OpenLobby.EU
Explore

The Alternative Investment Management Association Limited

AIMA

AIMA is the global representative of the alternative investment industry, with around 2,100 corporate members managing over US$4 trillion in hedge fund and private credit assets.

Lobbying Activity

Meeting with Gilles Boyer (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur)

3 Nov 2025 · Securitisation

AIMA urges lower risk weights for insurance securitisation investments

5 Sept 2025
Topic — Technical rules supplementing the review of prudential requirements for the insurance and reinsurance sector.
Message — AIMA requests further reductions in risk factors for senior securitisations to match corporate bonds. They also urge lower capital requirements for mezzanine tranches to reflect actual economic performance.12
Why — Lower regulatory costs would allow these investment managers to attract more capital from insurers.3
Read full response

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

1 Sept 2025 · Exchange of views on the review of the UCITS Eligible Assets Directive and the AIFMD II implementation

Meeting with Kinga Kollár (Member of the European Parliament)

3 Jun 2025 · Improvement of SIU

AIMA urges streamlined EU sustainable finance disclosure reporting rules

29 May 2025
Topic — A consultation on revising the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation to simplify reporting.
Message — AIMA requests the removal of entity-level disclosures and the introduction of materiality assessments for environmental impacts. They argue product categories should be optional for professional funds and current definitions must remain flexible.123
Why — This would significantly lower operational costs and simplify compliance for alternative investment firms.4
Impact — Transparency advocates lose access to firm-wide data regarding sustainability risks and adverse impacts.5
Read full response

Meeting with Dirk Gotink (Member of the European Parliament)

14 May 2025 · SIU

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

14 May 2025 · SIU, Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID II) and Regulation (MiFIR), Short Selling Regulation (SSR)

Meeting with Elena Arveras (Cabinet of Commissioner Maria Luís Albuquerque)

12 May 2025 · Sustainability Omnibus and SFDR revision

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

7 Apr 2025 · Exchange on securitisation

Response to Review of the Securitisation Framework

24 Mar 2025

The Alternative Credit Council, the private credit affiliate of the Alternative Investment Management Association, welcomes the broad EU political consensus on the need to reform the securitisation regulatory framework in order to build the Savings and Investments Union. Reviving the European securitisation market will be particularly positive to financing the real economy and the growth of SMEs, as well as to channel investments into strategic areas like infrastructure, energy, defence and climate transition. The scope of the reform must go beyond policymakers past focus on sell-side issues considering that asset managers and insurers are playing an increasingly prominent role in European credit markets. For example, improving the regulatory framework for instruments like CLOs and allowing asset managers to sponsor securitisations are a necessary condition for the success of any reform. Furthermore, policymakers should focus on removing the Solvency II restrictions that impede insurers from participating in the securitisation market. As with all financial products, there are inherent risks to securitisation, but the key goal for policymakers must be to identify appropriate and proportional disciplines around risk management that are consistent with other financial markets, products and jurisdictions, as well as with wider regulatory frameworks like AIFMD. We believe that in order to revive the EU securitisation market, the upcoming legislative proposal should focus on the following issues: Introduce simplified and more proportionate due diligence and transparency requirements: The detailed due diligence obligations are unique among comparable jurisdictions and carry considerable costs without adding value to the market. Requirements for sophisticated investor groups, particularly those already regulated under AIFMD, should be simplified or removed altogether, and policymakers should follow the UKs proportionate approach to verifying disclosures by third-country parties. More risk-based capital and liquidity requirements for prudentially regulated investors: Solvency II and other requirements on insurers have significantly reduced the incentives for insurers to invest via securitisations, despite the fact that the asset profile of many securitised products is a natural fit for insurance liabilities. Permit sophisticated investors to invest in non-EU securitisation markets: Due to differences between the US and EU implementation of globally agreed securitisation reforms, particularly around risk retention, EU rules prohibit EU investors from investing in some of the largest and most liquid US securitisation products, specifically US open-market CLOs. Broaden the population of financial institutions participating in the production and distribution of securitisations: Recent updates to AIFMD confirm that AIFMs and AIFs are permitted to originate loans while also requiring AIFs to retain 5% of any loans originated then sold. We believe that this should be the groundwork to allowing AIFMs and the AIFs they manage to play a much larger role financing the corporate sector by acting as sponsors of securitisations. Simplify and broaden the scope of the STS labels: Some of the most common securitisation structures like CLOs are currently considered ineligible under the STS criteria due to active management. This is despite active management encouraging a strong alignment of interest between the CLO managers and their investors and CLOs also having a strong track record. Narrow the scope of the Securitisation Regulation to enable the green and digital transitions: Any type of transaction that involves the tranching of risk, however simple, might fall within scope, which captures transactions, including blended finance, that should otherwise not be considered as securitisations, either because they are simple products or because they play a strategic role in mobilising private capital for key EU objectives.
Read full response

Meeting with Vincent Hurkens (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Stéphane Séjourné)

20 Mar 2025 · Savings and Investments Union, Securitisation.

Meeting with Nicolo Brignoli (Cabinet of Commissioner Valdis Dombrovskis)

19 Mar 2025 · Capital Market Union

Response to Savings and Investments Union

7 Mar 2025

The Alternative Investment Management Association (AIMA) believes that the Savings and Investments Union has the potential to boost competitiveness and productivity in the EU economy and to support broader policy goals around innovation, the green and digital transitions, and defence investments. Overall, we believe that the SIU strategy should follow the broad political consensus in the EU around the need to simplify the legislative framework and reduce the regulatory burden of the economy. Private capital markets have a key role to play in the SIU, including mobilising investors and channelling savings into long-term assets with higher returns. Rather than creating new vehicles for retail investors, the SIU strategy should focus on the distribution channels for existing EU-level structures (ELTIF and UCITS) and the hurdles that impede investors from allocating capital to these successful products and strategies. The European Commission should pursue a strategy for the SIU based on competitiveness, burden-reduction, simplification, and achieving a risk-based regulatory framework. The regulatory framework should be particularly revised around: - Existing MiFID rules around distribution are not well designed to support the ability of retail investors to invest in private markets and long-term assets. Rules around suitability and appropriateness should be simplified and broadly substituted with a strict and clearly delineated fiduciary duty for financial advisors and portfolio managers. This approach would be more successful than the current approach towards the Retail Investment Strategy, which we believe is unlikely to achieve the objective of improving retail investor participation in capital markets. - The revision of the UCITS Eligible Assets Directive should be used to modernise the UCITS framework and facilitate the access of retail investors to private markets and long-term assets, for example by allowing UCITS funds to invest in ELTIFs. - The ongoing work at various EU and global levels on the risks of Non-Bank Financial Intermediation (NBFI) is a source of uncertainty in the market, particularly coming so soon after the AIFMD review which already considered many of the same topics, and should not result in new legislative or regulatory action. - The ongoing revision of the Securitisation Regulation is critical to the SIU project and is a prime example of an overly complex and burdensome regulatory framework. Simplification of the scope, due diligence and transparency requirements would unlock this critical mechanism to support the competitiveness of the European economy and key EU policy objectives. Overall, reviving the EU securitisation market would enhance access to capital in the EU. Lastly, we believe that private capital markets have the potential to perform well on their own and to support the EU in key policy goals, provided that the regulatory framework is suitable. The EC should focus on achieving a better risk alignment in the regulatory framework. Key examples of this are the costly and unproportionate capital requirements imposed on insurers and banks when investing in securitisations. This is the case despite the fact that the asset and risk profile of many securitised products is a natural fit for insurance liabilities. Lastly, we believe that the single key area where strong government intervention is warranted is in financial education for retail investors. The EU and national governments have a key role to play improving the financial literacy of the average citizen, removing the barriers to distribution that undermine retail access and addressing the system of incentives that prevent retail investors from getting the best financial advice.
Read full response

Meeting with Billy Kelleher (Member of the European Parliament)

20 Feb 2025 · Securitisation

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

19 Feb 2025 · - private credit market developments and insurance, - securitization reform

Meeting with Pasquale Tridico (Member of the European Parliament)

17 Oct 2024 · Meeting with DAnny O'Connell - Alternative Investment Management Association (AIMA)

Meeting with Florian Denis (Cabinet of Commissioner Mairead Mcguinness)

1 Jul 2024 · securitisation

Meeting with Florian Denis (Cabinet of Commissioner Mairead Mcguinness)

2 Feb 2024 · Capital Markets Union (CMU)

AIMA urges EU to eliminate duplicative asset management reporting

28 Nov 2023
Topic — The initiative aims to reduce reporting requirements in EU legislation by 25 percent.
Message — AIMA recommends removing duplicative anti-money laundering reporting and deleting best execution reports. They also support single-sided derivatives reporting to reduce unnecessary administrative efforts.12
Why — This would reduce significant compliance costs and administrative resources currently spent on redundant data collection.3
Impact — National regulators might face reduced oversight capabilities due to less direct reporting from buy-side firms.4
Read full response

Meeting with Florian Denis (Cabinet of Commissioner Mairead Mcguinness)

12 Jul 2023 · AIFMD

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

8 Mar 2023 · Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence

Response to EMIR Targeted review

17 Jan 2023

The Alternative Investment Management Association (AIMA) is pleased to give its reaction to the publication by the European Commission of the European Market Infrastructure Regulation (EMIR) review (the Proposal) on 7th December. Derivative instruments form an integral part of the activity of the hedge fund industry, with substantial amounts of derivatives cleared through central counterparties (CCPs) and we are keen to ensure that the EMIR review helps to shape a sustainable and efficient system for clearing activity in the EU and beyond. While AIMA is pleased to see that the European Commission explicitly recognizes that clearing activity operates on a global basis and not along regional lines, the content of the Proposal would endanger the current global model and result in fragmentation of clearing for EU market participants. We note that the Proposal requires market participants subject to a clearing obligation to clear a portion of the products that have been identified by ESMA as of substantial systemic importance through active accounts at EU CCPs. While there remains uncertainty as to what proportion of such products will need to be cleared through EU CCPs, it is clear that such a move would represent a fundamental shift in the current organization of international clearing. Such a shift will have short-term and long-term consequences including putting the EU at a competitive disadvantage. International and EU clients not subject to the EMIR clearing obligation will be incentivized to move their business from EU-institutions to international locations in order to maintain the ability to direct clearing according to their risk management and commercial preferences. Please see our Position Paper in attachment for further information.
Read full response

Meeting with Frances Fitzgerald (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur for opinion)

18 Nov 2022 · Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence (Assistant on behalf of MEP)

Meeting with Ondřej Kovařík (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur)

8 Sept 2022 · Informal discussion with regulators and industry participants

Meeting with Billy Kelleher (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur) and Managed Funds Association

20 Jul 2022 · AIFMD

Meeting with Ondřej Kovařík (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur)

26 Apr 2022 · ELTIF Regulation

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

12 Nov 2021 · Capital Markets Union

Response to New EU system for the avoidance of double taxation in the field of withholding taxes

26 Oct 2021

The attached response is made on behalf of the Alternative Investment Management Association and the Alternative Credit Council.
Read full response

Meeting with Mairead McGuinness (Commissioner) and

27 Sept 2021 · AIFMD

Response to European Digital Identity (EUid)

26 Aug 2021

The Alternative Investment Management Association (AIMA) welcomes the opportunity to provide feedback to the European Commission’s “Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 as regards establishing a framework for a European Digital Identity” (the “Proposal”). We fully support the European Commission in its objective to create an EU-wide digital identity framework as part of the EU’s Shaping Europe’s Digital Future strategy. Indeed, in a white paper that we published in 2020, and which we have previously shared with you and your colleagues within the European Commission, we outlined several options to improve the customer due diligence (CDD) process through the use of a multi-jurisdictional, digital identification solution. To that end, we believe that the European Digital Identity framework should be principles-based, and as open and inclusive as possible in order to facilitate a more global, uniform approach to digital identification and verification and an improved AML/CFT ecosystem. This would ensure that both EU and non-EU legal entities and natural persons have equal access to the benefits that the Proposal aims to introduce. A more principles-based approach to the use of digital identities would allow all users, and service providers, regardless of where they are located, to access and contribute to a convenient, trusted, secure and innovative authentication and identification framework. Moreover, such an approach would also facilitate the inter-operability of the digital identity schemes and the use of electronic identity services from non-EU service providers by EU entities and natural persons, and, correspondingly, the use of non-EU identity services to supplement those that are available in the EU. In order to achieve this, we have a few questions and concerns which we would ask the European Commission to share with the European Parliament and European Council as they prepare for their legislative debate. Please see our full response in the attached letter.
Read full response

Response to Delegated Act on the adjustment of the threshold for the notification of significant net short positions in shares

9 Aug 2021

Good afternoon, Please find attached feedback from AIMA and MFA regarding the Commission's draft delegated act amending the notification threshold for short positions. Best, Adam Jacobs-Dean
Read full response

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

2 Jun 2021

The Alternative Investment Management Association (AIMA) welcomes the opportunity to provide feedback on the draft delegated act related to Article 8(4) (the ‘delegated act’) of the Taxonomy Regulation (2020/852) to the European Commission (the ‘Commission’). We welcome the clarification of the disclosure requirements introduced by the Taxonomy Regulation for firms subject to Article 19a or 29a of Directive 2013/34/EU and are pleased to share some comments with a view to contributing to the ultimate objective of ensuring adequate reporting to investors and enabling them to allocate their capital based on sound and reliable information. Our main comments in relation to the draft delegated act are focused on disclosure requirements applying to financial institutions as described in Article 8 of the draft delegated act and are detailed in the attached letter.
Read full response

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

12 Mar 2021 · Capital Markets Union

Meeting with Florian Denis (Cabinet of Commissioner Mairead Mcguinness)

24 Feb 2021 · AIFMD/Gamestop

Response to Digital Operational Resilience of Financial Services (DORFS) Act

15 Feb 2021

The Alternative Investment Management Association (AIMA) welcomes the opportunity to contribute the following comments, following the publication of the EU digital operational resilience legislative proposal. Please find our feedback attached.
Read full response

Meeting with Lucrezia Busa (Cabinet of Commissioner Didier Reynders)

15 Feb 2021 · Substainable Corporate Governance

Meeting with Mairead McGuinness (Commissioner)

28 Jan 2021 · Economic recovery post Brexit Capital Markets Union

Response to Alternative Investment Fund Managers – review of EU rules

7 Jan 2021

The Alternative Investment Management Association Limited (AIMA) and the Alternative Credit Council (ACC) appreciate the opportunity to comment on the European Commission’s (Commission) inception impact assessment on the AIFMD review. Our members note that the AIFMD review happens in a particular context with important economic challenges ahead. The Commission has confirmed the importance of developing and supporting the growth of EU capital markets in its recently adopted Capital Markets Union (CMU) action plan. Fund managers, and notably AIFMs, are an essential component of the CMU project and, if the objective is to deepen and enlarge EU capital markets, a clear decision should be taken to consider how and whether the review of the AIFMD can support the development and activities of fund managers in EU capital markets. Although we understand that the AIFMD review was foreseen in the AIFMD itself, our members’ widely shared concern is that any attempt to change, clarify or “improve” the framework would create more uncertainties in the legal framework, generate more operational costs and ultimately reduce the bandwidth for our members to focus on their activities and contribute to the economic recovery. Furthermore, a Proposed Directive, as foreseen in the inception impact assessment, is a legislative proposal that is discussed at a political level, due to the nature of the EU legislative process. We are concerned that highly technical discussions could become subject to political compromises which often result in decisions that have little to do with the reality of the market. Although difficult to quantify, our view is that such “level 1” process conducted in the current climate has the potential to create long-lasting damage for an entire industry, hindering the investment needed to support the economic recovery and negatively impacting the Commission’s ultimate objective to develop liquid and attractive capital markets. Our key recommendation is therefore to avoid a general overhaul of the current rules and focus any proposals for potential “improvements” or clarifications of the AIFMD on amendments to existing delegated acts or using supervisory guidelines. Maintaining the original purpose of this directive should also be a priority: the AIFMD should remain a “manager-focused” directive dedicated to the wholesale market. It should not include financial products-specific requirements (for example on retail AIFs or loan originating funds) and it should also avoid conflating retail market issues with the wholesale market. As regards macro-prudential tools, AIMA and ACC note the resilience of the EU AIFM industry during the COVID-19 crisis. This real life stress test demonstrates the robust framework provided by the AIFMD to ensure fund managers set adequate liquidity management policies and efficiently use their liquidity risk management tools. As regards the use of leverage, we support the IOSCO’s recommendations to improve leverage measurement and assessment and are in favour of them being embedded in the technical provisions of the AIFMD reporting framework. Finally, we feel that most of the concepts addressed in the Level 1 text of the AIFMD and further clarified in the delegated regulation 231/2013 (the ‘AIFMR’) or by the various level 3 guidance issued by ESMA, such as the concepts of investing on own account or the delegation of some functions to third parties, are well defined and do not require any further clarification. We would recommend that NCAs use the supervisory convergence tools that are already available to them to support the common application of the European rules. We are concerned that reviewing these concepts in the AIFMD Level 1 text or even in AIFMR would result in profound, and unnecessary, disruption of the actual regime. Note that these comments are to be read as preliminary feedback as consultation among our members on a more detailed position is still ongoing.
Read full response

Response to Long Term Investment Funds – Review of EU rules

14 Oct 2020

ELTIF Inception Impact Assessment – Feedback from the Alternative Credit Council The Alternative Credit Council (ACC), the global representative of the private credit industry, is pleased to contribute to the European Commission’s Inception Impact Assessment (IIA) of the ELTIF vehicle. The ACC has previously provided feedback in the enclosed position paper on ELTIF. In the below, we offer comments on the limitations of the current Regulation and the likely impact of a reformed vehicle. Suggested reforms Given the breadth of limitations associated with the Regulation, we believe that soft-law measures and clarifications will be insufficient to enhance the attractiveness of ELTIFs to investors. Instead, we urge the Commission to introduce targeted amendments to the ELTIF legal framework in the following areas: - Structural constraints: We welcome the IIA’s reference to a review of fund structuring, the introduction of more frequent redemptions, and the development of listed ELTIFs. Allowing ELTIFs to operate as permanent capital or evergreen vehicles will align with investor preferences. - Borrowing limits: We welcome the modification of borrowing limits noted in the assessment and would also propose an explicit permission of borrowing for the purposes of managing liquidity, the financing of assets in the investment portfolio, as well as the temporary disapplication of borrowing limits during the ramp-up period. Borrowing in other currencies should also be permitted. - Investment mandate: We welcome the widening of eligible assets under the vehicle, in particular the investments in funds other than ELTIFs, EuVECAs or EUSEF noted in the IIA. An explicit permission for ELTIFs investing in fund of fund structures and a general broadening of exposure limits should also be considered. - Marketing and distribution: We support the clarification of ELTIF requirements for the assessment of retail investors’ knowledge and experience as well as the reduction of national discretions related to the retail passport for ELTIFs noted in the IIA. - Co-investment: We encourage the Commission to expand the IIA to include a review of Article 12 to support co-investment by asset managers in transactions, as well as investment in parallel fund set ups using aggregators and special purpose vehicles. - Local facilities requirements: The anachronistic requirement to set up local facilities and appoint a local agent in each Member State where an ELTIF is marketed should be removed. Such facilities can be provided via digital channels for retail investors and should be removed entirely when marketing to a non-retail investor base. The ELTIF review should also consider the wider legislative context, particularly the impact of Withholding Tax rules and the definition of retail client within the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID) on the viability of ELTIFs. Expected impact The ACC agrees that ELTIFs can facilitate and complement existing SME funding sources and play a key role in Europe’s economic recovery. A reformed ELTIF regime, aligned with the needs of investors, has the potential to address the acute financing challenges faced by European businesses. To underline the potential of ELTIF, we would highlight the success of a similar lending vehicle, the U.S. Business Development Company (BDC). It is estimated that BDCs assets under management have increased from $19 billion in 2009 to $105 billion in 2019, providing 12,500 loans and equity investments to US businesses. We believe that a reformed ELTIF could achieve the same impact and scale in Europe. The ACC looks forward to working with the Commission and other stakeholders to implement the reforms needed to realise this vision.
Read full response

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

6 Jul 2020

AIMA and MFA have been actively engaging on the topic of sustainable finance with the European Commission and European policy-makers to contribute to the development of an effective and impactful sustainable finance environment. Our engagement seeks to ensure that investors and market players have the necessary tools and data to fulfil their obligations and service their ultimate beneficiaries, and that any regulatory action takes into account asset managers’ core duty towards their investors which is to protect and enhance their capital. We note that the draft delegated directive integrating sustainability risks in the MiFID II framework presented by the European Commission build on ESMA Technical Advice and that it is broadly aligned with the recommendations of ESMA, and so we would like to propose some enhancements taking into consideration our members’ views in order to support the EU’s objective of strengthening the environment for sustainable finance. Our main comments on the DDAs are the following: - Investors should be offered a diversified choice in regards to their sustainability preferences: Opting for a “sustainable financial product” entails a choice by investors, for example, some may choose screening of controversial underlying investments while others may want exposure to impact funds. Given the range of investor preferences, it is important that financial advisors are able to offer a broad and diversified range of products so as to better address their clients’ specific needs. We would recommend therefore to include references to plain Article 8 products as a third category of products in the "sustainable preferences" definition, so that investors can appropriately be informed and can differentiate between Article 8 products with more stringent conditions and other Article 8 products that have environmental and/or social characteristics but are neither fulfilling a sustainable objective nor considering principal adverse impact on sustainability factors. This would provide investors with clear information and a broad set of options to meet their sustainability preferences. - We encourage the European Commission to call for sustainability to be considered “where relevant” to the investment services provided: The “where relevant” language, which ESMA advised in its technical advice to the Commission, is important because for certain strategies or sub-strategies of asset managers sustainability is not relevant. We would therefore recommend reinserting the language in ESMA’s technical advice clarifying that ESG considerations should be taken into account “where relevant.” Further details can be found in our cover letter available on demand.
Read full response

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

6 Jul 2020

AIMA and MFA have been actively engaging on the topic of sustainable finance with the European Commission and European policy-makers to contribute to the development of an effective and impactful sustainable finance environment. Our engagement seeks to ensure that investors and market players have the necessary tools and data to fulfil their obligations and service their ultimate beneficiaries, and that any regulatory action takes into account asset managers’ core duty towards their investors which is to protect and enhance their capital. We note that the draft delegated acts integrating sustainability risks in the MiFID II framework presented by the European Commission build on ESMA Technical Advice and that they are broadly aligned with the recommendations of ESMA, and so we would like to propose some enhancements taking into consideration our members’ views in order to support the EU’s objective of strengthening the environment for sustainable finance. Our main comments on the MiFID II DDAs are the following: - There should not be disproportionate emphasis placed on sustainability risks compared to other risk factors: Our members understand and support the addition of “sustainability risks” in the list of specific risks to be considered in general risk management policies but consider that such addition is broadly sufficient to ensure that sustainability risks are taken into account throughout the decision-making process. However, singling out this type of risk in the context of the management of conflict of interests, the general requirements, and the supervisory functions, might result in a potential disconnect between the assessment of this type of risk and the general investment or risk management approach. - Investors should be offered a diversified choice in regards to their sustainability preferences: Opting for a “sustainable financial product” entails a choice by investors, for example, some may choose screening of controversial underlying investments while others may want exposure to impact funds. Given the range of investor preferences, it is important that financial advisors are able to offer a broad and diversified range of products so as to better address their clients’ specific needs. We would recommend therefore to include, in the MiFID II draft delegated acts, references to plain Article 8 products as a third category of products in the "sustainable preferences" definition, so that investors can appropriately be informed and can differentiate between Article 8 products with more stringent conditions and other Article 8 products that have environmental and/or social characteristics but are neither fulfilling a sustainable objective nor considering principal adverse impact on sustainability factors. This would provide investors with clear information and a broad set of options to meet their sustainability preferences. - We encourage the European Commission to call for sustainability to be considered “where relevant” to the investment services provided: The “where relevant” language, which ESMA advised in its technical advice to the Commission, is important because for certain strategies or sub-strategies of asset managers sustainability is not relevant. We would therefore recommend reinserting the language in ESMA’s technical advice clarifying that ESG considerations should be taken into account “where relevant.” Further details can be found in our cover letter available on demand.
Read full response

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

6 Jul 2020

AIMA and MFA have been actively engaging on the topic of sustainable finance with the European Commission and European policy-makers to contribute to the development of an effective and impactful sustainable finance environment. Our engagement seeks to ensure that investors and market players have the necessary tools and data to fulfil their obligations and service their ultimate beneficiaries, and that any regulatory action takes into account asset managers’ core duty towards their investors which is to protect and enhance their capital. We note that the draft delegated acts integrating sustainability risks in the UCITS directive presented by the European Commission build on ESMA Technical Advice and that they are broadly aligned with the recommendations of ESMA, and so we would like to propose some enhancements taking into consideration our members’ views in order to support the EU’s objective of strengthening the environment for sustainable finance. Our main comments on the DDAs are the following: - There should not be disproportionate emphasis placed on sustainability risks compared to other risk factors: Our members understand and support the addition of “sustainability risks” in the list of specific risks to be considered in general risk management policies but consider that such addition is broadly sufficient to ensure that sustainability risks are taken into account throughout the decision-making process. However, singling out this type of risk in the context of the management of conflict of interests, the general requirements, and the supervisory functions, might result in a potential disconnect between the assessment of this type of risk and the general investment or risk management approach. - We encourage the European Commission to call for sustainability to be considered “where relevant” to the investment services provided: The “where relevant” language, which ESMA advised in its technical advice to the Commission, is important because for certain strategies or sub-strategies of asset managers sustainability is not relevant. We would therefore recommend reinserting the language in ESMA’s technical advice clarifying that ESG considerations should be taken into account “where relevant.” Further details can be found in our cover letter available on demand.
Read full response

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

6 Jul 2020

AIMA and MFA have been actively engaging on the topic of sustainable finance with the European Commission and European policy-makers to contribute to the development of an effective and impactful sustainable finance environment. Our engagement seeks to ensure that investors and market players have the necessary tools and data to fulfil their obligations and service their ultimate beneficiaries, and that any regulatory action takes into account asset managers’ core duty towards their investors which is to protect and enhance their capital. We note that the draft delegated acts integrating sustainability risks in the UCITS directive, AIFMD and MiFID II frameworks presented by the European Commission build on ESMA Technical Advice and that they are broadly aligned with the recommendations of ESMA, and so we would like to propose some enhancements taking into consideration our members’ views in order to support the EU’s objective of strengthening the environment for sustainable finance. Our main comments on the DDAs are the following: - There should not be disproportionate emphasis placed on sustainability risks compared to other risk factors: Our members understand and support the addition of “sustainability risks” in the list of specific risks to be considered in general risk management policies but consider that such addition is broadly sufficient to ensure that sustainability risks are taken into account throughout the decision-making process. However, singling out this type of risk in the context of the management of conflict of interests, the general requirements, and the supervisory functions, might result in a potential disconnect between the assessment of this type of risk and the general investment or risk management approach. - Investors should be offered a diversified choice in regards to their sustainability preferences: Opting for a “sustainable financial product” entails a choice by investors, for example, some may choose screening of controversial underlying investments while others may want exposure to impact funds. Given the range of investor preferences, it is important that financial advisors are able to offer a broad and diversified range of products so as to better address their clients’ specific needs. We would recommend therefore to include, in the MiFID II draft delegated acts, references to plain Article 8 products as a third category of products in the "sustainable preferences" definition, so that investors can appropriately be informed and can differentiate between Article 8 products with more stringent conditions and other Article 8 products that have environmental and/or social characteristics but are neither fulfilling a sustainable objective nor considering principal adverse impact on sustainability factors. This would provide investors with clear information and a broad set of options to meet their sustainability preferences. - We encourage the European Commission to call for sustainability to be considered “where relevant” to the investment services provided: The “where relevant” language, which ESMA advised in its technical advice to the Commission, is important because for certain strategies or sub-strategies of asset managers sustainability is not relevant. We would therefore recommend reinserting the language in ESMA’s technical advice clarifying that ESG considerations should be taken into account “where relevant.” Further details can be found in our cover letter available on demand.
Read full response

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

17 Apr 2020 · The impact of the COVID-19 on the alternative investment management industry

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

31 Jan 2020 · Capital Market Union, Asset management regulation

Meeting with Jérome Deslandes (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Valdis Dombrovskis)

23 Jan 2020 · - Presentation of the Alternative credit council report and discussion about the existing regulatory framework in the EU (national regimes and ELTIF); - Discussion about economic situation, leveraged loans and macro-prudential policy

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

1 Oct 2019 · AIFMD review, sustainable finance

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

21 Jun 2018

The Alternative Investment Management Association Limited (AIMA) welcomes the opportunity to respond to the proposal for a delegated regulation amending Regulation (EU) 2017/565 (‘MiFIR’) supplementing Directive 2014/65/EU (‘MiFID II’) as regards organisational requirements and operating conditions for investment firms and defined terms for the purposes of that Directive (the ‘draft delegated regulation’). Investor interest in responsible investment and consideration of environmental, social and governance (‘ESG’) factors with respect to their investment portfolios has been increasing over recent years. The reflection around the introduction of ESG considerations in MiFID II’s suitability requirements is appropriate and seems to follow an already existing, and growing, trend. As underlined in our recent survey on responsible investment, a significant number of alternative investment fund managers are now focusing on how to adopt responsible investment while continuing to deliver the strong risk-adjusted returns that their clients have come to expect. This trend is led by a growing demand from investors who are increasingly looking for portfolio solutions that, as well as minimising risks and maximising returns, also take governance, social and environmental concerns into account. As this activity is getting more and more important among our members, we have had the opportunity to also appreciate the complexity and subjectivity of mainstream concepts such as “sustainability”, “ESG considerations” or “green investments”. These concepts are very often linked to a particular perception which can differ from one market participant to another. With this background in mind, our main comments on the draft delegated regulation are as follows and detailed in the letter attached: - The consideration of ESG factors should be client-driven rather than imposed by regulation The investment management industry is based on an agency business model, whereby the investment firms acts as the agent of the client (or principal) and its primary duty is to protect and enhance the client’s assets. Any additional or alternative considerations other than the protection and growth of one’s clients’ assets in line with the stated investment and financial objectives should be prompted by the client rather than by external regulatory constraints. - Financial returns obtained in line with investment goals should be a primary consideration in suitability assessments where there is lack of clarity around hierarchy of objectives The text of the delegated regulation should clarify that when considering client investment objectives and ESG preferences, the investment objectives in the form of financial returns relevant to the circumstances and the goals of the client should be the primary factor to consider when providing investment advice or portfolio management services. - Sustainable investments should not be required to be defined solely or predominantly by the reference to the EU taxonomy or EU prescriptive lists We would welcome a clarification that the EU taxonomy and other prescriptive descriptions be used only as examples of sustainable investment that the client could choose to refer to, or to ignore. - Investment firms should be free not to offer ESG related investment strategies To the extent that ESG factors do not have a bearing on financial performance and the risk profile of the various investment strategies, investment firms ought to be able to offer services that do not explicitly take ESG factors into account. This is already suggested by the proposed text which states that clients may not have any ESG preferences. - Consideration of ESG factors by investment firms should be done on a proportionate basis Investment firms ought to conduct their business in relation to ESG considerations in a manner which is appropriate and proportionate to the nature, scale and size of their business.
Read full response

Response to Review of the European Supervisory Authorities

23 Jan 2018

Overall, The Alternative Investment Management Association (AIMA) is supportive of many of the changes put forward in the European Commission’s proposal to amend regulations establishing the European Supervisory Authorities (ESAs) (the ‘Proposal’). We recognise that, in order to further integrate the European Capital Markets Union, greater harmonisation of practices and supervisory convergence is needed. We believe, however, that the Proposal and its provisions would need to be considerably refined and rethought as part of a wider and more inclusive discussion with Member States, the European Parliament and market participants. Governance, transparency and accountability We applaud some of the proposals suggested in order to strengthen the ESAs’ governance, transparency and better regulation disciplines. We believe that, as an ESA’s role grows, it is essential that decisions which potentially lead to new interpretations of level 1 and level 2 texts be, at a minimum, submitted to full public consultation and/or that market participants be offered some meaningful ways to comment constructively on the likely effect of these positions. The ESAs’ role in third country assessments We support the proposal that ESMA should assist the Commission in preparing equivalence decisions pertaining to regulatory and supervisory regimes in third countries. We would like to point out that in some legal texts, such as the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive (‘AIFMD’), the third country regime does not strictly require the Commission to adopt an ‘equivalence’ decision as a pre-condition for introducing a passporting mechanism for third country entities. In this sense, the language in Article 33 of the ESMA regulation could be broadened to also cover third country assessments other than ‘equivalence’ assessments. We also support the proposal to give ESMA a central role in an ongoing monitoring of third country regimes. However, we would suggest the outcomes of such monitoring exercises are made public as opposed to being only addressed to the Commission in confidential reports. Direct authorisation and supervision of funds and asset managers While we are supportive of ESMA taking up a more ambitious role in the area of direct authorisation, supervision, reporting and oversight where this is appropriate and justified, we do not support the intermediate solution of creating an additional regulatory layer above national competent authorities (‘NCAs’) which duplicates activity and creates unnecessary cost and uncertainty. An extremely confusing and concerning proposal relates to the transfer of authorisation and supervisory powers over certain EU fund products (ELTIF, EUSEF, EUVECA). As with the case of delegation cited below, the proposals suggest we would continue to have NCAs supervising the core functions and activities of asset managers and ESMA supervising the compliance with the product regulations. Although this new division of responsibilities at first sight seems to be clear, it will in practice only lead to extremely duplicative and complex arrangements that will create jurisdictional tensions and market uncertainty. Duplication of supervision in the area of delegation The proposal under Article 31a to endow the ESAs with additional powers to coordinate delegation and outsourcing requirements is unwarranted and conceptually flawed. We believe that, in the area of asset management, which relies on an extremely diverse set of delegation models and arrangements, this additional, burdensome and hard-to-justify supervisory layer does not address potential prudential or investor protection issues effectively. To our knowledge, delegation arrangements have not caused any specific problems in relation to investor protection or financial stability and to the contrary, have proven effective and have enabled EU market players to benefit from sectoral and jurisdictional expertise, to the benefit of their investors.
Read full response

Meeting with David Boublil (Cabinet of Commissioner Pierre Moscovici)

17 Nov 2017 · Discussion sur les travaux de la Commission européenne sur la transparence fiscale et des conséquence sur l'industrie financière

Response to Further amendments to the European Market Infrastructure Regulation (EMIR)

21 Sept 2017

Please find attached the comments of the Alternative Investment Management Association regarding these proposals.
Read full response

Meeting with Jan Ceyssens (Cabinet of Vice-President Valdis Dombrovskis)

15 Sept 2017 · ESAs review

Response to EMIR Amendment

30 Jun 2017

Please find attached the feedback of the Alternative Investment Management Association on the European Commission's proposals to amend EMIR.
Read full response

Meeting with Eduard Hulicius (Cabinet of Commissioner Věra Jourová), Simona Constantin (Cabinet of Commissioner Věra Jourová)

14 Sept 2015 · Remuneration policy under CRD IV and EBA guidelines on proportionality

Meeting with Jack Schickler (Cabinet of Commissioner Jonathan Hill)

15 Jul 2015 · CCP recovery and resolution

Meeting with Jonathan Hill (Commissioner)

29 May 2015 · Long-term financing/securitisation

Meeting with Ioana Diaconescu (Cabinet of Commissioner Pierre Moscovici)

28 May 2015 · Better regulation in the context of Capital Markets Union, securitisation and non-bank lending.

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

7 May 2015 · CMU