Ever since the term “shadow banking” has emerged from the FSB’s working circles in the immediate aftermath of the 2008 global financial crisis, our association has consistently argued that its use as a reference to regulated asset management companies and their funds is inaccurate and mis-leading.
EFAMA's response to the EBA consultation on draft RTS criteria for the identification of shadow banking entities
Andreas Stepnitzka, EFAMA Deputy Director, Regulatory Policy, comments:
The Commission aims to present a legislative proposal to address the tax-induced debt-equity bias, also to support the action plan for the Capital Markets Union and to encourage companies to finance their investment through equity contributions rather than through debt financing.
EFAMA provided high-level comments to the Commission’s consultation on the potential review of the Directive on Distance Marketing of Consumer Financial Services.
We agree with the Commission’s interpretation that the Directive is seen as a “safety net” for financial services not already subject to product-specific legislation. Fund and asset managers are already subject to various, more stringent and detailed sectoral legislations, such as (but not limited to) UCITS, AIFMD and MiFID as well as the (more recent) Cross-Border Fund Distribution Directives.