Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-12-12-Speech-3-367"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20071212.34.3-367"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Madam President, since the adoption of the UCITS Directive in 1985, European fund markets have experienced meteoric growth. The directive has since been updated twice to take account of new market developments, and further modernisation is right at the top of next year’s agenda.
Lastly, I should like to thank my fellow committee members, especially the shadow rapporteurs from the other groups, for their close cooperation. I hope that the Commission, as it did the first time, will again embrace our proposals so that we can make the opportunities of the single European market fully available to both investors and the fund industry.
Not least among the sources of the Commission’s present reform project is the first resolution on asset management (Asset Management I) adopted by the European Parliament in April 2006, which set out the main elements of the reform package. I am grateful to the Commission for having adopted these recommendations and for its intention to have them implemented in a legislative instrument in the new year.
The present draft resolution, entitled Asset Management II, is similarly designed to pave the way for future initiatives on the part of the Commission. To this end the draft provides for numerous measures which go beyond the content of next year’s planned revision package but which we deem necessary if the European funds industry is to become more competitive. The following are the main points:
Firstly, the Commission should consider an extension of eligible assets to cover property funds and hedge funds. Both products help to diversify the risk exposure of portfolios and offer attractive returns on investment. Besides scope for adding these products to portfolios, consideration should also be given to a European depository passport, which would give private investors direct access to these products. We welcome the establishment by the Commission of an expert group on open real-estate funds (OREFs) and its decision to conduct a study on non-harmonised retail funds.
Secondly, not only retail investors but also professional providers and institutional investors should be able to benefit fully from a single European market. There has never been any scope for these groups, who can effectively do without the traditional consumer protection mechanisms, to operate across borders without very public notification procedures. A European private placement regime can remedy that situation. It must be designed in such a way that it does not restrict the existing schemes, some of which are very liberal, in individual Member States. In order to guarantee this flexibility, Parliament is proposing that the CESR, the Committee of European Securities Regulators, should formulate recommendations for the organisation of such a regime. The next step would then involve examining whether that was sufficient or whether there was a need for a universally binding directive.
Thirdly, the range of investment products for retail investors is constantly increasing, but the available product information does not permit comparison of the relative merits of products. This is due in part to the highly fragmented legal framework in Europe. If individual investors are to make informed decisions, however, information requirements and disclosure obligations must establish some degree of comparability between competing products. The various industries should be able to compete on a level playing field under the same rules. For this reason we call on the Commission to review the existing legal frameworks for the various product categories and to present proposals as to how the situation can be improved.
The aim is not to make products fully comparable. Life assurance policies, certificates and funds differ intrinsically in their legal status and structure. The aim is rather to establish equivalent information requirements. Even maximum transparency, however, will count for nothing if investors do not possess at least a minimum level of knowledge about diverse financial products and the way they work. It is therefore the responsibility of the Member States to encourage education initiatives in this domain.
Fourthly, investors should be able to benefit not only from a wide range of products but also from low costs. At the present time, however, the European fund landscape is extremely fragmented, which breeds relative inefficiency and excessive costs, especially by comparison with competitor countries. The Commission is planning to create a legal framework next year for fund mergers. That is to be welcomed. The Commission, however, is disregarding one of the main obstacles to cross-border mergers, namely taxation. We therefore call for cross-border mergers to be treated in exactly the same way as national mergers for tax purposes; in other words, they should not create any additional tax liability for investors. We are not asking for any measures to be taken on tax rates or the like. We are merely asking for cross-border mergers not to be treated differently from domestic mergers.
Fifthly, Parliament will produce a separate report assessing the potential utility of a European legal framework for hedge funds and private equity. The Commission, however, should prepare itself to engage actively in the international discussions on these matters."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples