|
|
The period of experience should not be considered as a minimum requirement. Depending on their qualifications and skills, as well as their roles within the organisation, staff members with less experience should be able to be viewed as meeting the requirement of appropriate knowledge and competence after an assessment by the investment firm.
EFAMA thus believes that it should be left to the investment firm to determine whether a particular staff member with less than five years’ experience could be considered appropriately qualified. This will allow NCAs focus on the supervision and enforcement of the MiFID II framework, while giving firms the flexibility to determine what kind of staff they need to properly perform relevant services and how their staff can best be trained to maintain and strengthen their abilities in order to provide high-quality services to their clients.
Under no circumstances should the requirement relate to experience gained only in consecutive years. Experience once gained does not simply diminish overnight and there might be good reasons why a staff member has suspended their professional activity for a period (e.g. maternity or paternity leave, sabbatical, disability leave, extended illness). Requiring an experience of consecutive years might discriminate against certain types of employees.
EFAMA generally agrees with the differentiation of investment advice and the provision of information when it comes to the level of knowledge and competence required. Within the distinctive categories, there should be enough room for firms to tailor the knowledge and experience requirements to the features and responsibilities of the respective functions, providing a greater degree of granularity to define the captured activities in more detail.