AIFMD rapporteur Jean Paul Gauzès (FR/EPP) made clear he wants to stick to the ambitious timetable and continue working on a first reading agreement with the Council before the summer. He said that, in terms of scope, the directive should be as broad as possible.
Jean Paul Gauzès (FR/EPP) made clear he wantsto stick to the ambitious timetable and continue working on a first reading agreement with the Council before the summer.
Gauzès announced that he would hold talks with the shadow rapporteurs in the first half of March, with the aim of presenting a number of compromise amendments by 16 March. A second round on the consideration of amendments will take place in ECON on 17 March in the afternoon. The ECON vote is still scheduled for 12 April.
Regarding the scope, Gauzès stated that the directive should be as broad as possible and that it should cover all funds that are not regulated under UCITS. He also said that proportionality has to be considered, for instance, on some of the German funds (which are just one professional investor), and that disclosure obligations should not be imposed. Gauzès admitted that he has changed his mind on the third countries issue: He wants Europe to be “neither a prison nor a fortress”, and believes that equivalence criteria will be the solution.
Jean Paul Gauzèswas generally congratulated for his work but also got some criticism, including from his own ranks: Gunnar Hökmark (SE/EPP) said that thresholds are needed in order to make sure that proportionality really exists. If the entrance in the EU market of smaller funds is not assured, then there will be a situation where bigger funds operate in the market and contribute to systemic risks.
Wolf Klinz (DE/ALDE) reiterated the ALDE’s position in favour of splitting the directive into one for private equity and other for hedge funds. Regarding the scope, he said that certain funds should not be covered by the directive if they are adequately regulated at national level. He stated that a third party valuator is not needed as long as there is an independent body. Klinz seemed reluctant to limit leverage. Regarding third countries, he agreed with Gauzès that equivalence criteria should be put in place. Sharon Bowles (UK/ALDE) warned that the AIFMD overlaps with other directives and there is a need to better understand the interaction with other existing and future directives.
Robert Goebbels (LU/S&D) and Udo Bullmann (DE/S&D) (they tabled all their amendments together and represent the “mainstream” in the group) harshly commented on the amount of lobbying the AIFMD had received which was clearly recognizable in the amendments. Goebbels reminded that the directive needs to protect European consumers and not the industry. He disagreed with Klinz on the scope and said that having a single instrument is more efficient than two directives. He emphasized that the S&D group wants to make sure that the directive “eliminates scandalous practices,” such as excessive leverage, asset stripping and naked short selling. Peter Skinner (UK/S&D) did not agree with the other MEPs of his group and said that “short selling per se is not evil and should be carefully tackled.” He generally seemed to support Gauzès’ line and defended his amendment on separating depositories from the AIF managers.
Syed Kamall (UK/ECR) agreed on the need for a clear definition of proportionality so as not to harm small funds. On the leverage issue, he said that “limits to leverage will kill some funds” and that this should be looked upon by national regulators. On remuneration, he said he is against following the rules of the banking sector as bonuses of fund managers depends on fund performance. He did not share Goebbels’ views on short selling and said that a distinction between covered short selling and naked short selling must be made. Vicky Ford (UK/ECR) added that short selling should be tackled by the Market Abuse Directive (MAD) and not by the AIFMD because with the MAD all market participants will be covered and not just AIF. She was also strongly against limiting leverage and reminded her fellow MEPs not to confuse leverage with risk.
Sven Giegold (DE/Green), who echoed the criticism of the socialist MEPs on lobbying, was strongly in favour of limiting leverage and (in line with the socialists) saw the aim of the directive in eliminating practices that cause systemic risks such as short selling or speculation.
Key
Hover over the blue highlighted
text to view the acronym meaning
Hover
over these icons for more information
Comments:
No Comments for this Article