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 Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID) is a cornerstone of EU financial services legislation and is of direct relevance to asset management companies. In 2014, the European Commission adopted new rules revising MiFID, consisting of a Directive (MiFID II) and a regulation (MiFIR). Overall, MiFID II yielded positive results in terms of liquidity and transparency for investors.
Among possible improvements to the MiFID framework, EFAMA encourages the creation of a well-structured, reasonably priced consolidated tape managed by ESMA and fed by all trading venues and systematic internalisers for all financial instruments. A second, long-term EFAMA objective is better enforcement of data providers’ existing obligation to provide market data on a “reasonable commercial basis”.
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:
EFAMA appreciates the Commission's efforts in pursuing an alleviation of certain MiFID II requirements in the interest of promoting a swift recovery from the economic crisis precipitated by the Covid-19 pandemic (....).
EFAMA believes however that there are more effective ways to foster SME access to markets and urges the Commission to consider a set of further measures (...)
Turning ESMA into an extra supervisor for asset managers is unwarranted, a major distraction, and runs contrary to the EU competitiveness and simplification agendas
EFAMA highlights important use cases in latest publication