EFAMA is grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the drafting of the Regulation through a consultation and we appreciate the effort of the regulator to adopt an approach to reporting consistent with EMIR and to develop, where more efficient, a different reporting logic.
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’s reply to ESMA’s Discussion paper on draft RTS and ITS under the Securities Financing Transaction Regulation
EFAMA response to Green Paper on Retail Financial Services
EFAMA welcomes the opportunity to respond to the European Commission’s Green Paper on retail financial services. Widening the opportunities for European citizens to save and invest will facilitate better outcomes both for savers and the wider European economy.
EFAMA fully shares the goals of a Single Market for retail financial services in the EU, i.e.:
1. Promoting an EU-wide market in retail financial services that can facilitate cross-border business and consumer choice.
EFAMA response to EC consultation on impacts of maximum remuneration ratio under CRD IV
Our corporate members are both subsidiaries of an EEA parent that is a credit institution as per Article 4(1)(1) of the CRR, or stand-alone investment firms as per Article 4(1)(2) of the CRR. Both types of entities risk becoming subject to the Maximum Ratio Rule as asset management companies licensed under either a UCITS or AIFM management company license, or licensed as investment firms under the MiFID regime to provide discretionary portfolio management services on a client-by-client basis.
EFAMA's and ICMA’s AMIC joint response on fund liquidity management by open-ended funds to IOSCO
ICMA’s AMIC and EFAMA have submitted a joint response to the IOSCO consultation on fund liquidity management by open-ended funds.
The response highlights how industry practices and existing regulatory provisions in Europe are well aligned with the Liquidity Risk Management (LRM) recommendations issued by IOSCO in 2018 (Annex 1).
Monthly Statistics January 2021| January another strong month for UCITS equity funds
The European Fund and Asset Management Association (EFAMA) has today published its latest monthly Investment Fund Industry Fact Sheet, which provides net sales data of UCITS and AIFs for January 2021.
European Statistics Q4 2020 | 2020 Trends | Inflows into UCITS and AIFs bring European fund assets to an all-time high
The European Fund and Asset Management Association (EFAMA) has today published its Investment Fund Industry Fact Sheet for Q4 of 2020, together with an overview of the full year.
The main developments through the quarter are as follows:
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.