end of this year. This would also entail a substantial compliance burden for insurers and asset managers. They would need to produce entirely new data to populate the PRIIPs KIDs by a deadline that is much too short, and where the data simply could not be produced on time, the range of products offered to consumers would ultimately decrease. To ensure a consistent transitional regime across providers, the necessary legal certainty while UCITS remain exempted from the PRIIPs Regulation and a smooth implementation of the new PRIIPs RTS, we therefore reiterate the importance to align the expiry date of Article 18 of the PRIIPs RTS with the new end date of the UCITS exemption. As the scrutiny of the revised RTS by the co-legislators will take some time, we would also appreciate an expedited procedure by the co-legislators to facilitate publication in the EU Official Journal as soon as possible.
Read full response

Meeting with Mairead McGuinness (Commissioner), Mairead McGuinness (Commissioner)

13 Jul 2021 · CMU ISSUES.

Response to Commission Delegated Regulation on taxonomy-alignment of undertakings reporting non-financial information

2 Jun 2021

As a matter of priority, EFAMA welcomes the proposed transitional period under Article 8 of the taxonomy and calls for its alignment with SFDR taxonomy-related disclosures, the Ecolabel and ESG updates to MiFID II and IDD delegated acts. The taxonomy Article 8 delegated act will mandate the disclosure of all underlying information on the alignment of financial and non-financial undertakings with the taxonomy technical screening criteria. Without this information from companies, financial market participants will not be able to disclose their taxonomy alignment at the entity and product levels. Therefore, entry into force of product-level requirements under Articles 5 and 6 of the taxonomy should be aligned with the transitional period introduced in this delegated act. The amending delegated act to MiFID II and IDD introduce the possibility for clients to indicate their preferred minimum proportion of Taxonomy-aligned investments as defined in Article 2(1) of the taxonomy. However, during the transitional period, products will not be able to commit to a “minimum threshold” of such investments as of October 2022, when the amended delegated acts should become effective. Therefore, the entry into force of these provisions should also commence only after the termination of the transitional period. Therefore, it is important that the entry into force of product-level requirements under Articles 5 and 6 of the taxonomy are aligned with the transitional period introduced in this delegated act. Disclosure against taxonomy-related information in SFDR under the forthcoming revised templates is inconceivable without the availability of information disclosed under Article 8 delegated act. The transitional period also implies that the practical applicability of the EU Ecolabel for retail financial products will start only on 1 January 2023, given that its portfolio greenness calculation formula is dependent on company disclosures of Turnover and CapEx aligned with the taxonomy. Company information provided during the transitional period will not be sufficient for meeting Criterion 1 of the EU Ecolabel, as they require only the disclosure of taxonomy eligible (not aligned) activities. Please consult the enclosed PDF document for more detailed information on our remaining policy recommendations regarding the potential confusion caused by quantitative taxonomy eligibility disclosure requirements during the transitional period; need for consistent taxonomy alignment methodologies at entity and product level; the need for taxonomy alignment reporting of firms not in the scope of NFRD and the disproportionality of mandatory screening of all assets under management against the taxonomy at the entity level.
Read full response

Meeting with Florian Denis (Cabinet of Commissioner Mairead Mcguinness)

24 Mar 2021 · AIFMD/ELTIF/CMU

Response to Alternative Investment Fund Managers – review of EU rules

7 Jan 2021

EFAMA’s RESPONSE TO EC ROADMAP ON THE AIFMD REVIEW The AIFMD is one of the pillars of EU regulation for asset managers and investment funds, which have a crucial role to play in the development of the Capital Markets Union (CMU) and the post Covid-19 economic recovery in the EU. EFAMA's views are on the roadmap are outlined in the document attached.
Read full response

Response to Climate change mitigation and adaptation taxonomy

18 Dec 2020

As the voice of European asset management industry, EFAMA strongly welcomes the development of the EU Taxonomy and its technical screening criteria. We see the Taxonomy as a critical tool to unleashing the potential of sustainable finance in Europe by assisting issuers, project promoters, companies, investors, and other financial market participants in identifying truly sustainable economic activities. We wish to put forward recommendations that aim to improve the usability and integrity of this framework. The Delegated Act (DA) will make the EU Taxonomy operational by determining which investments make substantial contribution to climate change mitigation and adaptation, whilst avoiding harm to other environmental or social objectives. Its proposed technical screening criteria (TSC) will be fundamental in guiding investment decisions of financial market participants and, increasingly so, public authorities. Moreover, given the scale of the EU internal market, the Taxonomy is likely to have a reach also in non-EU jurisdictions. We would like to share asset managers’ feedback on the challenges in making the Taxonomy work in practice. This position paper offers 26 policy recommendations towards the technical screening and “do no significant harm” (DNSH) criteria; implementation difficulties related to timeframes, investment plans and financial products, as well as challenges related to the availability of ESG data. KEY HIGHLIGHTS 1. We are concerned that the proposed criteria for construction, renovation and ownership of buildings would be detrimental to the decarbonization of EU´s building stock by restricting the issuance of Taxonomy aligned green bond volumes. The stringency and reduced economic viability of the criteria would be particularly counterproductive for the covered bond and green mortgage bond markets. As a result, the potential of the Taxonomy to lower the costs of sustainable housing and real estate development would be significantly reduced. Furthermore, the linkage of TSC for “building acquisition and ownership” to Energy Performance Certificates could, due to their different absolute energy thresholds in Member States, create an unlevel playing field in the EU internal market for green bond issuance. 2. The science-based review of the TSC every three years could lead to concerns over the future Taxonomy alignment of financial products where underlying investment projects have longer timeframes. Therefore, Taxonomy alignment at the time of issuance of the financial product or instrument should apply for the products´ entire duration, or for a sufficient period of time to mitigate concerns over future TSC non-alignment. 3. Given the ESG data challenge, the current timeline for application of Taxonomy disclosures continues to pose a serious challenge. We recommend readjusting the disclosure timelines to ensure a more practical and seamless sequencing between the reporting done by companies and asset managers. As users of these information, asset managers must be able to rely on reliable and comparable company disclosures. We are concerned that most companies will not be ready to implement the new disclosure requirements by January 1st 2022, leaving financial market participants with no option but to rely on estimates and third party screenings. In this context, we also call on the European Commission to clarify the conditions under which market participants can rely on due diligence screening produced in-house or acquired from external data providers. 4. Prioritising the revision of NFRD to extend its scope, the development of EU reporting standards, greater reliance on third party verification and the establishment of the European Single Access Point could address the problems related to the insufficient availability of meaningful, reliable, comparable, and public ESG data.
Read full response

Response to Review of the VAT rules for financial and insurance services

19 Nov 2020

EFAMA is grateful for the opportunity to comment on some of the messages included in the European Commission's roadmap on the "Review of VAT rules on financial services". Our comments cover the following sections of the roadmap: - Section A (Box1 - Problem the initiative aims to tackle: the lack of tax neutrality) - Section B (objectives and policy options) - Section C (Preliminary Assessment of Expected Impacts) - (i) Likely social impacts ; (ii) Likely economic impacts Please refer to the attached document for our detailed feedback on the above sections. Thank you.
Read full response

Response to Sustainable corporate governance

8 Oct 2020

Sustainable corporate governance and the role of the investment industry EFAMA, the voice of the European investment management industry, welcomes the Commission’s initiative to improve the EU regulatory framework on company law and corporate governance. Encouraging companies to focus on long-term, sustainable value creation has the potential to promote a cultural shift in the way companies operate, and unlock sizeable investments towards a sustainable and just transition. Asset managers show a strong commitment to this objective, not only by mobilizing and channeling capital towards sustainable investments, but also by exercising the tools at their disposal to promote change in the corporate governance and business practices of the companies they invest in. Investment stewardship plays an important role in encouraging long-term, sustainable value creation. Asset managers engage with investee companies on issues relevant to the sustainability and long-term performance of the firm, typically including firm governance, executive remuneration, and corporate performance issues. Investor engagement has proven to be one of the most effective means to foster sustainable corporate governance practices. An EU initiative on Sustainable Corporate Governance can improve the tools available to shareholders to make an impact on companies' sustainability and governance practices. To further enhance long-term engagement, the Commission could consider initiatives to facilitate shareholders’ access to the Board of Directors, introduce more safeguards for minority shareholders, better hold directors accountable or facilitate the tabling of shareholders' resolutions - beyond the provisions already included in the Shareholders Rights Directive. At EFAMA we look forward to taking part in the consultation on the upcoming legislative initiatives and we stand ready to support the Commission’s work to develop an ambitious, effective and pragmatic framework.
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

Swift, but… EFAMA appreciates that the European Commission is pursuing an alleviation of certain MiFID II requirements in the interest of promoting a swift recovery from the economic crisis precipitated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Loosening research and execution unbundling requirements when the research relates to small and mid-cap companies is one of several measures envisaged to improve the visibility and financing opportunities of SME companies during the recovery. We note that, according to ESMA’s findings (See ESMA’s assessment contained in their second 2020 report on trends, risks and vulnerabilities in relation to SMEs), the decline in SME research coverage is a long-standing trend which pre-existed the entry of application of MiFID II research unbundling rules. Financial market participants and investors have adjusted their practices to the unbundling requirements, and - while the market is still in the ‘price discovery’ phase - have largely adapted to the new landscape. We, therefore, welcome the optionality of the regime proposed. Introducing a compulsory set of specific requirements for research relating to SMEs would indeed significantly increase operational complexity for all market participants involved, including asset managers. We also consider that the proposal to adapt the regime applicable to research on fixed income instruments is a positive step forward. We welcome in particular the recognition that trading in fixed income instruments is fundamentally different to equity trading and that obliging investment firms to create an additional artificial payment for fixed income and macro research increased costs, would not bring any benefits for end-investors. … there are more effective ways to foster SMEs’ access to markets. To achieve the European Commission’s objective support the EU’s economic recovery to promote the European economy, we would strongly recommend the European Commission to consider the following measures: - Sponsored research can play an important role in facilitating SME’s access to market-based financing, provided that it is clarified that it can be regarded as ‘minor non-monetary benefit’ and that the rules applicable to pre-IPO research are confirmed, - Free trial, i.e. the period during which the issuer can adapt its offering based on investors’ feedback, should be extended to six months. Quick Fixes should not alter the need to improve other aspects of MiFID II We believe that a deeper review of MiFID remains necessary, at least in the following areas: - data quality and data costs. Data costs are surging. We therefore call on the Commission to enforce the creation of a consolidated tape for all financial instruments, starting with post-trade data - Liquidity protection. We need all sources of liquidity to deliver the best results to our clients, including the Systematic Internalisers, - Trading burdens. The Share Trading Obligation (STO) and the Derivatives Trading Obligations (DTO) should be completely removed, - Professional investors and eligible counterparties. These types of investors should either be allowed to opt-out of many cost disclosure or should be out of scope, being allowed to opt-in. - Client categories. The creation of a fourth client category should be avoided and could be achieved by (1) calibrating the types of institutional clients to opt-up under certain conditions and (2) providing a flexible regime for professional investors.
Read full response

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

6 Jul 2020

EFAMA has always been a firm supporter of creating a strong framework for sustainable investing which facilitates the transition to a more sustainable European economy. In this context, we see the Commission’s work on integrating sustainability considerations into MiFID II as an essential milestone that will further encourage the distribution of ESG products to European investors. However, to create a supportive environment, it is essential to balance the regulatory framework to enable consistent outcomes. This is especially the case in the current situation, with multiple, parallel regulatory initiatives in the area of sustainable finance. Without consistent underlying concepts, the idea of an enabling “smart” regulation will not materialise. The question we are faced with now is whether we simply create a tick-the-box exercise, putting sustainability in a niche, or whether we opt for an approach promoting further the dynamic development in sustainable investing, while fostering a race to the top with a big push to transition our economy. The MiFID II delegated acts (as well as UCITS and AIFMD) should ensure ESG mainstreaming. However, we are concerned that the currently proposed amendments to the delegated acts will hinder the availability of ESG products to investors. Instead of simply inserting the necessary references to the Sustainable Finance Disclosures Regulation (SFDR) Article 8 products (i.e. products promoting environmental and social characteristics, aka ESG strategy products) and Article 9 products (i.e. products pursuing sustainability objectives) into MiFID II, the Commission proposes additional requirements for Article 8 products, which are not part of the SFDR framework. This will create a subset of Article 8 products that are considered non-ESG compliant under MiFID II while blurring the crucial line between Article 8 and Article 9 products. It is therefore essential that the Commission makes changes to the current proposals to ensure that the final delegated acts are fully aligned with SFDR. There should be a clear distinction between Article 8 and Article 9 products and only the latter should be required to invest in sustainable investments as defined by SFDR Article 2(17) . The introduction of principal adverse impact (PAI) goes beyond the existing SFDR requirements, significantly extending the scope of PAI at product-level beyond what was agreed by the European co-legislators. Considerations of product-level principal adverse impact should, therefore, be deleted. Last but not least, due to its many interlinkages, we ask the Commission to also consider our submission to the draft delegated acts on UCITS and AIFMD.
Read full response

Response to Strengthening the consideration of sustainability risks and factors for financial products (Directive (EU) 2017/593)

6 Jul 2020

EFAMA has always been a firm supporter of creating a strong framework for sustainable investing which facilitates the transition to a more sustainable European economy. In this context, we see the Commission’s work on integrating sustainability considerations into MiFID II as an essential milestone that will further encourage the distribution of ESG products to European investors. However, to create a supportive environment, it is essential to balance the regulatory framework to enable consistent outcomes. This is especially the case in the current situation, with multiple, parallel regulatory initiatives in the area of sustainable finance. Without consistent underlying concepts, the idea of an enabling “smart” regulation will not materialise. The question we are faced with now is whether we simply create a tick-the-box exercise, putting sustainability in a niche, or whether we opt for an approach promoting further the dynamic development in sustainable investing, while fostering a race to the top with a big push to transition our economy. The MiFID II delegated acts (as well as UCITS and AIFMD) should ensure ESG mainstreaming. However, we are concerned that the currently proposed amendments to the delegated acts will hinder the availability of ESG products to investors. Instead of simply inserting the necessary references to the Sustainable Finance Disclosures Regulation (SFDR) Article 8 products (i.e. products promoting environmental and social characteristics, aka ESG strategy products) and Article 9 products (i.e. products pursuing sustainability objectives) into MiFID II, the Commission proposes additional requirements for Article 8 products, which are not part of the SFDR framework. This will create a subset of Article 8 products that are considered non-ESG compliant under MiFID II while blurring the crucial line between Article 8 and Article 9 products. It is therefore essential that the Commission makes changes to the current proposals to ensure that the final delegated acts are fully aligned with SFDR. There should be a clear distinction between Article 8 and Article 9 products and only the latter should be required to invest in sustainable investments as defined by SFDR Article 2(17) . The introduction of principal adverse impact (PAI) goes beyond the existing SFDR requirements, significantly extending the scope of PAI at product-level beyond what was agreed by the European co-legislators. Considerations of product-level principal adverse impact should, therefore, be deleted. Last but not least, due to its many interlinkages, we ask the Commission to also consider our submission to the draft delegated acts on UCITS and AIFMD.
Read full response

Response to Integration of sustainability risks and factors related to alternative investment fund managers

6 Jul 2020

EFAMA welcomes the opportunity to share views on the EC draft Delegated Acts on the obligation for mutual funds and alternative investment funds to advise clients on social and environmental aspects. Since the outset, EFAMA has been a strong supporter of creating a solid framework for sustainable finance which facilitates the transition to a more sustainable European economy. European asset managers have been integrating ESG into their investment processes in different forms for some time to achieve the diverse sustainability goals of individuals and institutional asset owners. This remains part of asset managers’ mission to achieve long-term financial returns for their investors, and a key element of their operational excellence and competitive advantage. The question is now whether we apply a tick the box approach, putting sustainability in a niche, or whether we opt for an approach promoting further the dynamic development in sustainable investing, fostering a race to the top with a big push to transition our economy. The Delegated Acts under UCITS, AIFMD (as well as MiFID) should ensure mainstreaming of sustainable investing, while at the same time allowing investors a meaningful product choice. In this respect, it is important to avoid any conflicts between an asset manager’s regulatory obligations and their fiduciary duty to pursue its investment strategy in the best interest of the clients. EFAMA fully supports the integration of sustainability risks as part of risk management policy at fund level, but we believe that from a risk management perspective there is no reason to single out sustainability risks vis a vis all the other types of risks and introduces an artificial ranking amongst those different risks. In addition, and as already recognised by a number of public authorities, we would also like to see the possibility for sustainability risks to be assessed also on a qualitative basis. Finally, the sequencing in the implementation of the various elements of the sustainable finance framework is extremely important. The 12 months period for implementing substantive requirements for investment funds in terms of integrating sustainability risks and principal adverse impact is necessary and very much welcome. Ideally a symmetrical approach across the whole framework should allow coherent timelines with the disclosure requirements under Regulation 2019/2088 on sustainability-related disclosures in the financial sector (SFDR), and the latter ones with those on the Non Financial Reporting Directive, which set the basis for the necessary, reliable and transparent ESG data, whose availability is crucial for asset managers to properly account for sustainability risk within their risk management arrangements. Last but not least, due to its many interlinkages, we ask the Commission to also consider our submission to the draft delegated acts on MiFID II.
Read full response

Response to Integration of sustainability risks and factors for undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities

6 Jul 2020

EFAMA welcomes the opportunity to share views on the EC draft Delegated Acts on the obligation for mutual funds and alternative investment funds to advise clients on social and environmental aspects. Since the outset, EFAMA has been a strong supporter of creating a solid framework for sustainable finance which facilitates the transition to a more sustainable European economy. European asset managers have been integrating ESG into their investment processes in different forms for some time to achieve the diverse sustainability goals of individuals and institutional asset owners. This remains part of asset managers’ mission to achieve long-term financial returns for their investors, and a key element of their operational excellence and competitive advantage. The question is now whether we apply a tick the box approach, putting sustainability in a niche, or whether we opt for an approach promoting further the dynamic development in sustainable investing, fostering a race to the top with a big push to transition our economy. The Delegated Acts under UCITS, AIFMD (as well as MiFID) should ensure mainstreaming of sustainable investing, while at the same time allowing investors a meaningful product choice. In this respect, it is important to avoid any conflicts between an asset manager’s regulatory obligations and their fiduciary duty to pursue its investment strategy in the best interest of the clients. EFAMA fully supports the integration of sustainability risks as part of risk management policy at fund level, but we believe that from a risk management perspective there is no reason to single out sustainability risks vis a vis all the other types of risks and introduces an artificial ranking amongst those different risks. In addition, and as already recognised by a number of public authorities, we would also like to see the possibility for sustainability risks to be assessed also on a qualitative basis. Finally, the sequencing in the implementation of the various elements of the sustainable finance framework is extremely important. The 12 months period for implementing substantive requirements for investment funds in terms of integrating sustainability risks and principal adverse impact is necessary and very much welcome. Ideally a symmetrical approach across the whole framework should allow coherent timelines with the disclosure requirements under Regulation 2019/2088 on sustainability-related disclosures in the financial sector (SFDR), and the latter ones with those on the Non Financial Reporting Directive, which set the basis for the necessary, reliable and transparent ESG data, whose availability is crucial for asset managers to properly account for sustainability risk within their risk management arrangements. Last but not least, due to its many interlinkages, we ask the Commission to also consider our submission to the draft delegated acts on MiFID II.
Read full response

Response to Climate change mitigation and adaptation taxonomy

27 Apr 2020

As the voice of the European asset management industry, we renew our continuous support for the EU’s fight against climate change, the ambition to meet the Paris Agreement commitments and the objectives of the EU Green Deal. We welcome efforts by the Commission and the TEG to develop a European Taxonomy to provide clarity on what constitutes environmentally sustainable investments, enhance comparability for investors and prevent green washing. Only a well-balanced and clear taxonomy, which can be practically applied by market participants can deliver on the ambition of “shifting the trillions” towards environmentally sustainable investments. Many of our members need more time to fully comprehend and test the screening criteria for climate adaptation and mitigation, and DNSH as proposed in the final TEG report. They are also trying to understand how the different pieces of the regulatory puzzle fit together, especially in the context of preparing for the implementation of the Sustainability-Related Financial Disclosures Regulation, which in the meantime has already been amended by the EU Taxonomy Regulation. The timeline for application of different provisions and their respective sequencing is challenging. The situation is further exacerbated through the issue created by COVID-19, which diverted a lot of resources from our members into crisis management. We fully understand the urgency to push forward measures to drive forward the sustainable transition and we acknowledge that we need to start where we can. However, to make sustainable finance work in practice, we call on European and national authorities to show and exercise the necessary support and flexibility to the industry in the implementation and enforcement of these new rules and requirements. Nevertheless, taking opportunity of this consultation, we would like to share our preliminary feedback on the main challenges identified regarding the implementation of the EU Taxonomy and the related screening criteria as proposed by TEG. We are also providing some recommendations for the way forward. We will continue to gather members’ input, especially on the operational challenges and / or where further clarification is needed. We need to discuss some points with our members in more detail before we can ensure that our proposals properly reflect our members’ views. We hope to share our further feedback in the weeks to come. KEY HIGHLIGHTS 1. The insufficient availability, quality and reliability of publicly available ESG data on investee companies remains a key challenge for the screening against the EU taxonomy criteria. 2. Given the ESG data challenge, which is very likely to persist for a while, the current timeline for the application of new rules poses a serious challenge. 3. A public EU central database or a single access point has a potential to alleviate to some extent the challenges to be faced by the financial market participants in the short-term as well as in the long-term. 4. The revision of NFRD should be given priority within the Sustainable Finance strategy. 5. More clarity and further work is needed on certain aspects of the TEG proposals to ensure that the EU Taxonomy can be applied and work in practice. 6. The Platform on Sustainable Finance will play an important role in addressing the issues arising from the implementation of the EU Taxonomy. Its governance, composition and resources should reflect this. 7. We suggest to increase the international relevance of the EU Taxonomy to the extent possible. The role of the International Platform on Sustainable Finance is key in this respect. 8. The industry needs more support and guidance on how to use the EU Taxonomy as well as the expectations of the regulators in the short- and long-term regarding the level of accuracy. 9. Strong inter-dependencies between the EU taxonomy and the EU Ecolabel should be considered. Please read our full position attached including more detailed proposals.
Read full response

Response to Action Plan on anti-money laundering

10 Mar 2020

The European Fund and Asset Management Association (EFAMA*) welcomes the European Commission’s efforts to work towards an adequate implementation of the EU Anti-money laundering (AML) framework and look forward to engaging on the next steps in the March AML Action Plan. We agree with the conclusions of the Commission’s “July package” that there have already been progresses made with regard to the cooperation between Financial Intelligence Units (FIUs), the identification and access to beneficial ownership information and the implementation of several mitigation measures under the 5th AMLD. In particular, it must be welcomed that the European Supervisory Authorities (ESAs) have issued a number of technical standards, guidelines and opinions to support the effective implementation of the risk-based approach to AML/CTF by financial institutions and their supervisors. We acknowledge that further improvement can still be made in certain areas in order to ensure further harmonization across the EU. At this stage, there are some considerations that are important for the asset management sector and that we would like the Commission to take into account in any further work: Awareness of different distribution and business models - For the appropriate application of any AML rule, and more specifically due diligence requirements to investment funds, it is crucial to consider the different distribution and business models related to the distribution of units/shares of investment funds (direct distribution model and intermediation model) and the different intermediaries which are used for distribution purposes. The business relationship between the asset management company, the intermediary and any underlying customers will affect a number of AML/CFT obligations and outcomes. We would like to draw the attention to the 2018 FATF Guidance on securities which addresses these specific cases and should be taken into account in the drafting of any further piece of legislation. Finally, it must be borne in mind in this context that the key factor for identifying a beneficial owner in accordance with the definition of ‘beneficial owner’ in Art. 3 (6) of Directive (EU) 2015/849, is the ultimate ownership or control that a customer/investor has over a company. Proportionality re country/geographical risk - The proportionality principle needs to be maintained and respected. As the size of the securities sector varies quite significantly, the requirement for assessing the risk linked to a jurisdiction needs to be proportionate to the size of the business conducted in each jurisdiction. Models of supervision – once again, the effectiveness of policy choices on supervision will depend on the technical expertise and understanding of the asset management sector’s business model. In conclusion, the EU asset management industry fully acknowledges its responsibilities when addressing risks and continuing to AML and counter-terrorism financing (CTF) policies. Fostering a closer cooperation between asset managers and financial intermediaries would be beneficial. However, it is crucial to clearly define roles and responsibilities of the different players in the asset management chain when it comes to AML and CTF obligations. *EFAMA is the voice of the European investment management industry, representing 28 member associations, 59 corporate members and 22 associate members. At end 2018, total net assets of European investment funds reached EUR 15.2 trillion. These assets were managed by almost 62,000 investment funds, of which more than 33,000 were UCITS (Undertakings for Collective Investments in Transferable Securities) funds, with the remaining funds composed of AIFs (Alternative Investment Funds).
Read full response

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

22 Oct 2019 · CMU, sustainable finance

Response to Institutional investors' and asset managers' duties regarding sustainability

23 Aug 2018

Please find attached EFAMA's feedback. EFAMA is the representative association for the European investment management industry. EFAMA represents through its 28 member associations and 62 corporate members close to EUR 23 trillion in assets under management of which EUR 15.6 trillion managed by more than 60,000 investment funds at end 2017. Just over 32,000 of these funds were UCITS (Undertakings for Collective Investments in Transferable Securities) funds, with the remaining 28,100 funds composed of AIFs (Alternative Investment Funds).
Read full response

Response to Institutional investors' and asset managers' duties regarding sustainability

22 Aug 2018

Please find attached EFAMA's feedback. EFAMA is the representative association for the European investment management industry. EFAMA represents through its 28 member associations and 62 corporate members close to EUR 23 trillion in assets under management of which EUR 15.6 trillion managed by more than 60,000 investment funds at end 2017. Just over 32,000 of these funds were UCITS (Undertakings for Collective Investments in Transferable Securities) funds, with the remaining 28,100 funds composed of AIFs (Alternative Investment Funds).
Read full response

Response to Institutional investors' and asset managers' duties regarding sustainability

21 Aug 2018

Please find attached our feedback. EFAMA is the representative association for the European investment management industry. EFAMA represents through its 28 member associations and 62 corporate members close to EUR 23 trillion in assets under management of which EUR 15.6 trillion managed by more than 60,000 investment funds at end 2017. Just over 32,000 of these funds were UCITS (Undertakings for Collective Investments in Transferable Securities) funds, with the remaining 28,100 funds composed of AIFs (Alternative Investment Funds).
Read full response

Response to Safekeeping duties of depositaries for Alternative Investment Funds

26 Jun 2018

Please kindly refer to the uploaded document.
Read full response

Response to Safekeeping duties of depositaries for UCITS funds

26 Jun 2018

Please kindly refer to the uploaded document.
Read full response

Response to Institutional investors' and asset managers' duties regarding sustainability

20 Jun 2018

Please see our feedback attached. EFAMA is the representative association for the European investment management industry. EFAMA represents through its 28 member associations and 62 corporate members close to EUR 23 trillion in assets under management of which EUR 14.1 trillion managed by 58,400 investment funds at end 2016. Just over 30,600 of these funds were UCITS (Undertakings for Collective Investments in Transferable Securities) funds, with the remaining 27,800 funds composed of AIFs (Alternative Investment Funds).
Read full response

Response to Public consultation on minimum requirements in the transmission of information for the exercise of shareholders rights

8 May 2018

EFAMA welcomes the new chapter in the Revision of the Shareholder Rights Directive regarding shareholder identification, transmission of information and facilitation of the exercise of shareholder rights. We are generally encouraged by the Commission’s objective in this Draft Implementing Regulation to clarify the rather complex voting chain and to address the barriers to cross-border voting. However, there are a number of points which we would like to make from a European asset management perspective: • In our view, it is fully clear that the definition of ‘intermediary’, as understood in the level 1 text, is the entity which provides safekeeping of shares, administration of shares or maintenance of securities accounts on behalf of shareholders or other persons. This is typically the custodian bank for a fund or segregated account. • In relation to Article 9 of the Implementing Regulation – Deadlines to be complied with by issuers and intermediaries in corporate events and in shareholder identification processes: - In cross-border situations, shareholders often do not receive information regarding corporate events on time. It is therefore important that the deadline foreseen in Article 9 (4) takes this into account. The last intermediary setting a deadline earlier than three business days prior to the record date leaves a very short window for the shareholder to react – if any. We therefore would strongly support to only refer to the issuers’ deadline in case of corporate events other than shareholder meetings. Clearly, for shareholder meetings, the record date has to be the relevant point in time for the deadline. - Regarding the voting receipt and confirmation of recording/calculation of votes, it should be made clear that these notifications are automatic in nature. We are also of the view that the timing given in Article 9 (5) regarding the confirmation of the recording and calculation of votes in the general meeting is too long. We believe that it should be shorter than 15 business days after the general meeting, and should only be a maximum of 10 calendar days. Asset managers seek to discharge their duties to their clients by protecting and improving their interests, and this may include where relevant voting rights. An overly long timeframe with regards to receiving confirmation of recording and calculation of votes makes the process more uncertain and inefficient for the asset manager, who needs to know without too much delay that votes have been cast, according to their clients’ interests. • With respect to the table in the Annex, we notice that the term “responding intermediary” is at times used. There is a risk that where it is not clear which intermediary is required to respond, none in a chain of intermediaries will feel responsible for providing the information. We would therefore suggest that this be clarified.
Read full response

Meeting with Marlene Madsen (Cabinet of Vice-President Jyrki Katainen)

14 Mar 2018 · PEPPs

Response to Review of the appropriate prudential treatment for investment firms

8 Mar 2018

EFAMA strongly supports the proposal’s underlying objective to achieve a more proportionate and self-standing regime for a multitude of non-bank investment firms compared to the existing one under CRD/CRR. Among these firms are MiFID-licensed asset management companies offering individual portfolio management and investment advice. We believe that the draft Directive (IFD) and Regulation (IFR), as proposed by the European Commission, will achieve a clear alignment with the existing UCITS/AIFMD regimes applicable to collective investment management. This is welcomed as it would result in a level playing-field for asset management activities in Europe, operating under a common set of rules. EFAMA believes that a number of clarifications and further improvements would ensure that the proposal achieves its objectives in a more proportionate manner. In the attached EFAMA comments paper we have expressed our views and made suggestions with regard the following points: I. firm categorisation II. group consolidation III. non-investment firm subsidiaries IV. definition of the relevant K-factors applicable to asset management investment firms V. liquidity requirements VI. remuneration requirements VII. reporting requirements VIII. supervision over the new regime IX. third-country regime EFAMA would like to thank the Commission for the opportunity to present the initial views of the asset management industry and looks forward to continuing the dialogue.
Read full response

Response to Review of the European Supervisory Authorities

16 Jan 2018

EFAMA has, from the outset, been strongly supportsive of the creation of a harmonised European supervisory framework, with European authorities cooperating closely with national supervisors to ensure a well‐functioning supervisory system. We therefore welcome the momentum behind the Capital Markets UnionCMU for more consistent supervision and uniform enforcement of the single rulebook. European competitiveness as well as the impact on consumers and end investors should be at the heart of this review. We firmly believe that stronger integration of EU supervision is not a goal in itself and must be justified in terms of cost/benefit to Europe’s end investors in Europe’s capital markets, which are both regional and local. We fully support the ESAs having an important role to play in reducing barriers to cross-border investment and ensuring best practice coordination and convergence across the Single Market. We welcome and strongly support the greater involvement of stakeholders through an additional role for ESAs’ Stakeholder Groups and the introduction of ex-ante consultations on guidelines and recommendations. However, we are concerned that some of the measures put forward in this legislative proposal would not best serve the needs of consumers and end investors in Europe’s local and regional capital markets. In this regard, we are particularly concerned with the Commission’s proposals to increase ESMA’s powers, particularly in relation to delegation / outsourcing arrangements and direct supervision and authorisation of ELTIFs, EUSEFs or EUVECAs. Given the fundamental lack of any conclusive evidence in the Commission’s Impact Assessment regarding either any market failure or potential benefits for consumers and end investors, EFAMA believes that a more proportionate response would be for the ESAs, and ESMA in particular, to make better use of existing, and often underutilised, powers – such as enhancing the role of ESAs as fora for discussions among regulators with the aim of having practical converging solutions. Such coherence of supervisory approaches should therefore be more frequently achieved through opinions and other level 3 measures, rather than through revisions of Level 1 texts which generate long processes, many unintended consequences and regulatory costs for market participants. In summary: • We strongly oppose new powers for ESMA to authorise or supervise ELTIFs, EUSEFs, and EUVECAs: This would result in a dual regulatory regime for these types of investment funds, which would undoubtedly lead to a more complex, cumbersome and expensive fund authorisation / supervision process. The current system of authorisation and supervision by NCAs is best suited to deal with the many different market structures and legal regimes of Member States. • We strongly oppose new powers for ESMA in relation to delegation / outsourcing arrangements into 3rd countries: There is no evidence of any market failure, to justify giving ESMA these new powers. This creates a serious risk of not only questioning but undermining existing and well-functioning delegation/outsourcing operating models, which have been central to ensuring investor choice and EU investors’ access to world leading investment expertise. To address the legitimate aim of further supervisory convergence and ensure coordination and collaboration amongst NCAs, ESMA should use its existing powers to issue clear guidance to NCAs through e.g. peer reviews. • Market participants should not directly report data to ESMA. Reporting should remain with NCAs. However, we support a role for ESMA with regards to standardisation of regulatory reporting. • We favour a fixed floor of 40% on the EU budget contribution, rather than a balancing maximum of 40% and oppose direct funding by indirectly regulated entities. • EFAMA welcomes the proposed ex-ante consultation on guidelines and recommend and an additional role for Stakeholder groups. Full position paper attached.
Read full response

Response to Institutional investors' and asset managers' duties regarding sustainability

11 Dec 2017

We agree that the European asset management industry has a role to play in contributing to the sustainability agenda. We see this role in 3 distinctive parts: • First, the asset management industry provides its clients, institutional investors and other asset owners, investment solutions that respond to their investment as well as ESG / impact demands; • Secondly, asset managers can give institutional investors the tools and advice for selecting ESG investments or mainstream investment shaped by ESG considerations; • Thirdly, asset managers act as engaged shareholders on behalf of their clients. To provide some context on the respective roles and purposes of institutional investors and asset managers, the former are asset owners who make strategic investment decisions with the view of meeting their long-term, medium-term and short-term liabilities (and some would explicitly have impact objectives too); whereas the latter manage the financial assets that the asset owner entrusts them to protect and enhance. We encourage the EC to consider the significant differences between the role, influence and purposes of institutional investors and asset owners when looking at their respective financial decision-making. It is fundamental to highlight that asset managers are already legally required to act in the best interests of their clients. As part of this duty, asset managers increasingly seek to integrate an assessment of material ESG factors in their investment process and decisions and to monitor and mitigate their risk, where these factors are deemed to have a material impact on performance. It is widely acknowledged that the application of ESG strategies in the investment process is an important risk management tool which seeks to better appreciate investment performance in the long-term. Asset managers’ business models revolves around protecting and enhancing their clients’ assets on the long-term. To this end, asset managers often seek to integrate ESG factors into their investment process – where such integration is relevant and material – to fulfil their obligations towards their clients. ESG factors can serve as a key parameter for evaluating the likely long-term performance of companies and projects in which asset managers plan to invest in on behalf of their clients. Thus, their consideration is an important element of how asset managers ensure they act in the best interest of their clients and protect their clients’ investments over the long-term. It is misleading to lead with the assertion that “asset managers do not necessarily consider sustainability risks within their financial decision-making”. Whilst integration of ESG factors is not applied uniformly across the industry, evidence would suggest that integration of these factors has increased in the market over recent years. We believe the best policy option would be focusing on how to best enhance systematic good quality disclosure by issuers, and potentially non-legislative action (such as Guidelines) clarifying that the integration of ESG considerations into investment or and/or stewardship processes can be consistent with asset managers’ existing duty to their clients. Non-legislative action (such as Guidelines) would avoid creating further uncertainty and procedural delays than a Level 1 legislative process would entail. There could also be an opportunity, through guidance, to improve the framework, where relevant, for good quality disclosure by asset managers to their clients regarding their policy of how they integrate ESG considerations in their investment processes, though this is effectively what is happening through market-led standards today.
Read full response

Response to Proposal for a Regulation - Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union

26 Sept 2017

EFAMA welcomes the Commission’s proposed Regulation for the creation of a pan-European Personal Pension Product (PEPP) that is complementary to and supportive of existing public and occupational pensions. EFAMA also welcomes the Commission’s recommendation that Member States give PEPPs the most favorable tax treatment available to their national personal pension products. We note, however, that the PEPP Regulation would likely only produce all of its expected positive effects if the following issues were addressed. Life-cycle investment strategies as a PEPP default option Having life-cycle investment strategies as a PEPP default option is essential to ensure a more competitive pensions market, better choice for investors and, ultimately, will determine whether PEPP and CMU works for European savers. It should be up to PEPP providers to decide whether they want to offer life-cycle investment strategies or strategies with minimum return guarantees as a default option. Portability service and compartments PEPP providers should not be required to offer national compartments for all Member States. The majority of potential PEPP providers will not have the administrative capacity to offer national compartments in all Member States. Providers should decide for themselves which Member States they are able to offer the portability service in. Common distribution rules All PEPP providers and distributors should fall under the same distribution and information requirements, as laid down in the EC proposed Regulation on the PEPP, including the same inducement rules. Value-for-money In EFAMA’s view, all the investment options should be cost-effective, in the sense that they should offer value-for-money to the consumer. The most relevant criteria should not be cost, but rather a fair combination of price and quality delivered to the consumer. PEPP authorisation PEPPs should be authorised by the national competent authority of the PEPP provider. This would avoid putting in place a complex procedure which would inevitably involve duplication of tasks between EIOPA and NCAs. National rules There are a number of matters not regulated by the Regulation where Member States may decide to apply different national rules. This could seriously limit PEPP standardisation. This concern could be addressed by specifying which PEPP conditions can be determined by Member States. Choice of pay-out options EFAMA fully supports the provision that PEPP providers be allowed to offer a broad range of pay-out options including annuities, lump sums, drawdown payments, or combinations of these forms. The PEPP’s success will indeed depend on whether it is flexible enough to accommodate investors with different needs, wealth, risk profiles and pension benefits. Switching between PEPP provider and investment options The rule according to which the PEPP saver would be allowed to switch PEPP providers no more frequently than once every five years is too restrictive. We do recognise, however, that PEPP providers investing in non-liquid assets may impose restrictions on switching within certain periods. Investment rules As the PEPP proposal aims to channel savings towards long-term investments, PEPP providers should be allowed to invest in non-liquid assets and instruments with a long-term economic profile, in line with the prudent person rule. PEPP Key Information Document It would be more efficient for the PEPP KID to contain non-country specific information, with the understanding that the PEPP provider disclose country-specific information in a separate document to be delivered to the PEPP savers residing in the Member States concerned.
Read full response

Response to Calculation of total values of references to benchmarks

20 Jul 2017

EFAMA agrees with the European Commission’s proposals as regards the Net Asset Values of investment funds that are to be taken into consideration when calculating the total values of reference to benchmarks. We also agree with the use of alternative amounts and values, provided that they are sufficiently reliable and of sufficient reputation. At the same time, EFAMA would like to stress, as it did in the previous consultations with ESMA, that no additional burden and costs should result for the users related to the collection of the information on NAVs or their frequent update. We indeed welcome that in the Delegated Regulation there is no explicit or implicit requirement to disclose notional or net asset values to the index provider – this is in line with the Level 1 text of the Regulation that does not foresee any such requirements for investment funds as supervised entities. It is important that this will also be safeguarded in practice by making sure that there is sufficient flexibility for benchmark administrators to use all available sources, including proxies, to gather the relevant data.
Read full response

Response to Technical elements of the definitions set out in the Benchmark Regulation

20 Jul 2017

EFAMA would like to recall that the scope of the Benchmarks Regulation clearly covers only those indices that are public or made available to the public and, thus, is a precise one not covering all future or existing indices offered and used in the financial markets. In that context, we welcome the reference in recital 3 of the Delegated Regulation that a clear distinction is to be made so that “a narrowly defined number of recipients should not qualify as the public”, as “otherwise there would not be any difference between “making available” and “making available to the public””. We, indeed, consider that such a distinction is in line with the Level 1 text of the Benchmark Regulation. The recipients having access to an index constitute the key element. In addition, when assessing the recipients having access to an index, the focus should not be on a concrete number/threshold of recipients. The critical point is whether the recipients are a non-precise group of persons or whether there are already defined recipients outside the group of which no other person can have access to the index. The Delegated Regulation foresees in article 1 paragraph 1 that “a figure shall be considered to be made available to the public …where the figure is made accessible to a potentially indeterminate number of legal and natural persons other than the index provider…”. We welcome this definition and the fact that the Commission chose to base the definition not on concrete thresholds as to the number of recipients rather on substantial (qualitative) criteria of whether the access involves a determinate or not number of natural or legal persons. The term “determined number of recipients” refers to concrete/ defined persons that can have access to the index (other than the index provider). We share the Commission’s approach that an index available to an indeterminate number of recipients is much closer to the notion of the access to the public, whereas this is not the case for an index that is only accessible to a determined number of persons. Moreover, paragraph 2 of article 1 refers to indirect ways of having access to an index, among others via a supervised entity using an index to measure the performance of an investment fund. We can agree that such a use may give an indirect access to the index. However, such access will not be enough when considering the public nature of an index, the remaining key element being that the access must refer to an indeterminate number of natural or legal persons. Therefore, the mere reference of an index by an investment fund cannot suffice per se to render a benchmark made available to the public. We consider, however, that this is what paragraph 2 refers to when stating that the figure “may be accessed by such persons”, i.e. such persons referring to the potentially indeterminate number of persons mentioned in the previous paragraph. For that reason, we can agree with what is proposed in paragraph 2. Finally, we have the same point as regards the references in paragraph 3 on the various forms in which access may take place. Indeed, there is a variety of media and modalities to have access to an index, however it is not the form of access, but the indeterminate group of recipients that makes the index “available to the public”. We consider it important that both paragraphs 2 and 3 are read in combination with the definition of paragraph 1.
Read full response

Response to EMIR Amendment

18 Jul 2017

Please see attached file.
Read full response

Meeting with Valdis Dombrovskis (Vice-President) and

22 Mar 2017 · Fund Distribution, PEPP

Meeting with Valérie Herzberg (Cabinet of Vice-President Jyrki Katainen)

21 May 2015 · CMU

Meeting with Jonathan Hill (Commissioner)

29 Jan 2015 · CMU, Long-term savings, Product disclosure