EFAMA calls for ‘realistic timeframe’ to implement EU financial legislation
Written by Natalie Tuck
The European Fund and Asset Management Association has called for a ‘realistic timeframe’ to implement EU financial legislation.
In response to the European Commission’s call for evidence on the EU regulatory framework for financial services, the association said the consultation will provide an opportunity to address and resolve remaining regulatory inconsistencies and unintended consequences.
Giving over 40 examples, the European asset management industry argues why existing barriers, inconsistencies and duplications that still exist in the current EU regulatory and policy framework need to be addressed.
The examples are wide-ranging and include the regulatory framework built by the European institutions (European Commission, European Parliament and Council), but also regulatory and policy trends stemming from the European Supervisory Authorities.
EFAMA has called for a period of regulatory stability; it said much has been done in recent years in the regulatory field, but some work still needs to be done in terms of implementing and applying the new regulations.
It added that regulation in Europe has set a ‘state-of-the art benchmark’ for global regulators, many of whom look at EU legislation for inspiration. However, some work remains to be done in terms of implementing and applying these new regulations.
Therefore EFAMA has called for a realistic implementation timeframe as it said too short or unrealistic implementation deadlines lead to legal uncertainty and cause serious challenges for European asset managers in the implementing phase of EU financial legislation.
EFAMA president Alexander Schindler gave examples such as MIFID II, UCITS V and PRIIPs as examples of fundamental directives where it is difficult to be prepared within the prescribed timetables.
EFAMA equally supports the so-called “better regulation” approach to European legislation. EFAMA director general Peter de Proft said better regulation relies on “constructive and efficient dialogue with all stakeholders” in order to obtain the necessary industry and technical expertise of those impacted by regulation.
“It also relies on the European co-legislators and the Commission to properly assess the potential consequences of a given piece of legislation,” he added.
EFAMA also encourages further consistency and coordination within the European Commission services, between the European Commission and the European Supervisory Authorities (ESAs), but also among the latter (ESMA, EBA and EIOPA) as well as the European Systemic Risk Board (ESRB).