EU Fund regulation
The EU fund product landscape is deep, diverse and dynamic. Since the birth of the UCITS framework in 1985, European institutions have progressively refined it into a global “gold standard”, one that successfully balances strict regulatory requirements with the flexibility required by manager to meet evolving client demands. The successful evolution of UCITS was followed by the creation of alternative investment funds (AIFs) under the 2011 AIFM Directive, adding a second important pillar to EU fund/manager regulation. Building on this second pillar are further ambitious EU fund products, such as EUSEFs, EUVECAs and ELTIFs. EFAMA has helped guide all of these key regulatory developments, informing policymakers and regulators on their main merits and drawbacks, while also keeping a close eye on their respective review initiatives.
EFAMA strongly supports a fundamental review to the ELTIF regime, in view of broadening its eligible investment universe and adapting it to better meet retail investor needs. We are also closely monitoring the review of the AIFM Directive from a product regulation standpoint, including possible spillover effects on the UCITS Directive requirements. Further work involves keeping pace with relevant ESMA initiatives, such as the work around the Common Supervisory Action on costs and fees for UCITS.
Our comment paper confutes the ECB study’s main findings by focusing on its two core areas, namely
liquidity and counterparty risks inherent to the structure and functioning of ETFs. A final section
considers the merits of further regulatory action addressed at the European ETF industry.
EFAMA’s comments on ESMA’s CP on Draft regulatory technical standards under Article 25 of ELTIF Regulation
EFAMA firmly supports the European Commission’s proposal to revise the European Long-Term Investment Fund (ELTIF) Regulation. The revised framework has the potential to transform ELTIF into a product of choice for European investors and to become a cornerstone of the Capital Markets Union.
Register now for our Investment Management Forum next week! High-calibre panels and keynote speakers promise rich, informative and thought-provoking exchanges between European policymakers, investment managers and regulators on
- the Competitiveness of our industry
- the EU retail investment strategy
- the latest in global standards for sustainability reporting
- challenges and opportunities of alternative investment regulations
- the impact of digitalisation on asset management
- and more...
Fund managers retain only 41% of the total cost paid by retail investors | Market Insights | Issue #6
EFAMA has released its latest Market Insights report titled “Perspective on the costs of UCITS”. The full report breaks down the costs of UCITS, focusing on the fees charged for the different services provided along the investment fund value chain and
The report aims to provide a unique and comprehensive set of facts and figures on the state of the industry at the end of 2018 but also to highlight the fundamental role of asset managers in the financial system and wider economy.
European MMFs in the Covid-19 market turmoil: Evidence, experience and tentative considerations around eventual future reforms
The pandemic-induced market events experienced in March 2020 have marked the first true ‘stress-test’ for European MMFs, following the introduction of the EU Money Market Fund Regulation (MMFR) in 2017. Despite the severity of the liquidity stress in the secondary market for short-term instruments and the significant outflows experienced by European MMFs across all three of the MMFR-identified categories (public debt CNAV, LVNAV and VNAV), funds proved resilient.
Through its ETF Task Force, EFAMA has produced an Investor Education Guide intended to draw out, in a simple form, the defining features for the three main types of ETPs (Exchange-traded products) listed across European markets. The association hopes this guide will primarily assist investors in having a clearer understanding of different ETPs and help investors appreciate the differences between them, especially from a risk and product complexity viewpoint.