EFAMA welcomes the consultation that the European Commission launched on the cross-border distribution of different types of investment funds (AIFs, UCITS, EuVECA/EuSEF, and ELTIF) and the opportunity to respond as to the remaining barriers to marketing funds across the EU single market, as well as the ways to eliminate them. We, also, fully share the goal of the European Commission in seeking further ways to deepen the Single Market for investment funds.
Management Companies
EFAMA has been looking at legislative proposals with a direct impact on asset management companies and services, and closely follows any regulatory developments of critical importance to the sector. In addition to issues related to risk management and financial stability, high up on the agenda of EFAMA members is the framework for a prudential regime for Investment Firms (IFD/R), and related implementing measures directly descending from such framework.
EFAMA is focused on minimising the impact of the rules on asset management companies, in particular those holding a limited MiFID license. Key to the sector is the need for proportionality, especially firms that are not authorised to hold client money/securities, or to deal on their own account.
EFAMA response to the European Commission’s consultation on the barriers to cross-border distribution of funds
EFAMA response to ESMA Call for Evidence on asset segregation
EFAMA welcomes ESMA’s Call for Evidence on asset segregation and custody services as a precious occasion to confirm our previous key messages - as per our response to the previous consultation around Guidelines on asset segregation under the AIFMD of December 2014 – and to clarify our position on new aspects of ESMA’s work.
EFAMA reply to FSB consultation on proposed policy recommendations to address structural vulnerabilities from asset management activities
EFAMA firstly wishes to commend the FSB’s change of focus in the course of 2015, from a proposed assessment methodology intended to identify non-bank, non-insurance globally systemically important financial institutions (NBNI G-SIFIs) to a revised and more objective focus on asset management activities. Although we understand the former framework may be revisited by the FSB once its Recommendations are finalised, we appreciate that certain key characteristics of the asset management industry have been recognised and well reflected in the present consultative document.
FSB consultation on liquidity preparedness for margin calls in non-bank financial intermediation
EFAMA agrees with the FSB that market participants should integrate the management of margin and collateral calls into their risk management, governance, and operational processes.
EFAMA’s position on the EC's review of the AIFM and UCITS directives
We welcome the targeted approach of the Commission in its review, recognising the overall success of the frameworks over the past decade.
Annual European Asset Management Report - Report highlights key developments in the European fund industry
The European Fund and Asset Management Association (EFAMA) has released the 13th edition of its Asset Management in Europe report, which provides in-depth analysis of recent trends in the European asset management industry, focussing on where investment funds and discretionary mandates are managed in Europe.
Asset Management in Europe - An Overview of the Asset Management Industry - November 2020
The report aims to provide a unique and comprehensive set of facts and figures on the state of the industry at the end of 2018 but also to highlight the fundamental role of asset managers in the financial system and wider economy.
Demystifying ETPs: an EFAMA guide for the European investor
Through its ETF Task Force, EFAMA has produced an Investor Education Guide intended to draw out, in a simple form, the defining features for the three main types of ETPs (Exchange-traded products) listed across European markets. The association hopes this guide will primarily assist investors in having a clearer understanding of different ETPs and help investors appreciate the differences between them, especially from a risk and product complexity viewpoint.