In our response to ESMA on its review of the guidelines on stress-testing parameters for Money Market Funds (MMFs), EFAMA cautions against using overly simplistic assumptions.
The EU fund product landscape is deep, diverse and dynamic. Since the birth of the UCITS framework in 1985, European institutions have progressively refined it into a global “gold standard”, one that successfully balances strict regulatory requirements with the flexibility required by manager to meet evolving client demands. The successful evolution of UCITS was followed by the creation of alternative investment funds (AIFs) under the 2011 AIFM Directive, adding a second important pillar to EU fund/manager regulation. Building on this second pillar are further ambitious EU fund products, such as EUSEFs, EUVECAs and ELTIFs. EFAMA has helped guide all of these key regulatory developments, informing policymakers and regulators on their main merits and drawbacks, while also keeping a close eye on their respective review initiatives.
EFAMA strongly supports a fundamental review to the ELTIF regime, in view of broadening its eligible investment universe and adapting it to better meet retail investor needs. We are also closely monitoring the review of the AIFM Directive from a product regulation standpoint, including possible spillover effects on the UCITS Directive requirements. Further work involves keeping pace with relevant ESMA initiatives, such as the work around the Common Supervisory Action on costs and fees for UCITS.
In our response to ESMA on its review of the guidelines on stress-testing parameters for Money Market Funds (MMFs), EFAMA cautions against using overly simplistic assumptions.
EFAMA welcomes the European Securities and Market Authority’s continuous commitment to creating a single market for investment funds, confirmed by the draft regulatory standards currently under consideration. These RTS/ITS would further harmonise information that asset managers should provide to their national competent authorities before marketing or managing an investment fund on a cross-border basis, thus facilitating intra-EU product distribution.
The European Fund and Asset Management Association (EFAMA) has published its response to the European Commission’s targeted consultation on the functioning of the EU Money Market Fund Regulation (MMFR).
In our response to ESMA on its review of the guidelines on stress-testing parameters for Money Market Funds (MMFs), EFAMA cautions against using overly simplistic assumptions.
EFAMA welcomes the European Securities and Market Authority’s continuous commitment to creating a single market for investment funds, confirmed by the draft regulatory standards currently under consideration. These RTS/ITS would further harmonise information that asset managers should provide to their national competent authorities before marketing or managing an investment fund on a cross-border basis, thus facilitating intra-EU product distribution.
The European Fund and Asset Management Association (EFAMA) has published its response to the European Commission’s targeted consultation on the functioning of the EU Money Market Fund Regulation (MMFR).
It is often argued that European citizens are not able to fully benefit from the single market for investment funds, on the basis that the cost of UCITS is higher than the cost of mutual funds in the United States (US). In this Market Insights, we analyse this question by carrying out a detailed comparison of the cost of UCITS and US mutual funds, taking into account the various ways of calculating costs as well as the differences between Europe and the US in the way investment funds are distributed.
This is our 13th edition of the Asset Management in Europe report, which provides an in-depth analysis of recent trends in the European asset management industry, focussing on where investment funds and discretionary mandates are managed in Europe.
EFAMA has released its latest Market Insights report titled “Perspective on the costs of UCITS”. The full report breaks down the costs of UCITS, focusing on the fees charged for the different services provided along the investment fund value chain and distinguishing between the product cost for which fund managers are directly responsible, and the