On 11 March 2021, EFAMA and 14 trade associations representing a wide range of stakeholders in the European and global financial markets wrote to the European Commission and ESMA raising concerns about the implementation of the mandatory buy-in requirement under the EU’s CSDR Settlement Discipline Regime.
Capital markets
Investment managers, acting on behalf of their retail and institutional clients, are among the largest investors in financial markets. They represent a key component of the market’s “buy-side” segment.
In representing the interests of its members on wholesale capital market issues, EFAMA advocates for fair, deep, liquid, and transparent capital markets, supported by properly regulated and supervised market infrastructure.
Joint trade association letter regarding Implementation of CSDR SDR
EFAMA reply to ESMA CP on marketing communications guidelines
EFAMA believes that ESMA’s draft ‘marketing communication’ Guidelines still require important clarifications to ensure full alignment between them and MiFID II’s Commission Delegated Regulation Article 44. This alignment is essential to ensure coherent rules for fund management companies and distributors. Unfortunately, parts of the proposed Guidelines are overly prescriptive and may unintentionally make some marketing materials vaguer or even inconsistent with local MiFID requirements for distributors.
EFAMA's reply to EC's consultation on the Review of CSDR
EFAMA supports the main objectives of CSDR to increase the safety and efficiency of securities settlement, including:
- Shorter settlement periods,
- Prudential and supervisory requirements for CSDs and other institutions providing banking services ancillary to securities settlement,
- The imposition of a penalty regime under CSDR as an important step towards improving settlement efficiency in European capital markets.
Joint Statement on EU Commission proposal for revised Market in Financial Instrument Regulation (MiFIR)
We see great value in the creation of a consolidated tape to support Europe’s capital markets. However, we qualify that statement with a reminder that the framework for a successful consolidated tape should
i) address the known market failure around market data costs,
EFAMA welcomes proposal on affordable consolidated tape - The association continues to urge action on market data costs
EFAMA is pleased to read today the details of a robust MiFIR proposal from the European Commission addressing key areas of reform around the creation of a consolidated tape (CT), along with adjustments to transparency requirements on trading.
Buy-side use-cases for a real-time consolidated tape
A real-time consolidated tape, provided it is made available at a reasonable cost, will bring many benefits to European capital markets. A complete and consistent view of market-wide prices and trading volumes is necessary for any market, though this is especially true for the EU where trading is fragmented across a large number of trading venues. A real-time consolidated tape should cover equities and bonds, delivering data in ‘as close to real-time as technically possible’ after receipt of the data from the different trade venues.
Annual Review June 2019-June 2020
"It gives me great pleasure to provide you with an overview of our activities since our Annual General Meeting in Paris last year. While we were very much looking forward to hosting you all in Brussels this week, the current crisis and associated travel restrictions has forced us to improvise and turn our meeting into a virtual AGM.
3 Questions to Rudolf Siebel on Market Data Costs
Q #1 Have you witnessed an increase in the cost of market data over the last couple of years? If so, how can it be explained?
Asset Management Report 2019
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.