ALFI is concerned about the timetable for implementation and also calls for further clarification on the level of involvement of the competent authority authorising the investment fund and its access to information about the management company.
ALFI considers that some outstanding issues that require further attention. These include:
Ø the level of involvement of competent authority authorising the investment fund especially as regards the adequacy of the organisation and risk management processes employed by the management company in respect of the fund’s investment policies and strategies,
Ø the access to information about the management company by the competent authority of the investment fund in order to ensure that the fund complies with the rules in force. Level 1 rules need to be complemented in order to provide the competent authority of the investment fund with an effective and direct right of access to all the information relevant to the on‐going supervision of the fund,
Ø It is of the great importance that all Level 2 provisions can be implemented in parallel with the Level 1 rules. It would significantly delay not only the realisation of efficiency gains, but also the further expected integration of the internal market if measures relating to the notification procedure, mergers or master‐feeder structures were adopted after the implementation of the framework directive,
Ø ALFI also considers that possible Level 2 measures should not go beyond what is necessary to achieve the objectives of the new directive. With regard to the timely implementation of both Level 1 and Level 2 measures, CESR may wish to consider where Level 3 guidance can usefully supplement Level 1 and replace Level 2 measures, not only but essentially with regard to the upcoming deadlines for the implementation process of UCITS IV.
ALFI believes that the improvements made to the notification process are largely non contentious, and should be considered with the same priority as the measures where the Commission either has a legal obligation to come up with Level 2 measures or has to comply with a strict timetable or both.
The paper focuses in particular on the future supervisory architecture in the EU. ABBL largely agrees with the Commission's views, but wants to share more in depth thoughts on the scope of the ESFS, on crisis management and on the governance and structure of the ESFS' new EU Authorities.
ALFI, representing the Luxembourg investment management and fund industry, stresses that the implementing measures relating to the notification procedure, although highlighted as a particularly important complement to the Level 1 provisions, are only part of Part III package of the call for evidence. ALFI also criticizes that there is no strict timetable for any such possible measures, nor is there a legal obligation for the Commission to come up with Level 2 measures should they be necessary.
© ALFI - Association of the Luxembourg Fund Industry
Hover over the blue highlighted
text to view the acronym meaning
over these icons for more information
No Comments for this Article