The AIFMD is one of the pillars of EU regulation for investment funds, which will be crucial to the development of the Capital Markets Union (CMU) and the post Covid-19 economic recovery in the European Union.
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.
The AIFMD is one of the pillars of EU regulation for investment funds, which will be crucial to the development of the Capital Markets Union (CMU) and the post Covid-19 economic recovery in the European Union.
EFAMA firmly supports the Commission’s proposed amend of the ELTIF Regulation, in line with its recently revamped “new” CMU.
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:
While cognisant of the FSB’s strict timelines in view of upcoming G20 summits, these should not come at the expense of a necessary and more informed debate on the causes at the root of last year’s stresses in global short-term funding markets (STFMs) and on ways to remedy these in the future. In fact, the options presented in the consultation report appear hurried and dismissive of critical facts, calling therefore for a deeper engagement with the global financial and investing community at large.
EFAMA wholeheartedly supports a retail investment strategy that gives EU citizens the necessary tools and the confidence to put their savings to work by investing in capital markets.
EFAMA has released its 2021 industry Fact Book.
The 2021 Fact Book provides an in-depth analysis of trends in the European fund industry, an extensive overview of the regulatory developments across 29 European countries and a wealth of data.
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