We disagree with an extension of its scope to UCITS’ and AIFs’ management companies to the scope of the reporting requirements imposed by MiFIR, Art. 26. This extension would be in breach of the principle of proportionality, as:
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 has released its 2021 industry Fact Book.
The 2021 Fact Book provides an in-depth analysis of trends in the European fund industry, an extensive overview of the regulatory developments across 29 European countries and a wealth of data.
The European Fund and Asset Management Association (EFAMA) has today published its response to the ESMA consultation on the legislative review of the EU Money Market Fund Regulation (MMFR).
The mission at the heart of our work on the European Fund Classification scheme is to help investors, and the wider European funds industry, to find and compare similar fund peer groups in a meaningful way. This mission is particularly relevant in an era of rising cross-border fund sales because the EFC enables investors and their advisers to compare funds across different European jurisdictions consistently.
The Covid-19 pandemic significantly impacted financial markets. Stock markets across the world suffered a steep decline driven by lower economic growth and corporate profits. As anticipated, the crisis caused substantial net outflows from UCITS in March (EUR 313 billion). However, as a percentage of net assets, these outflows were no higher than in October 2008, at the height of the global financial crisis (2.9%).
In 2019, AMIC and EFAMA decided to update their 2016 report “Managing Fund Liquidity Risk in Europe” following important policy and regulatory developments at EU and international levels. The purpose of this updated report is to outline the practical liquidity risk management processes which fund management companies put in place when setting up a fund and implement throughout the life of the fund. Also, the report describes the existing European and international regulatory frameworks in the area of fund liquidity risk management.
The EFAMA Asset Management in Europe report aims at providing facts and figures to gain a better understanding of the role of the European asset management industry. It takes a different approach from that of the other EFAMA research reports, on two grounds. Firstly, this report does not focus exclusively on investment funds, but it also analyses the assets that are managed by asset managers under the form of discretionary mandates. Secondly, the report focuses on the countries where the investment fund assets are managed rather than on the countries in which the funds are domiciled.