EFAMA replied to IASB’s request for information on the Post-Implementation Review (PIR) of IFRS 9 – Classification and measurement. Our paper recaps EFAMA’s key concerns and recommendations to the IASB. The key concerns of the industry are the removal of recycling (in particular for institutional investors) and the classification of investment entities and investment funds as debt instruments.

We commend the work that IOSCO has undertaken to date on this topic including the survey work and the summary findings in the form of the report currently under review.  It is fair to say that the conclusions of the report and areas for further work gave rise to detailed discussions within our industry, yielding ultimately firm views on the priority areas that we support and see value in, and areas we felt were not reflected in the study and thereby building risk into margining models in future crisis scenarios.  These areas are fur

For asset managers the main issue continues to be the reclassification of ETDs as OTCs as a result of the non-equivalence of UK regulated markets. While we understand that a review is legally mandated at this point in time, we do not see value in recalibrating the various thresholds or making changes to the calculation methodologies unless these are in the two areas we define below. Our main concern revolves around the fact that changes would carry significant compliance costs while making little impact on the population of counterparties and notional captured by the thresholds.

EFAMA welcomes the decision of the European Commission to adopt a targeted approach in its review of the Alternative Investment Fund Management Directive (AIFMD), along with key harmonising provisions within the Undertakings for Collective Investment in Transferrable Securities Directive (UCITSD). This focus on targeted improvements recognises the role this framework has played in encouraging the growth in the European Alternative Investment Fund (AIF) market over the past decade and its resilience even throughout recent market stresses.

EFAMA strongly supports the Commission's draft proposal amending the ELTIF Regulation where it addresses some of the major obstacles that have undermined the attractiveness of the ELTIF product since inception. The revised legal framework has the potential to transform ELTIF into a product of choice for a larger (retail) investor audience, all while serving the purposes of the Capital Markets Union (CMU). However, some important adjustments remain to be made for the ELTIF regime to reach its full potential as a competitive long-term investment option.

The European Commission’s proposal on MiFIR establishes the blueprint for a consolidated tape (CT) for Europe’s capital markets. It also significantly alters the competitive market structure brought about by MiFID II by introducing greater transparency requirements. Finally, it addresses important issues around market data costs.

EFAMA replied to IASB’s request for information on the Post-Implementation Review (PIR) of IFRS 9 – Classification and measurement. Our paper recaps EFAMA’s key concerns and recommendations to the IASB. The key concerns of the industry are the removal of recycling (in particular for institutional investors) and the classification of investment entities and investment funds as debt instruments.

We commend the work that IOSCO has undertaken to date on this topic including the survey work and the summary findings in the form of the report currently under review.  It is fair to say that the conclusions of the report and areas for further work gave rise to detailed discussions within our industry, yielding ultimately firm views on the priority areas that we support and see value in, and areas we felt were not reflected in the study and thereby building risk into margining models in future crisis scenarios.  These areas are fur

For asset managers the main issue continues to be the reclassification of ETDs as OTCs as a result of the non-equivalence of UK regulated markets. While we understand that a review is legally mandated at this point in time, we do not see value in recalibrating the various thresholds or making changes to the calculation methodologies unless these are in the two areas we define below. Our main concern revolves around the fact that changes would carry significant compliance costs while making little impact on the population of counterparties and notional captured by the thresholds.