EFAMA welcomes ESMA’s Call for Evidence on asset segregation and custody services as a precious occasion to confirm our previous key messages - as per our response to the previous consultation around Guidelines on asset segregation under the AIFMD of December 2014 – and to clarify our position on new aspects of ESMA’s work.
Management Companies
EFAMA has been looking at legislative proposals with a direct impact on asset management companies and services, and closely follows any regulatory developments of critical importance to the sector. In addition to issues related to risk management and financial stability, high up on the agenda of EFAMA members is the framework for a prudential regime for Investment Firms (IFD/R), and related implementing measures directly descending from such framework.
EFAMA is focused on minimising the impact of the rules on asset management companies, in particular those holding a limited MiFID license. Key to the sector is the need for proportionality, especially firms that are not authorised to hold client money/securities, or to deal on their own account.
EFAMA response to ESMA Call for Evidence on asset segregation
EFAMA reply to FSB consultation on proposed policy recommendations to address structural vulnerabilities from asset management activities
EFAMA firstly wishes to commend the FSB’s change of focus in the course of 2015, from a proposed assessment methodology intended to identify non-bank, non-insurance globally systemically important financial institutions (NBNI G-SIFIs) to a revised and more objective focus on asset management activities. Although we understand the former framework may be revisited by the FSB once its Recommendations are finalised, we appreciate that certain key characteristics of the asset management industry have been recognised and well reflected in the present consultative document.
EFAMA’s reply to ESMA’s Discussion paper on draft RTS and ITS under the Securities Financing Transaction Regulation
EFAMA is grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the drafting of the Regulation through a consultation and we appreciate the effort of the regulator to adopt an approach to reporting consistent with EMIR and to develop, where more efficient, a different reporting logic.
Pre-order your copy of the 2021 Fact Book!
EFAMA’s 2021 Fact Book, “Trends in European Investment Funds”, will be published at the end of June.
As in previous years, this year’s Fact Book provides an extensive analysis of key developments in the investment fund industry, inside and outside Europe.
Monthly Statistics February 2021| Demand for long-term UCITS remained strong in February
The European Fund and Asset Management Association (EFAMA) has today published its latest monthly Investment Fund Industry Fact Sheet, which provides data on UCITS and AIFs sold in February 2021, at European level and by country of fund domiciliation.
EFAMA's and ICMA’s AMIC joint response on fund liquidity management by open-ended funds to IOSCO
ICMA’s AMIC and EFAMA have submitted a joint response to the IOSCO consultation on fund liquidity management by open-ended funds.
The response highlights how industry practices and existing regulatory provisions in Europe are well aligned with the Liquidity Risk Management (LRM) recommendations issued by IOSCO in 2018 (Annex 1).
Asset Management in Europe - An Overview of the Asset Management Industry - November 2020
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.
Demystifying ETPs: an EFAMA guide for the European investor
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.