EFAMA has some concerns with ESMA’s clarifications. In the consultation paper (CP), ESMA seems to have a very broad interpretation of the ‘multilateral systems’ definition under MiFID II and states that ‘systems where trading interests can interact but where the execution of transactions is formally undertaken outside the system still qualify as a multilateral system and should be required to seek authorisation’ (paragraph 36).
MiFID
The Markets in Financial Instruments Directive governs how funds (and other financial instruments) can be sold and distributed to investors throughout the EU. It does this by balancing investor protection (governing under what rules and conditions investment advice and portfolio management can be given) with providing the right amount of information about products and services (information about the products’ objectives and costs). In most cases, this type of financial advice, which connects funds with end investors, is provided not by fund managers, but by other financial players, such as banks or financial advisers.
Against this backdrop, EFAMA wants to ensure that these rules are balanced and the information provided to investors is meaningful. While more protection is necessary for retail investors, MiFID should allow other, more professional investors, more freedom in defining what information is necessary to conduct their day-to-day business. Also, MiFID must not make it impossible for ordinary EU citizens to access financial advice to save for their future and retirement.
EFAMA's reply to ESMA's CP on MiFIR Review report on the obligations to report transactions & reference data
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 comments EC CP on a Covid-19 Capital Markets Recovery Package
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 (...)
EFAMA responses to the discussion questions within the IOSCO report “corporate bond markets – drivers of liquidity during covid-19 induced market stresses”
EFAMA is appreciative of the opportunity to comment on this major IOSCO study on the dynamics of bond market liquidity during market stresses. We provide some detailed responses below, but would reiterate a few high-level points here:
EFAMA – the urgency behind a consolidated tape for Europe | A buy-side view on consolidated tape and market structure reforms
The European Fund and Asset Management Association (EFAMA) has today published its position paper on the European Commission’s proposed Markets in Financial Instruments Regulation review which establishes a blueprint for a consolidated tape (CT) across Europe’s 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,