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
AMAC Annual Conference 2014
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
AMAC Annual Conference 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
AMAC Annual Conference 2014
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
AMAC Annual Conference 2014
EFAMA’s International “Partners in Dialogue”
EFAMA
FSB/ ESRB
US Treasury
IRS
CFTC
IOSCO
SEC
IIFA
16 June 2014
AMAC
National Regulators
The Development of Regulation on Europe Asset Management Industry and Current Industry Situation
A Regulatory Update
AMAC Annual Conference, 16 June 2014
Beijing Diaoyutai State Guest House
9 Agenda
AMAC Annual Conference 2014
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
AMAC Annual Conference 2014 16 June 2014
11
UCITS V – Timeline
AMAC Annual Conference 2014
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
AMAC Annual Conference 2014
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)
AMAC Annual Conference 2014
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
AMAC Annual Conference 2014
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
AMAC Annual Conference 2014
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
AMAC Annual Conference 2014
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
AMAC Annual Conference 2014
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
AMAC Annual Conference 2014
PRIIPs
16 June 2014
AMAC Annual Conference 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;
AMAC Annual Conference 2014
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".
AMAC Annual Conference 2014 16 June 2014
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.
AMAC Annual Conference 2014 16 June 2014
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)
AMAC Annual Conference 2014 16 June 2014
24
AMAC Annual Conference 2014
MiFID II
16 June 2014
AMAC Annual Conference 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
AMAC Annual Conference 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
AMAC Annual Conference 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?
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
AMAC Annual Conference 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
MiFID II – Investor protection (cont’d)What 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
AMAC Annual Conference 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
MiFID II – Investor protection (cont’d)What could we expect from ESMA consultation for the Level II?
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”.
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
AMAC Annual Conference 2014
30
MiFID II – Investor protection (cont’d)What could we expect from ESMA consultation for the Level II?
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..
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
AMAC Annual Conference 2014
31
Inducements (Article 24(1), (5)(b) and (6))
Ban on inducement for independent advice and discretionary portfolio management.
MiFID II – Investor protection (cont’d)What could we expect from ESMA consultation for the Level II?
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.
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
AMAC Annual Conference 2014
32
Product design
Identification of consumer target market.
MiFID II – Investor protection (cont’d)What could we expect from ESMA consultation for the Level II?
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.
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
AMAC Annual Conference 2014
33
Requirements on information about costs and charges (Article 24(3))
Aricle 33 of the existing Implementing directive applies to retail clients only.
MiFID II – Investor protection (cont’d)What could we expect from ESMA consultation for the Level II?
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
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
AMAC Annual Conference 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
AMAC Annual Conference 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.
AMAC Annual Conference 2014 16 June 2014
AMAC Annual Conference 2014
FSB/IOSCO Consultation on G-SIFI’s37
16 June 2014
38
Relevance of the Consultation for our industry
AMAC Annual Conference 2014
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
AMAC Annual Conference 2014
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
AMAC Annual Conference 2014
Pension & Long-Term Savings40
16 June 2014
41
EIOPA workflow on PPP
AMAC Annual Conference 2014
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
AMAC Annual Conference 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
AMAC Annual Conference 2014 16 June 2014
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)
AMAC Annual Conference 2014 16 June 2014
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
AMAC Annual Conference 2014 16 June 2014
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
AMAC Annual Conference 2014 16 June 2014
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
AMAC Annual Conference 2014 16 June 2014
The Development of Regulation on Europe Asset Management Industry and Current Industry Situation
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
AMAC Annual Conference 2014
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.
AMAC Annual Conference 2014
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.
AMAC Annual Conference 2014
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%
AMAC Annual Conference 2014 16 June 2014
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%
AMAC Annual Conference 2014 16 June 2014
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
AMAC Annual Conference 2014
(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)
AMAC Annual Conference 2014
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
AMAC Annual Conference 2014
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.
AMAC Annual Conference 2014
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
AMAC Annual Conference 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