The Financial Times, having analysed the text, reports that the proposals attracted a mixed response. While praising improvements in some areas, the industry complained the proposals would make it harder for funds outside the EU to access investors inside the bloc, thereby creating protectionism.
The Financial Times has analysed the Compromise text and is reporting that the proposals met with a mixed response. While praising improvements in some areas, the industry complained the proposals would make it harder for funds based outside the EU to access investors inside the bloc, thereby encouraging protectionism.
The 90-page legislative proposal builds on many of the amendments suggested by Sweden, which previously held the presidency, after the European Commission’s initial proposals were widely decried as being overly burdensome and unworkable.
But they would also give member states the power to decide which non-EU funds could be marketed to professional investors in their countries. The initial draft of the directive would have allowed non-EU funds to apply for a pan-European marketing passport.
The Spanish proposals provide that any approval would require “appropriate cooperation arrangements” to be in place between the member state and the manager’s home jurisdiction on information exchange.
Private equity and hedge fund bosses fear this could be used by some countries to block some funds – such as those based in tax havens – from accessing their investors.
Before it can become law, the proposed directive needs to be supported by both EU member states and the European Parliament. The Spanish text may be more palatable to France, which was thought to have had problems with the Swedish proposals, but could create new difficulties with some other member states, such as the UK.
MEPs are at work on their own proposed amendments.
© Financial Times
Hover over the blue highlighted
text to view the acronym meaning
over these icons for more information
No Comments for this Article