On top of on-going initiatives such as MiFID2 and PRIIPS implementation, the ESA review is setting tighter rules on the delegation of key functions to third-country entities (and adaptations as a result of Brexit). The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) reiterated that it is not looking to undermine or call into doubt the delegation model, but rather to prevent letter-box entities from operating, ensure a level playing field and achieve supervisory convergence.
In March 2018, the European Commission published its proposal to standardise national marketing requirements and regulatory fees for funds. In April, it published the findings of a study on the distribution systems for retail investment funds that concluded that the on-off and recurring fees for funds in the EU differ massively and that consumers can hardly discern the complete cost picture of funds.
Similar work had been done for some time at the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) in the UK on the competitiveness and transparency of the asset management industry and the need to provide savings channels for households. With about 40% of the EU’s assets under management concentrated in the UK, it seems that both are moving in terms of regulation in the same direction. Paradoxically, however, Brexit may lead to higher costs, certainly in the short term, as businesses have to re-think their business models across the entire value chain. Clearing, settlement and custody may end up even more fragmented as a result, in an area that was already not particularly concentrated, certainly compared to the US. Hence, unless ESMA is given substantially higher competences in this domain in the context of the ESA review, diversity may grow, and with it more questions about the industry’s performance.
Full opinion
© ECMI
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