AMAC Annual Conference, 16 June 2014 Beijing Diaoyutai State Guest House

The Development of Regulation on Europe Asset Management Industry and Current Industry Situation

Peter De Proft, Director General, EFAMA

AMAC Annual Conference, 16 June 2014Beijing Diaoyutai State Guest House

"EFAMA Land"

27 Countries:

23 EU Members, and

Liechtenstein

Norway

Switzerland

Turkey

62 Corporate Members

25 Associate Members

= Investment Management: EUR

15 trillion of which EUR 9.8 trillion

through over 55,000 investment

funds (end December 2013)

2

AMAC Annual Conference 2014 16 June 2014

3

AMAC Annual Conference 2014

Political Message at EU Level

In the wake of the financial crisis, clear message from the political level: self-regulation is not considered to work, better regulation is necessary to avoid a new crisis (or contain it)

Aim: more efficient monitoring of systemic risks and better investor protection

EU Commissioner Barnier for Internal Market agenda: Implementation of G20 Proposals – challenge is international coordination

16 June 2014

4


Political Message at EU Level

Perception of investment management industry among many policymakers is unclear/ unhelpful: no difference made to investment banking, seen as short-termist speculators etc.

As an industry we need to aim to change this perception by explaining how we connect to the real economy. Efforts need to be based on the impact on end investors and the real economy.

The European Union and its institutions have a critical/negative perception in many Member States. Single European Market is key to our industry, we have to support and defend it.

The European economy is in deep trouble which with the resulting social problems is the main issue for the policymakers for years to come. The investment management industry has to prove it is part of the solution for the financing gap left by banks, and not an additional problem.

The investment management industry must have an increased focus on governance issues.

16 June 2014


There is an unprecedented wave of regulatory initiatives affecting the asset management industry

Initiatives targeting specifically the European

AM industry

▪ UCITS IV▪ UCITS V▪ UCITS VI

▪ ETFs▪ Money Market Funds

▪ AIFMD▪ Venture Capital Funds

▪ Social Entrepreneurship Funds

▪ Long-term investment funds

Initiatives not targeting the AM industry but having spill-

over effects

▪ Banking Union▪ Recovery and resolution

▪ Liikanen report▪ Basel III

▪ Solvency II▪ IMD review

▪ Revision of IORP▪ White Paper on pensions▪ Credit rating agencies

▪ SLD▪ Audit review

▪ PRIPs▪ MiFID review

▪ ICSD▪ Shadow banking

▪ EMIR▪ EU Supervisory structure

▪ Short selling▪ Financial Transaction Tax▪ Corporate Governance

Initiatives targeting financial institutions, comprising the

European AM industry

▪ FATCA (US)▪ Dodd Frank (US)▪ Volcker Rule (US)

▪ European national initiatives to – Ban inducements (e.g. UK, NL)

– Ban complex products (e.g. Belgium)

Regulatory initiatives at European level

5

16 June 2014

6


EFAMA’s “Partners in Dialogue” - Europe

EFAMA

EU Commissionesp. Internal Market DG

EU Parliamentesp. Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON)

EU Council

Permanent Representations of EU Member States

ESMA and its Stakeholder Group

16 June 2014

7


EFAMA’s International “Partners in Dialogue”

EFAMA

FSB/ ESRB

US Treasury

IRS

CFTC

IOSCO

SEC

IIFA

16 June 2014

AMAC

National Regulators


A Regulatory Update

AMAC Annual Conference, 16 June 2014

Beijing Diaoyutai State Guest House

9 Agenda


9

UCITS V

PRIIPs

MiFID II

Money Market Funds

FSB/IOSCO Consultation on G-SIFI’s

Pension and long-term savings

European Long Term Investment Funds – ELTIFs

16 June 2014

10 UCITS V


11

UCITS V – Timeline


19 March, 2014 Council adopts UCITS V Level

1

Sept-October 2014 (approx.), Entry into force (20 days after publication in

Official Journal)

March 2016, (approx.)

deadline for MS to transpose directive into National law

16 June 2014

12

UCITS V – Remuneration


Categories of staff

Definition of categories of staff subject to remuneration principles broadly in line with AIFMD Level 1 text

ESMA given a specific mandate to issue guidelines on the categories of staff that fall within the scope of the Level 1 definition

Applicability of the remuneration principles to third parties delegates and to advisors? (Recital 2: “(…). These policies and practices should apply, in a proportionate manner, to any third party which takes investment decisions that affect the risk profile of the UCITS because of functions which have been delegated in accordance with Article 13”)

16 June 2014

13

UCITS V – Remuneration (cont’d)


At least 50% of variable remuneration to be paid in units of UCITS or equivalent non-cash instruments

Percentage of variable remuneration to be deferred: at least 40% (or 60% in case of particularly high amount)

Deferral period: to be aligned on holding period recommended to investors (at least 3 years)

Disclosures on remuneration policies: KIID will have to include a statement with cross-reference to a website where details of the remuneration policy are available

16 June 2014

14

UCITS V – Depositaries


Eligible depositaries: consensus on Council’s original text (EFAMA’s preferred option) with addition of National central banks

Re-use of assets by the depositary: additional conditions apply (e.g. in case of securities lending)

Sub-custodian insolvency: depositaries must take all necessary steps to ensure that assets of the UCITS are unavailable for distribution among or realization for the benefit of the third party

16 June 2014

15

UCITS V – Other issues


Administrative vs. criminal sanctions: Member States not required to lay down rules on administrative sanctions for infringements to the directive (already) subject to national criminal law

Interaction between EMIR and UCITS counterparty limits for derivatives: mandate to the Commission (as part of its overall review of the functioning of the UCITS Directive) to review counterparty exposure limits applicable to derivative transactions, taking into account EMIR

16 June 2014

UCITS V – implementing measures


16

The Commission shall adopt delegated acts specifying: Particulars to be included in the depositary agreement Conditions for performing the depositary functions, including:

type of instruments included in scope of custody conditions to exercise custody duties over financial instruments registered with a

CSD Conditions to safekeep financial instruments

Due-diligence duties of the depositary Segregation obligation Steps to be taken in case of delegation of custody function to a sub-

custodian Conditions under which financial instruments are considered lost Definition of external events beyond reasonable control Conditions for fulfilling the independance requirement

16 June 2014

UCITS V – implementing measures


17

ESMA shall develop draft technical standards to determine the procedures and forms to be used by Member States for submitting information on penalties and other measures imposed

ESMA shall issue guidelines on remuneration principles, including specifications on: Categories of staff in scope How different sectoral remuneration principles are to be applied where

employees perform services subject to different sectoral remuneration principles

16 June 2014

18


PRIIPs

16 June 2014


PRIIPs– TimelineWhat could we expect going forward?

TriloguePhase

2015

Estimated period for:

Consultation for Level II implementing measures

Implementation of the PRIIPs Regulation

19

JanuaryTrialogue meeting

15 AprilPRIIPs adopted

in Plenary

Autumn Most likely

publication of the Regulation

Possible

consultation

period for the

Level 2

implementing

measures

Autumn Most likely date

of entry into force

2014 2016

16 June 2014

20

Scope – adopted in Plenary on 15 April 2014

Definitions:

'packaged retail investment product' or ‘PRIP’ means an investment, including instruments issued by SPVs as referred

to in Article 14 (26) of the Directive 2009/138/EC Article 4(an) of the Directive 2011/61/EU, where, regardless of the

legal form of the investment, the amount repayable to the investor is subject to fluctuations because of exposure to

reference values or to the performance of one or more assets which are not directly purchased by the investor;

"insurance-based investment product" means an insurance product which offers a maturity or surrender value and

where that maturity or surrender value is wholly or partially exposed, directly or indirectly, to market fluctuations;


Out of scope:

pension products which, under national law, are recognized as having the primary purpose of providing the

investor with an income in retirement, and which entitle the investor to certain benefits;

officially recognized occupational pension schemes falling under the scope of Directive 2003/41/EC or Directive

2009/138/EC;

individual pension products for which a financial contribution from the employer is required by national law and where

the employer or the employee has no choice as to the pension product or provider.

16 June 2014

“Comprehension Alert” replacing “Complexity Label”

21

At the beginning of the document, the KID shall contain the following information:

"Where applicable, a comprehension alert: "You are about to purchase a product that is not simple and may be difficult to understand."

Recital 12a:

A product should be regarded as not being simple and difficult to understand especially if it displays one of the following characteristics:

a. it invests in underlying assets that are not commonly invested in by retail investors;

b. it uses a number of different mechanisms to calculate the final return of the investment, creating a greater risk of misunderstanding on the part of the retail investor;

c. the investment's pay-off takes advantage of retail investor's behavioral biases, such as a teaser rate followed by a much higher floating conditional rate, or an iterative formula".


Costs disclosure22

“What are the costs?”

The costs associated with an investment in the PRIIP, comprising both direct and indirect costs to

be borne by the investor, including one-off and recurring costs, presented by means of summary

indicators of these costs, and, to ensure comparability, total aggregate costs expressed in

monetary and percentage terms, to show the compound effects of the total costs on the

investment;

Distribution costs

The KID shall include a clear indication that advisors, distributors or any other person advising on or

selling the PRIIP will provide information detailing any cost of distribution that is not already

included in the costs specified above, so as to enable the retail investor to understand the

cumulative effect that these aggregate costs have on the return of the investment.


Next steps23

Due to an extensive legal and linguist review, the Regulation will not be published in the official journal until the autumn. The Regulation could therefore be applicable as of Q3-2016.

ESMA Level II implementing measures/RTS Article 8 par. 5

Details of the presentation and the content of each of the elements of information referred to in paragraph 3 (content of the KID)

Methodology underpinning the presentation of the risk and reward indicator Methodology for calculation of costs, including the specification of summary

indicators Article 10: revision of the KID Article 12: provision of the KID

Commission delegated acts: Article 8 par. 4: details of the procedures used to establish whether a PRIIP targets

specific environmental or social objectives (EFAMA's Responsible Investment WG will consider this and feedback provided to this WG for inclusion in EFAMA's overall position)


24


MiFID II

16 June 2014


MiFID II – TimelineWhat could we expect going forward?

TriloguePhase

2015

Consultation period for

Level II

25

14 JanuaryTrialogue meeting

15 AprilMiFID II adopted

in Plenary

June Most likely

publication of the Directive/Regulation

December ESMA should provide

Advice for the Delegated Acts to EU

Commission

June EU Commission should adopt the

Level II

January Target entry into

force

June Most likely date of transposition and

publication by Member States

Revision period by EU

Commission

Objection period for EU Parliament

& Council

2014 2016

Note: Deadline for responding to the consultations could be set before the end of this summer.

16 June 2014


26

Fair, clear and not misleading information (Article 24(2)) Previously in MiFID I Level 2, Article 27 “Conditions with which information must comply in order to be fair

clear and not misleading”, applied only to retail or potential retail clients.

What could ESMA propose? ESMA considers some amendments to strengthen these conditions both for retail and for professional

clients.

Information provided to retail clients should be consistently presented in the same language

throughout all forms of information and marketing material that is provided to retail clients

Indication of any relevant risks where potential benefits are referenced => fair and balanced

presentation of the trade-off between risks and benefits

Information up to date

Use of font size for indications and explanations of risks or warnings => at least equal to the

predominant font size used throughout the document

Simulated future performance => based on performance scenarios in different market conditions

MiFID II – Investor protectionWhat could we expect from ESMA consultation for the Level II?

Note: This information is based on a draft consultation paper from ESMA concerning investor protection matters and further changes could be made.

16 June 2014


27

Requirements on information addressed to and to be provided to clients (Article 24(3))

MiFID II Level 1 requires that when investment advice is provided the firm must indicate to the client:

Whether the advice is provided on an independent basis or not

Whether the advice is based on a broad or restricted analysis of different types of instruments, and in

particular whether the range is limited to financial instruments issued or provided by entities having

close links

If it will provide the client with the periodic assessment of the suitability of the financial instruments

recommended to clients

The banning of the retention of inducements by the firm is one of the features that distinguish independent

advice from non-independent advice. Appropriate information about costs and inducements should be

provided before the service commences

MiFID II – Investor protection (cont’d)What could we expect from ESMA consultation for the Level II?


16 June 2014


28

What could ESMA propose? Independent advice vs. non-independent advice

If it is non-independent and limited due to the limitations imposed by its relationship with third parties or itself. Firms should:

Explain in a clear and concise way why investment advice couldn’t be qualified as independent and

the type of boundaries or nature of their restrictions that apply in each case.

Where both types of advice are provided, firms should explain the scope of both services to allow

investors to understand them by specifying the type or category of products over which the service

will be provided

Explaining the range of products:

A description of the type of the products, the number of products and providers included in each type

of product analysed according to the scope of the service and when applicable, how this satisfies

the independent advice definition

The basis for the firms analysis in the selection process of the product recommended (e.g. costs,

complexity, risk profile etc.) should also be provided

Clear distinction between firms own products or products from linked entities from other products



16 June 2014


29

Investment advice on independent basis (Article 24(3) and (5)(a))

Sufficiently large number of financial instruments/investment products available on the market


What could ESMA propose? An investment firm shall have considered a sufficiently large number of financial instruments/investment

product if the selection process consists of all of the following elements:

A diversified selection of financial instruments by type, issuers or product providers which is not

limited to financial instruments issued or provided by the advisor itself or by entities having close

links with the investment firms;

The amount of financial instruments considered is proportionate to the scope of advice services

offered by the independent investment advisor;

The amount of financial instruments considered comprises a substantial part of financial instruments

and/or investment products available on the market.

If such a comparison would not be possible because of the business model or the specific scope of the

service provided, the advisor will not be allowed to claim itself as “independent”.


16 June 2014


30


What could ESMA propose? If an investment firm chooses to provide both “independent” and “restricted” advice, it should:

In good time, before the provision of its services, disclose in writing information to retail clients

whether the advice will be independent or non-independent. The disclosure must clearly explain the

different nature of the service;

Not hold itself out as “independent” for its business as a whole. However, a firm may hold itself out

as acting independently in respect of its services for which it provides independent advice;

Have adequate organisational requirements and controls in place to ensure that both types of advice

services and advisors are clearly separated from each other..


16 June 2014


31

Inducements (Article 24(1), (5)(b) and (6))

Ban on inducement for independent advice and discretionary portfolio management.


What could ESMA propose? Independent investment advisors and portfolio managers should return to clients any monetary third party

payments received in relation to the services provided to that client as soon as possible after receipt by transferring the monies received to the client money account. However, no specific timeframe should be imposed but as soon as reasonably possible.

Quality enhancement: ESMA could propose to introduce a non-exhaustive list of circumstances and situations that National Competent Authorities may consider in determining whether there is no quality enhancement.

Inducements may not generally be regarded as designed to enhance the quality of the relevant service to the

client if: It covers the costs of activities undertaken by the recipient firm which are essential in its ordinary

course of business; It does not provide for an additional or higher quality service above the regulatory requirements

provided to the end client; It directly benefits the recipient firm, its shareholders or employees without tangible benefit or value

to its end user client; or In relation to an ongoing inducement, it is not related to the provision of an ongoing service to an end

user client.


16 June 2014


32

Product design

Identification of consumer target market.


What could ESMA propose? When designing products, the firm shall identify the potential target market for each product and be able to

specify the type (s) of client for whose needs, characteristics and objectives the product is compatible.

As part of the process, the firm should identify any groups of investors for whose needs, characteristics and objectives the product is not compatible.


16 June 2014


33

Requirements on information about costs and charges (Article 24(3))

Aricle 33 of the existing Implementing directive applies to retail clients only.


What could ESMA propose? Information on costs and associated charges should also be made available to professional clients and

eligible counterparties upon their request

No clear indication at this stage – further technical work needs to be undertaken


16 June 2014


MiFID II – Capital Markets34

Market structure no OTF for equities,

trading obligation only for shares and derivatives (not for bonds)

proprietary trading allowed on OTF only and restricted to illiquid sovereign debt

restrictive matched principal trading for all bonds & derivatives not subject to the clearing obligation

Trade transparency for equities: double volume cap mechanism combined with a strict price improvement for the use of the

reference price waiver

for non-equities: voice and RFQ waivers kept

HFT Best execution algorithms are fully exempted of the scope

Specific burdens, stricter than the ones for algorithmic trading are imposed on HFT

16 June 2014


Money Market Funds35

16 June 2014

36

MMFs: Next steps

Given that the MMF file will now pass onto the next Parliament, it is unlikely that the new ECON committee will debate this file before November/December 2014, given that the composition/chairmanship of the EP groups will need to be agreed. Rapporteurs (and shadows) will also have to be designated.

In the meantime, the SEC proposal on US MMFs, which is expected in the coming months, will influence the direction of the debate going forward.

If the SEC proposes that US prime institutional MMFs should adopt a floating NAV, a number of MEPs would certainly propose to adopt the same solution in Europe.

On the other hand, if the SEC would agree that liquidity fees and gates offer enough safeguard to protect CNAVs, the same solution could also be adopted in Europe.



FSB/IOSCO Consultation on G-SIFI’s37

16 June 2014

38

Relevance of the Consultation for our industry


This Consultation Paper is of particular relevance for asset managers and investment funds as it seeks to develop methodologies enabling regulators to identify Financial Institutions, other than Banks or Insurance companies that are of global systemic relevance.

These methodologies would apply to Finance Companies and Market Intermediaries but also to investment Funds provided that they reach certain materiality criteria ($ 100 billion in net AUM for individual investment funds – $ 400-600 billion GNE for hedge funds).

Importantly also, the Consultation Paper does not rule out the possibility that asset managers themselves or ‘families of fund’ might be regarded as systemically important.

16 June 2014

39

EFAMA reply to the Consultation


EFAMA welcomes recognition of the specificities of the business model of asset managers and investment funds

Because of their agency business model, asset managers are not a source of systemic risk. We therefore welcome the fact that the consultation puts the focus on investment funds as a more meaningful unit of analysis rather than on asset managers themselves.

Regulated investment funds, such as UCITS or AIFs in Europe, should not be considered systemically important.

Size alone is not an appropriate criterion to assess the systemic relevance of investment

funds. A better indicator would be the scale of activities of a fund (which is a reflection of its size and level of leverage). More work to be done on how to calibrate and articulate these size and leverage factors in the most effective manner

Level playing field: materiality thresholds – once defined at a global level – should be

applied in the same manner in all.

16 June 2014


Pension & Long-Term Savings40

16 June 2014

41

EIOPA workflow on PPP


The Task Force on Personal Pensions (TFPP) was established in January 2013 to provide input to the Commission’s policymaking with regards to personal pension products (PPP).

As a first step, the task force published an interim report in February 2014 to the Commission, identifying issues involved in developing prudential and consumer protection frameworks for cross-border personal pension provision and outlining options for dealing with them. The report also considered a possible structure and content of common EU rules in this area.

On 15 April 2014 EIOPA organized a public event on Personal Pensions in Slovakia, with the participation of Peter De Proft. The event aimed to discuss opportunities for creating a single market for personal pensions in the European Union.

EIOPA expects to receive a detailed Call for Advice from the Commission before of after summer.

16 June 2014


Key Elements of the Commission’s Proposal dated of 26 June 2013

European Long-Term Investment Funds (ELTIFs)

42

16 June 2014

43

ELTIFs – General Provisions

Regulation – no scope for ‘gold-plating’ ELTIF framework builds on AIFMD:

Only EU AIFs are eligible for authorisation as ELTIF

ELTIF to be managed only by EU AIFM ELTIF and its manager must comply at all times

with AIFMD requirements

Use of ELTIF Label protected


44

ELTIFs – Eligible assets

ELTIF shall only invest in the following two categories of assets:

Eligible investment assets (as defined by Art 9 of draft ELTIF regulation)

UCITS eligible assets (article 50.1 of Directive 2009/65)


45

ELTIFs – Diversification rules

At least 70% of capital to be invested in eligible long-term assets

Max. 10% exposure to any single qualifying portfolio undertaking (possible derogation to 20% if sum of positions > 10% does not exceed 40% in total)

Max. 10% investment in any single ELTIF, EuVECA or EuSEF (aggregate value of investments in these products = max 20% of capital)

Max. 5% investment in other eligible assets issued by a single body

Max. 5% global exposure stemming from OTC derivatives or reverse repo agreements


46

ELTIFs – Other rules re. portfolio composition

The Draft regulation also contains additional rules on:

Concentration limits (similar to UCITS)

Borrowing of cash (max. 30% and only for specific purposes)

Application in time of portfolio composition and diversification rules


47

ELTIFs – Redemption policy

No possibility for investors to ask for redemption of their shares before the end of life of the ELTIF (closed funds)

Life of ELTIF to be sufficient in length to cover life-cycle of each individual assets of the ELTIF, measured according to illiquidity profile and economic life-cycle of the asset and the stated long-term investment objective of the ELTIF



Recent developments in the European Investment Fund Industry – industry data

AMAC Annual Conference, 16 June 2014

Beijing Diaoyutai State Guest House

49

Trends over the past 10 years

4% growth recorded in Q1 2014

9% increase in net assets in 2013

Total investment fund assets increased 110% over past 10 years and 64% since end 2008


1,05

0

1,16

1

1,42

4

1,66

5

1,86

6

1,64

6

1,86

3

2,18

9

2,32

2

2,68

6

2,92

2

3,05

0

3,78

5

4,21

2 5,19

1

5,95

6

6,13

3

4,52

8

5,26

7

5,99

0

5,63

9

6,29

9

6,86

6

7,10

6

-

10,500

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 March2014

Non-UCITS UCITS

Net Assets of European Investment Funds(EUR billions)

7,9997,621

6,6157,130

6,174

8,178

5,373

8,985

9,788

4,835

7,960

10,156

16 June 2014

50

Trends in the UCITS Market in 2013

Equity funds were the big winner in 2013 as net assets grew 21% during the year.

Bond funds recorded a modest increase (5%).

Money market funds continue to suffer in a low interest rate environment.


1,852

1,512

893 1,053

2,095

1,853

985 1,012

2,531

1,942

1,113

912

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

Equity Bond Balanced Money Market

Net Assets by Type of UCITS (in EUR billions)

End 2011 End 2012 End 2013

16 June 2014

51

Trends in the non-UCITS Market in 2013

Special funds recorded growth of 11% in 2013, thanks to strong net inflows of EUR 154 billion during the year.


1,445

258

619

1,742

257

688

1,925

276

721

0

2,200

Special Real Estate Others

Net Assets by Type of Non-UCITS (in EUR billions)

End 2011 End 2012 End 2013

16 June 2014

52

UCITS Market at end Q1 2014

AuM of EUR 7.1 trillion in approx. 35,700 funds

Balanced16%

Bond29%

Equity37%

MMF13%

Other5%


53

Non-UCITS Market at end Q1 2014

Non-UCITS are nationally regulated investment funds or funds falling under AIFMD

AuM of EUR 3.1 trillion in approx. 19,500 funds

Special Funds67%

Real Estate Funds

9%

Other 25%


54

Trends in Net Sales of UCITS (1)

(EUR billions)

Demand for long-term UCITS recorded a strong start in Q1 2014, after a good year for net sales in 2013


(1) Excluding Ireland pre-2011 due to unavailability of data

193 205

364300

0

-421

158230

-64

233313

134

472 18 47 51 65

-45

-165

-33 -40-84

14

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 March2014

Net Sales of Long-term UCITS and Money Market Funds (1)

(EUR billions)

Long-term UCITS Money Market Funds

16 June 2014

55

Net Flows by UCITS Type

The first quarter of 2014 has seen a surge in net sales of UCITS

Demand for long-term UCITS has remained robust throughout the year

UCITS Net Sales (EUR bn)


Mar

AprM

ay

Jun Jul

Aug

Sep

OctNov

Dec

Jan

FebM

ar

3844

34

-65

36

15

-15

21 18 14

69

4834

UCITS Net Sales (EUR bn)

Mar

AprM

ay

Jun Jul

Aug

Sep

OctNov

Dec

Jan

Feb

Mar

4150

39

-25

35

09

2621 27

4050 47

Long-term Fund Net Sales (EUR bn)

16 June 2014

56

Net Flows by UCITS Type

Equity funds enjoyed sustained net inflows on a monthly basis during the second half of 2013 and early 2014

Bond funds suffered after the announcement of tapering by the Federal Reserve in May 2013


Mar

AprM

ayJu

n Jul

AugSe

pOctNovDec Ja

nFebM

ar

91

-1-9

14

2

14 1510

1510 12

6

Equity Fund Net Sales (EUR bn)

Mar

AprM

ayJu

n Jul

AugSe

pOctNovDec Ja

nFebM

ar

15

3021

-18

6

-7 -9

06

0

1324

25

Bond Fund Net Sales (EUR bn)

16 June 2014

57

Net Flows by UCITS Type cont’d

Balanced funds benefitted from investors search for yield and risk diversification.

Money market funds continue to suffer in a low interest rate environment.


Mar

AprM

ayJu

n Jul

AugSe

pOctNovDec Ja

nFebM

ar

13 13 13

09

3 5 7 813 15 12 16

Balanced Fund Net Sales (EUR bn)

Mar

AprM

ayJu

n Jul

AugSe

pOctNovDec Ja

nFebM

ar

-2-7 -5

-40

115

-24-5 -3 -13

29

-2-13

MM Fund Net Sales (EUR bn)

16 June 2014


EFAMA

Rue Montoyer 47 B-1000 Brussels, Belgium Tel. +32 (2) 513 3969 Fax + 32 (2) 513 2643 E-mail: [email protected]

Contact58

16 June 2014

Documents

AMAC Annual Conference, 16 June 2014 Beijing Diaoyutai State Guest House