ERU, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Bilag 189: Orientering om regeringens svar på Kommissionens offentlige høring om gennemgangen af forordningen om europæiske langsigtede investeringsfonde, fra erhvervsministeren

Erhvervsudvalget 2020-21
ERU Alm.del Bilag 189
Offentligt

Contribution ID: 44625d98-5e28-47ad-8faa-bf330314f7a0

Date: 03/02/2021 11:51:30

Public consultation on the review of the

European long-term investment funds (ELTIF)

regulatory framework

Fields marked with * are mandatory.

Introduction

The

short version

of this consultation is also available in

German

and

French

Die

kurze Version

dieser öffentlichen Konsultation ist auch auf

Englisch

und

Französisch

verfügbar.

version courte

de cette consultation est également disponible en

allemand

et en

anglais

Disclaimer

This public consultation is a working document of the Commission services for consultation and does not

prejudge the final decision that the Commission may take.

The views reflected on this consultation paper provide an identification on the approach the Commission

services may take but do not constitute a final policy position or a formal proposal by the European

Commission.

1. Background of this public consultation

Regulation (EU) 2015/760 on European long-term investment funds (ELTIF)

is a pan-European framework for

Alternative Investment Funds (AIFs)

that invest in longer term real economy investments such as social and

tal markets union

, the

European green deal

and the

digital single market

The ELTIF regime is intended to facilitate investment in these assets by pension funds, insurance companies,

professional and retail investors providing an alternative non-banking source of finance. Such long-term finance is

critical to enabling the development of the European economy on the path of smart, sustainable and inclusive growth,

while supporting job creation and improving overall economic competitiveness and resilience to systemic shocks. The

infrastructure projects, real estate and SMEs. ELTIFs can serve as important conduits of investments to support the

capi

ERU, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Bilag 189: Orientering om regeringens svar på Kommissionens offentlige høring om gennemgangen af forordningen om europæiske langsigtede investeringsfonde, fra erhvervsministeren

ELTIF Regulation lays down uniform rules on the authorisation, investment policies and operating conditions of EU

AIFs and marketed in the Union as ELTIFs. ELTIFs may also, under certain conditions, be marketed to retail investors

under a pan-European passport.

Since the adoption of the ELTIF legal framework in April 2015, only a small number of ELTIFs have launched with a

relatively small amount of net assets under management (total AuM below EUR 2 billion). There are currently

approximately 27 ELTIFs in the EU, while only 22 ELTIFs are estimated to being marketed and a number of Member

States have no domestic ELTIFs. The failure of the ELTIF market to develop as expected highlights the need to

complete a review of the regulation to better understand the reasons behind the low uptake and develop policy options

to improve the attractiveness of the ELTIF regime. By reviewing the legal and policy elements of the ELTIF framework,

the Commission aims to enhance attractiveness of the ELTIF legal framework for long-term investment projects,

increase the number of ELTIF funds and overall investment in the real economy.

In June 2020, the

High Level Forum on the Capital Markets Union (HLF)

has made a set of specific recommendations

calling for a review of the ELTIF Regulation broadening the scope of eligible assets and reducing potential barriers to

investment. The Commission is currently assessing the HLF’s recommendations as part of the ELTIF review and the

MU action plan

Under Article 37 of the ELTIF Regulation, the Commission is required to review the framework and submit a report to

the co-legislators assessing the contribution of the ELTIF Regulation and of ELTIFs to the development of the capital

markets union and smart, sustainable and inclusive economic growth. If deemed necessary, the report will be

accompanied by a legislative proposal.

2. High-Level Forum’s recommendations for the review of the ELTIF regime

Since the publication of the

first capital markets union (CMU) action plan in 2015

, many actions were taken to develop

adequate sources of long-term funding. The CMU is built on the understanding that it will enable EU companies to

access more stable and long-term financing. Tackling the climate crisis and managing the energy transition to a low

carbon economy, as well as other environmental and social challenges requires a real long-term horizon and long-term

investments. The success of investments in new technologies and infrastructures requires effective regulatory

frameworks, robust and cost-effective financial structures.

Furthermore, financing for projects such as transport infrastructure, sustainable energy generation or distribution, social

infrastructure (housing or hospitals), the roll-out of new technologies and systems that reduce the use of resources and

energy, or the further growth of SMEs, can be scarce. As the financial crisis has shown, complementing bank financing

with a wider variety of financing sources that better mobilise capital markets could help tackle financing gaps. ELTIFs

can play a crucial role in this respect, and can also mobilise capital by attracting retail and third-country investors.

In June 2020, the

High Level Forum on the CMU issued a number of recommendations for the review of the ELTIF

Regulation

by both amending and/or adding new provisions to the existing legal framework, such as reducing barriers

to investments and broadening the scope of eligible assets and investments.

The Commission has committed to conducting an impact assessment of the ELTIF regime that will explore whether

targeted amendments to the legislation can deliver a more proportionate regulatory environment and facilitate the

improvement of the ELTIF framework. The objective of this process is to improve the effectiveness of the regulatory

regime for ELTIFs and their managers, alleviate the administrative burden where possible while ensuring that ELTIFs

are the fund structure of choice for channelling funding to long-term investment projects, while maintaining adequate

investor protection safeguards.

This public consultation will support the policy work of the Commission services in assessing the ELTIF regulatory

framework and preparing policy proposals in this area. The Commission services are committed to comprehensively

evaluating the functioning of the ELTIF regulatory framework and exploring options to tailor and, where appropriate,

amend the provisions of the ELTIF Regulation and the implementing EU legislation.

This public consultation will also contribute to the Report of the European Commission to the European Parliament and

the Council pertaining to the functioning of the ELTIF Regulation and fulfil the legal mandate set out in Article 37 of the

ELTIF Regulation.

3. Responding to this consultation and follow up to the consultation

In this context and in line with the

better regulation principles

, the Commission will launch an open public consultation to

gather evidence and stakeholders’ feedback on the challenges, barriers and opportunities for improvements to the

ELTIF regulatory framework.

While responding to the regulatory barriers and regulatory opportunities, two principles should be kept in mind. First,

the review of regulatory issues in the ELTIF regime should not undermine the effectiveness of its investor protection

safeguards. Second, while the focus of this public consultation is on the evaluation and the intended improvement of

the ELTIF regime, this public consultation will also take into account the parallel consultations and/or review processes,

irrespective of the timing, of the other EU financial acquis, such as that of the AIFMD and the MiFID II/MiFIR.

In order to collect further evidence, the Commission is seeking for views on the main reasons behind the slow uptake in

ELTIFs across the Union, as well as reasoned and numerically supported suggestions for an improved functioning of

the ELTIF regime.

The consultation will allow stakeholders to either respond to the short version of the questionnaire comprising general

questions on the ELTIF framework, or a the full version of the questionnaire comprising both general and targeted

questions on the operation of the ELTIF regime.

Interested parties are invited to provide feedback on the questions raised in this online questionnaire.

Views are welcome from anyone.

If you are representing Member States, national competent authorities and/or ESMA, market participants, such as asset

managers, investment firms, credit institutions, financial intermediaries, stock exchanges, institutional and retail

investors, consumer and investor organisations, manufacturers and distributors of financial products and services,

financial and legal advisers or other services providers, as well as academics and policy think-tanks, you are kindly

requested to disclose your affiliation below.

We invite you to add any documents and/or data that you would deem useful to your replies at the end of this

questionnaire, and

only through the questionnaire

Please explain your responses and, as far as possible, illustrate them with concrete examples and substantiate them

numerically with supporting data and empiric evidence. Where appropriate, provide specific operational suggestions to

questions raised. This will allow further analytical elaboration.

You are not required to answer every questions and you may respond to only those questions that you deem the most

relevant.

You are requested to read the

privacy statement attached to this consultation

for information on how your personal data

and contribution will be dealt with.

In the context of the

public consultation on the functioning of the Directive 2011/61/EU on alternative investment fund managers

(AIFMD)

, it should be clarified that this public consultation on

Regulation (EU) 2015/760 on European long-term investment funds

(ELTIF)

should be considered as a separate workstream. Stakeholders are hereby invited to provide any ELTIF regime specific

feedback and/or data within the remits of this consultation.

Please note:

In order to ensure a fair and transparent consultation process

only responses received through our

online questionnaire will be taken into account

and included in the report summarising the responses. Should you

have a problem completing this questionnaire or if you require particular assistance, please contact

fisma-eltif-public-

[email protected]

More information on

this consultation

the consultation document

investment funds

the protection of personal data regime for this consultation

About you

Language

of my contribution

Bulgarian

Croatian

Czech

Danish

Dutch

English

Estonian

Finnish

French

Gaelic

German

Greek

Hungarian

Italian

Latvian

Lithuanian

Maltese

Polish

Portuguese

Romanian

Slovak

Slovenian

Spanish

Swedish

am giving my contribution as

Academic/research

institution

Business association

Company/business

organisation

Consumer organisation

Non-governmental

organisation (NGO)

Environmental organisation

Non-EU citizen

EU citizen

Public

authority

Trade union

Other

First

name

Vicki Erfurt

Surname

LARSEN

(this won't be published)

[email protected]

Scope

International

Local

National

Regional

Organisation

name

255 character(s) maximum

Danish Ministry of Industry, Business and Financial Affairs

Organisation

size

Micro (1 to 9 employees)

Small (10 to 49 employees)

Medium (50 to 249 employees)

Large (250 or more)

Transparency register number

255 character(s) maximum

Check if your organisation is on the

transparency register

. It's a voluntary database for organisations seeking to

influence EU decision-making.

Country

of origin

Please add your country of origin, or that of your organisation.

Afghanistan

Åland Islands

Albania

Djibouti

Dominica

Dominican

Republic

Libya

Liechtenstein

Lithuania

Saint Martin

Saint Pierre

and Miquelon

Saint Vincent

and the

Grenadines

Algeria

American

Samoa

Andorra

Angola

Anguilla

Antarctica

Antigua and

Barbuda

Argentina

Armenia

Aruba

Ecuador

Egypt

El Salvador

Equatorial

Guinea

Eritrea

Estonia

Eswatini

Ethiopia

Falkland Islands

Faroe Islands

Luxembourg

Macau

Madagascar

Malawi

Malaysia

Maldives

Mali

Malta

Marshall

Islands

Martinique

Samoa

San Marino

São Tomé and

Príncipe

Saudi Arabia

Senegal

Serbia

Seychelles

Sierra Leone

Singapore

Sint Maarten

Australia

Austria

Azerbaijan

Bahamas

Bahrain

Bangladesh

Fiji

Finland

France

French Guiana

French

Polynesia

French

Southern and

Antarctic Lands

Mauritania

Mauritius

Mayotte

Mexico

Micronesia

Moldova

Slovakia

Slovenia

Solomon

Islands

Somalia

South Africa

South Georgia

and the South

Sandwich

Islands

Barbados

Belarus

Belgium

Belize

Benin

Bermuda

Bhutan

Bolivia

Bonaire Saint

Eustatius and

Saba

Bosnia and

Herzegovina

Botswana

Bouvet Island

Brazil

British Indian

Ocean Territory

British Virgin

Islands

Brunei

Gabon

Georgia

Germany

Ghana

Gibraltar

Greece

Greenland

Grenada

Guadeloupe

Monaco

Mongolia

Montenegro

Montserrat

Morocco

Mozambique

Myanmar

/Burma

Namibia

Nauru

South Korea

South Sudan

Spain

Sri Lanka

Sudan

Suriname

Svalbard and

Jan Mayen

Sweden

Switzerland

Guam

Guatemala

Guernsey

Guinea

Guinea-Bissau

Guyana

Haiti

Nepal

Netherlands

New Caledonia

New Zealand

Nicaragua

Niger

Nigeria

Syria

Taiwan

Tajikistan

Tanzania

Thailand

The Gambia

Timor-Leste

Bulgaria

Heard Island

and McDonald

Islands

Niue

Togo

Burkina Faso

Burundi

Cambodia

Cameroon

Canada

Cape Verde

Cayman Islands

Central African

Republic

Chad

Chile

China

Christmas

Island

Clipperton

Cocos (Keeling)

Islands

Colombia

Comoros

Congo

Cook Islands

Costa Rica

Côte d’Ivoire

Croatia

Honduras

Hong Kong

Hungary

Iceland

India

Indonesia

Iran

Iraq

Ireland

Isle of Man

Israel

Italy

Jamaica

Japan

Norfolk Island

Northern

Mariana Islands

North Korea

North

Macedonia

Norway

Oman

Pakistan

Palau

Palestine

Panama

Papua New

Guinea

Paraguay

Peru

Philippines

Tokelau

Tonga

Trinidad and

Tobago

Tunisia

Turkey

Turkmenistan

Turks and

Caicos Islands

Tuvalu

Uganda

Ukraine

United Arab

Emirates

United

Kingdom

United States

Minor Outlying

Islands

Jersey

Jordan

Kazakhstan

Kenya

Kiribati

Kosovo

Kuwait

Pitcairn Islands

Poland

Portugal

Puerto Rico

Qatar

Réunion

Romania

Uruguay

US Virgin

Islands

Uzbekistan

Vanuatu

Vatican City

Venezuela

Vietnam

Cuba

Curaçao

Cyprus

Czechia

Kyrgyzstan

Laos

Latvia

Lebanon

Russia

Rwanda

Saint

Barthélemy

Saint Helena

Ascension and

Tristan da

Cunha

Wallis and

Futuna

Western

Sahara

Yemen

Zambia

Democratic

Republic of the

Congo

Denmark

Which

Lesotho

Saint Kitts and

Nevis

Zimbabwe

Liberia

Saint Lucia

of the following fields of activities or sectors best describe yourself / your

organisation (if applicable):

at least 1 choice(s)

Asset manager (e.g. fund manager, hedge funds, private equity funds,

venture capital funds, money market funds)

Investment bank

Independent research provider

Sell-side firm

Buy-side entity

Corporate

Issuer

Institutional investor

Retail/private investor

Consumer association

Accounting firm

Auditing firm

Credit rating agency

Other

Please

specify your activity field(s) or sector(s):

Regulatory and supervisory

Publication

privacy settings

The Commission will publish the responses to this public consultation. You can choose whether you would like

your details to be made public or to remain anonymous.

Anonymous

Only your type of respondent, country of origin and contribution will be

published. All other personal details (name, organisation name and size,

transparency register number) will not be published.

Public

Your personal details (name, organisation name and size, transparency

I agree with the

personal data protection provisions

Choose your questionnaire

Please

indicate whether you wish to respond to the short version

(6 questions) or full version (42 questions) of the questionnaire.

The short version only covers the general aspects of the ELTIF regime.

The full version comprises 36 additional questions addressing more

technical

features.

Note that only the questions that are part of the short version are also

available in French and German.

I want to respond only to the

short version of the

questionnaire

(6 questions)

I want to respond to the

full version of the

questionnaire

(42 questions)

1. Introductory questions

Question 1. Please specify to what extent you agree with the statements below?

Don't

(fully

disagree)

The ELTIF framework has been successful in achieving its

objective of raising and channelling capital towards European long-

term investments in the real economy

The scope of the ELTIF authorisation is appropriate

The costs of launching and operating an ELTIF, and the regulatory

and administrative burdens are appropriate

The ELTIF regime is relevant to the needs and challenges in EU

asset management

The existing ELTIF regime is consistent with the CMU objectives

The ELTIF regime has brought added value to investors in and the

financing of long-term projects

The ELTIF investor protection framework is appropriate

(somewhat

disagree)

(neutral)

(somewhat

agree)

(fully

agree)

know -

opinion -

Not

applicable

Question 1.1 Please explain your position on your responses to question 1,

providing key arguments to support your answers:

including spaces and line breaks, i.e. stricter than the MS Word characters counting method.

Limited progress has been made to establish European long-term investment funds (“ELTIFs”) as a major

source for financing long term projects and as an established investment product for retail investors. Only a

small number of ELTIFs have launched with a relatively small amount of net assets under management.

There are currently no ELTIFs in Denmark and the Danish market participants seem to not recognise ELTIFs

as relevant within the current regulation.

Market participants in Denmark do not find ELTIFs attractive, not from the supply side nor from the demand

side, and as a consequence the product has not gained widespread popularity.

Denmark finds it important that any product marketed to retail investors should have strong investor

protection safeguards at the same level as there is in MiFID.

Denmark would like to question whether retail investors generally have a sufficiently long investment horizon

for illiquid infrastructure investments or sufficient savings to make infrastructure investments part of a

balanced portfolio.

However, this is not the case for investments made from pension funds. We therefore believe that ELTIFs

are mostly suited for retail investors as part of a balanced pension portfolio.

It should in this regard be noted that many Danish pension schemes offer the saver to be able to put

together its own portfolio within certain limits.

5000 character(s) maximum

Question 2. Please indicate the areas and provisions in the ELTIF regime where policy action would be most

needed to improve the functioning of the ELTIF regulatory framework? Please rate as follows:

(no policy

action

needed)

(policy

action

could be

considered)

(policy

action

desirable)

(policy

action

needed)

(policy

action

very

strongly

needed)

Don't

know -

opinion -

Not

applicable

General princinples and definitions used in the ELTIF Regulation

Market capitalisation threshold defining an SME equity or debt

issuer

Authorisation requirements

Operational conditions

Passportability of ELTIFs

Rules pertaining to eligible investments

Clarification and/or practical guidance on the eligibility

requirements, notably in relation to investments in real assets

Rules pertaining to the prohibition to undertake certain activities

Rules concerning the qualifying portfolio undertakings

Conflict of interests related rules, including the ban on co-

investment

Portfolio composition and diversification rules and their application

Concentration limits

Rules and limitations related to the borrowing of cash

Redemption related rules and life-cycle of ELTIFs

Rules concerning the disposal of ELTIF assets

Transparency requirements

Prospectus-related provisions

Cost disclosure related rules

Rules pertaining to the facilities available to investors for making

subscriptions

Requirements concerning the marketing and distribution of ELTIFs

to investors

Specific provisions concerning the depositary of an ELTIF

marketed to retail investors

Provisions and rules pertaining to the marketing of ELTIFs to retail

investors

Provisions integrating the EU Taxonomy for sustainable activities

into the ELTIF framework

Inconsistent or duplicative application of the ELTIF related

requirements by Member States

Issues arising from the supervisory practices within Member States

Cross-border marketing related challenges

Excessive reliance on distribution networks to market ELTIFs

Excessive costs of setting up and operating ELTIFs

Competition from existing national fund structures

Taxation related issues

Other aspects

Question 2.1 Please explain your position on your answer to question 2,

providing your arguments, and where appropriate, concrete examples and

data to support your answers:

including spaces and line breaks, i.e. stricter than the MS Word characters counting method.

Alternative Investment Funds (“AIFs”) as defined in the AIFMD are currently the primary vehicle for illiquid

infrastructure investments. AIF’s are most often not suited for retail investors.

If ELTIFs are to compete with AIFs as the chosen vehicle for illiquid infrastructure investments, the ELTIF

regulation should be flexible enough to be able to cover a wide range of strategies and investor types and it

should be possible to manage ELTIFs commercially.

Retail investors could be targeted indirectly via investments from pension funds.

The ELTIF regulation would further benefit from a clarification on the assets that an ELTIF can invest into.

5000 character(s) maximum

Question 3. Please rate the following characteristics of the ELTIF framework based on how positive or negative

their impact is, as follows:

-2

significant

negative

impact

Broad scope of eligible assets under the ELTIF regime

Long-term and illiquid nature of the investments of an ELTIF

Operational conditions

Transparency requirements

Availability of ELTIFs to retail investors

Requirements and safeguards for marketing of ELTIFs to retail

investors

Validity of an authorisation as an ELTIF for all Member States

Other aspects

-1

negative

impact

no impact

positive

impact

significant

positive

impact

Don't

know -

opinion -

Not

applicable

Question 3.1 Please explain your position on your answer to question 3,

providing your arguments, and where appropriate, concrete examples and

data to support your answers:

including spaces and line breaks, i.e. stricter than the MS Word characters counting method.

Investing directly in long-term illiquid assets requires a long-term commitment from the investor.

This is especially the case if no secondary market exists. Few retail investors have the commitment and

patience for such long-term investments.

The product is not suited for the vast majority of retail investors. The Danish FSA is of the opinion that ELTIF

could however be part of a balanced pension portfolio. See our answer to question 1.1 above.

Also, retail investors who wish to get exposure to infrastructure may invest in listed infrastructure companies

that are more suited for the needs of retail investors.

ELTIF seems currently to be unattractive. This could be (amongst other reasons) due to the cost and

complexity involved in marketing towards re-tail investors.

5000 character(s) maximum

2. Scope of the ELTIF authorisation and process

Question 4. Is the scope of the ELTIF authorisation and operating conditions

a p p r o p r i a t e ?

Please explain your answer.

including spaces and line breaks, i.e. stricter than the MS Word characters counting method.

No opinion

5000 character(s) maximum

Question 5. Should the ELTIF framework be amended to enhance the use of

the ELTIF passport?

Yes

Other

Don’t know / no opinion / not relevant

Question 5.1 Please explain your answer to question 5:

including spaces and line breaks, i.e. stricter than the MS Word characters counting method.

N/A

5000 character(s) maximum

3. Investment universe, eligible assets and qualifying

portfolio undertakings

Question 6. Should any of the following investments be eligible under the revised ELTIF framework? Please rate

as follows:

-2

investments

should be

strongly

discouraged

Investments in innovative technologies

Investments in green, sustainable and/or climate related projects

Investments in projects that classify as sustainable under the EU

taxonomy for sustainable activities

Post-COVID 19 recovery related projects

Any financial assets with long-term maturities

Investments in digital assets and infrastructure

Investments in social infrastructure and social cohesion

Investments in energy infrastructure and energy efficiency

Any real estate assets, including commercial and residential real

estate without a perceived economic or social benefit under the

Union's energy, regional and cohesion policies

-1

investments

should be

discouraged

no impact

investments

should be

encouraged

investments

should be

strongly

encouraged

Don't

know -

opinion -

Not

applicable

The scope of the investment universe of ELTIFs and eligible

assets as currently set out in the ELTIF Regulation be further

expanded to other areas and asset classes

The scope of the investment universe of ELTIFs and eligible

assets as currently set out in the ELTIF Regulation be more

restricted or limited to a narrower set of assets/investments

Other types of assets and investment targets, and/or other

regulatory approaches should be pursued

Question 6.1 Please explain your position on your responses to question 6,

including the benefits and disadvantages as well as potential costs thereof,

w h e r e

p o s s i b l e .

In particular, please indicate if you consider that any changes in the ELTIF

regime are necessary, and if so which ones, and why? Should you be of the

opinion that investments in certain eligible assets be strongly encouraged,

please provide further details on the possible definitions and scope of such

different assets (e.g. references to existing or new legal definitions,

examples, etc.):

including spaces and line breaks, i.e. stricter than the MS Word characters counting method.

N/A

5000 character(s) maximum

Question 7. Should some of the definitions related to the investment universe

of ELTIFs and eligible assets used in the ELTIF Regulation, such as “long-

term”, “capital”, “social benefit”, “debt”, “sustainable”, “energy, regional and

cohesion policies” and “speculative investments” be revised to enhance the

clarity and certainty around the application of the ELTIF regime?

If so, how should those definitions be amended and why?

including spaces and line breaks, i.e. stricter than the MS Word characters counting method.

5000 character(s) maximum

No opinion

Question 8. Is the ELTIF framework appropriate in respect of the provisions

related to investments in third countries?

Yes

Don’t know / no opinion / not relevant

Question

8.1

Please

explain

your

answer

question

In particular, please describe in detail any necessary adjustments to enhance

legal certainty, for instance, with respect to the proportion invested in EU

Member States with a view to benefit the ELTIF market, their managers and

the broader European economy.

including spaces and line breaks, i.e. stricter than the MS Word characters counting method.

N/A

5000 character(s) maximum

Question 9. Which provisions and requirements related to the eligibility of investments and investment assets set

out in the ELTIF Regulation should be updated to improve the functioning of the ELTIF framework? Please rate as

follows:

(no policy

action

needed)

(policy

action

could be

considered)

(policy

action

desirable)

(policy

action

needed)

(policy

action

very

strongly

needed)

Don't

know -

opinion -

Not

applicable

A size requirement of at least EUR 10 000 000 for eligible real

assets investments

A condition for an exposure to real estate through a direct holding

or indirect holding through qualifying portfolio undertakings of

individual real assets

Limitation on eligible investment assets to units or shares of

ELTIFs, EuVECAs and EuSEFs, as opposed to other potential

fund categories

Inability to invest in a “financial undertaking”

EUR 500 000 000 market capitalisation threshold set out in the

ELTIF Regulation for investing in listed issuers

Rules related to investments in third-country undertakings

Other conditions and requirements related to eligible investment

assets and qualifying portfolio undertakings

Question 9.1 Please provide your assessment of the adequacy and

effectiveness of the ELTIF framework with respect to the execution of fund-of-

fund investment strategies, real assets investment strategies and any

restrictions on investments in other funds throughout the ELTIF’s life.

Please explain and provide your suggestions which specific provisions of the

ELTIF Regulation may benefit from improvements, and why:

including spaces and line breaks, i.e. stricter than the MS Word characters counting method.

N/A

5000 character(s) maximum

4. Types of investors and effective investor protection

Question 10. Please describe key barriers to the development of the ELTIF

market, whether regulatory or of another nature, if any, to institutional

investments that you consider reduce the attractiveness of the ELTIFs for

institutional

Please explain:

including spaces and line breaks, i.e. stricter than the MS Word characters counting method.

No opinion

investors?

5000 character(s) maximum

Question 11. Should any of the following provisions of the ELTIF legal framework be amended, and

if so how, to improve the participation and access of retail investors to ELTIFs?

Please explain which of the following provisions should be amended and give specific examples

potential effects and costs of the proposed changes.

where possible and explain the benefits and disadvantages of your suggested approach, as well as

a) Amendment of the size of the initial minimum amount for retail investors,

and net worth requirements

Yes

Don’t know / no opinion / not relevant

Please explain your answer to question 11.a, as well as your suggested

approach if you responded yes:

including spaces and line breaks, i.e. stricter than the MS Word characters counting method.

N/A

5000 character(s) maximum

b) Amendment of the specific requirements concerning the distribution of

ELTIFs to retail investors (suitability test)

Yes

Don’t know / no opinion / not relevant

Please explain your answer to question 11.b, as well as your suggested

approach if you responded yes:

including spaces and line breaks, i.e. stricter than the MS Word characters counting method.

5000 character(s) maximum

N/A

c) Withdrawal period of two weeks

Yes

Don’t know / no opinion / not relevant

d) Possibility to allow more frequent redemptions for retail investors

Yes

Don’t know / no opinion / not relevant

Please explain your answer to question 11.d, as well as your suggested

approach if you responded yes:

including spaces and line breaks, i.e. stricter than the MS Word characters counting method.

N/A

5000 character(s) maximum

e) Procedures and arrangements to deal with retail investors complaints

Yes

Don’t know / no opinion / not relevant

f) Provisions related to the marketing of ELTIFs

Yes

Don’t know / no opinion / not relevant

g) Other provisions and requirements related to retail investors

Yes

Don’t know / no opinion / not relevant

Question 12. Which safeguards, if any, should be introduced to or removed

from the ELTIF framework to ensure appropriate suitability assessment and

effective investor protection, while considering the specific risk and liquidity

profile of ELTIFs, including sustainability risks, investment time horizon and

risk-adjusted

performance?

Please give examples where possible and present the benefits and

disadvantages of your suggested approach, as well as potential costs of the

change:

including spaces and line breaks, i.e. stricter than the MS Word characters counting method.

No opinion.

5000 character(s) maximum

5. Conflict of interests

Question 13. Are mandatory disclosures under the ELTIF framework

sufficient for investors to make informed investment decisions?

Yes

Other

Don’t know / no opinion / not relevant

Question 13.1 Please explain your position on your responses to question 13,

including benefits and disadvantages of the potential changes as well as

costs:

including spaces and line breaks, i.e. stricter than the MS Word characters counting method.

N/A

5000 character(s) maximum

Question 14. Which elements of mandatory disclosure requirements, if any,

should

tailored

the

specific

type

investor?

Please explain your position, including benefits and disadvantages of the

potential changes as well as costs:

including spaces and line breaks, i.e. stricter than the MS Word characters counting method.

No opinion

5000 character(s) maximum

Question 15. Are the ELTIF rules on conflicts of interest appropriate and

proportionate?

Yes

Other

Don’t know / no opinion / not relevant

6. Borrowing of cash and leverage

Question 16. Which of the following policy choices related to the leverage of

the ELTIF funds do you find most appropriate?

Increasing total allowed leverage

Decreasing total allowed leverage

Maintaining the current leverage-related rules set out in the ELTIF regime

intact

Other

Don’t know / no opinion / not relevant

Question 16.1 Please explain your response to question 16 with the

description of the advantages and disadvantages of your proposed

approach, including its implications for ELTIF managers, the performance

and risk and liquidity profile of the fund, the risk-adjusted returns of

investors and the attractiveness of the ELTIF regime:

including spaces and line breaks, i.e. stricter than the MS Word characters counting method.

N/A

5000 character(s) maximum

Question 17. What should be the optimal maximum allowed net leverage

allowed

Please explain:

including spaces and line breaks, i.e. stricter than the MS Word characters counting method.

5000 character(s) maximum

for

ELTIF

funds?

No opinion

Question 18. How should regulation of leverage for ELTIFs marketed to retail

investors be different from that of the ELTIFs marketed solely to professional

i n v e s t o r s ?

Which safeguards are particularly relevant and appropriate, and why?

including spaces and line breaks, i.e. stricter than the MS Word characters counting method.

No opinion

5000 character(s) maximum

Question 19. Do the requirements related to the “contracting in the same

currency” as the assets to be acquired with borrowed cash, maturity-related

rules and other limits on the borrowing of cash constitute significant

limitations to the operations and leverage strategy of ELTIFs?

including spaces and line breaks, i.e. stricter than the MS Word characters counting method.

5000 character(s) maximum

No opinion

Question 20. Please explain which regulatory safeguards, if any, you deem

appropriate to ensure the effective management of liquidity, subscriptions

and

the

financing

assets

the

investment

portfolio.

In addition, please explain if you consider it appropriate to provide for any

alternative regulatory approach for the borrowing of cash rules specifically

during the ramp-up period in the ELTIFs’ life:

including spaces and line breaks, i.e. stricter than the MS Word characters counting method.

No opinion

5000 character(s) maximum

7. Rules on portfolio composition and diversification

Question 21. Which of the following policy choices pertaining to the ELTIF

rules on diversification do you consider most appropriate?

Requiring greater diversification

Requiring less diversification

Fewer regulatory requirements and more flexibility by ELTIF managers with

respect to portfolio composition and diversification

Maintaining the current rules pertaining to the portfolio composition and

diversification set out in the ELTIF regime intact

Other

Question 21.1 Please explain your response to question 21 with the

description of the advantages and drawbacks of your preferred policy

a p p r o a c h .

In particular, should you consider that the diversification and portfolio

composition related rules under the ELTIF Regulation need to be amended,

please explain, to what extent and why?

including spaces and line breaks, i.e. stricter than the MS Word characters counting method.

N/A

5000 character(s) maximum

Question 22. Do you consider the minimum threshold of 70% of eligible

assets laid down in Article 13(1) of the ELTIF Regulation to be appropriate?

Yes

Other

Don’t know / no opinion / not relevant

Question 22.1 Please explain your position on your response to question 22

by assessing the advantages and drawbacks of your preferred policy option

pertaining to asset diversification rules:

including spaces and line breaks, i.e. stricter than the MS Word characters counting method.

5000 character(s) maximum

N/A

8. Redemption rules and life of ELTIFs

Question 23. Please provide a critical assessment of the impacts of the ELTIF

Regulation rules on redemption policy and the life-cycle of ELTIFs, including

the appropriateness of the ELTIF Regulation for the structuring of the ELTIF

funds, taking into account the legitimate interests of the investors and

achieving the stated investment objective of ELTIFs:

including spaces and line breaks, i.e. stricter than the MS Word characters counting method.

No opinion

5000 character(s) maximum

Question 24. If longer-term investments were to be limited only to those with

certain maturities, what threshold might be considered appropriate?

Shorter maturity of between 5 to 10 years

Maturity of 5 years and more

Only investments with a maturity +10 years

Only investments with a maturity + 15 years

Other possible maturity

Don’t know / no opinion / not relevant

Question 24.1 Please explain your answer to question 24:

including spaces and line breaks, i.e. stricter than the MS Word characters counting method.

N/A

5000 character(s) maximum

Question 25. If shorter-term investments were allowed to be included into the

portfolio, what proportion of the portfolio should be permitted?

0% to 15%

15% to 30%

Above 30%

Other options

Don’t know / no opinion / not relevant

Question 25.1 Please explain your answer to question 25:

including spaces and line breaks, i.e. stricter than the MS Word characters counting method.

We believe that allowing any larger proportion of the portfolio to be allocated to shorter-term investments, i.e.

limit at 30% would result in significantly watering-down the ELTIF-label. We find that “shorter-term

investments” may contribute sufficiently to a larger scope of products for the ELTIF thus providing for further

diversification and increased liquidity. However, any such change must take into account the nature and goal

of ELTIFs which is and should continue to be “long-term investments".

5000 character(s) maximum

Question 26. Do you consider that “mid-term” redemption should be allowed?

Yes

Other

Don’t know / no opinion / not relevant

Question 26.1 Please explain your position on your responses to question 26

and provide for advantages and disadvantages of your policy choice from the

perspective of ELTIF managers, ELTIF liquidity and risk profile, returns of

investors, and other regulatory aspects:

including spaces and line breaks, i.e. stricter than the MS Word characters counting method.

N/A

5000 character(s) maximum

Question 27. Do you consider it appropriate to allow for regular redemptions

or an “evergreen” vehicle approach (no maturity)?

Yes

Other

Don’t know / no opinion / not relevant

Question 27.1 How frequent should ELTIF redemptions be, and if so, which

additional safeguards would you consider necessary to cater for the

illiquidity, redemptions and other fund cycle related aspects of the ELTIF

framework?

including spaces and line breaks, i.e. stricter than the MS Word characters counting method.

N/A

5000 character(s) maximum

Question 28. Is it appropriate to provide for any alternative regulatory

approach with respect to the redemption rules or portfolio composition,

diversification rules, etc. for ELTIFs during the ramp-up period in the ELTIFs’

life-cycle?

Yes

Other

Don’t know / no opinion / not relevant

Question 28.1 Please explain your position and provide for advantages and

disadvantages of your policy choice:

including spaces and line breaks, i.e. stricter than the MS Word characters counting method.

N/A

5000 character(s) maximum

9. Secondary market and issuance of new units or shares

Question 29. Are the provisions of the ELTIF Regulation pertaining to the

admission to the secondary market and the publication of “periodical

reports” clear and appropriate?

including spaces and line breaks, i.e. stricter than the MS Word characters counting method.

No opinion

5000 character(s) maximum

Question 30. Are the limitations of the ELTIF Regulation regarding the

issuance of the new units or shares at a price below their net asset value

without a prior offering of those units or shares at that price to existing

investors clear and appropriate?

including spaces and line breaks, i.e. stricter than the MS Word characters counting method.

No opinion

5000 character(s) maximum

Question 31. Should the provisions in the ELTIF framework related to the

issuance of new units or shares be amended, and if so how?

including spaces and line breaks, i.e. stricter than the MS Word characters counting method.

No opinion

5000 character(s) maximum

10. Marketing strategy for ELTIFs and distribution related

aspects

Question 32. What are the key limitations stemming from the ELTIF

framework that you consider reduce the attractiveness of the ELTIF fund

structure or the cross-border marketing and distribution of ELTIFs across the

Please explain:

including spaces and line breaks, i.e. stricter than the MS Word characters counting method.

No opinion

5000 character(s) maximum

Question 33. Do you consider that review of the ELTIF rules related to the

equal treatment of investors is warranted?

Yes

Other

Don’t know / no opinion / not relevant

Question 33.1 Please explain your position on your answer to question 33:

including spaces and line breaks, i.e. stricter than the MS Word characters counting method.

N/A

5000 character(s) maximum

Question 34. Is it necessary to clarify the ELTIF framework with regard to the

application of the principle of equal treatment of investors at the level of

individual share classes, and any other specific arrangements for individual

investors/group

investors?

If possible, please provide a specific suggestion:

including spaces and line breaks, i.e. stricter than the MS Word characters counting method.

No opinion

5000 character(s) maximum

11. Miscellaneous

Question 35. Is the effectiveness of the ELTIF framework impaired by national

legislation or existing market practices? Please provide any examples you

may have of “goldplating” or wrong application of the EU acquis.

Please explain:

including spaces and line breaks, i.e. stricter than the MS Word characters counting method.

No opinion

5000 character(s) maximum

Question 36. Are you aware of any national practices or local facility

requirements for ELTIF managers or distributors of ELTIFs that require a

local presence or otherwise prevent the marketing of ELTIFs on a cross-

b o r d e r

Please explain and provide specific examples:

including spaces and line breaks, i.e. stricter than the MS Word characters counting method.

N/A

b a s i s ?

5000 character(s) maximum

Question 37. Which features of the current ELTIF framework, if any, should

be defined in more detail and which should be left to contractual

a r r a n g e m e n t s ?

Please explain:

including spaces and line breaks, i.e. stricter than the MS Word characters counting method.

No opinion

5000 character(s) maximum

Question 38. Which specific provisions in the ELTIF framework could be

amended, and how, in order to lower costs and reduce compliance,

administrative or other burdens in a manner that would not lead to an

increase in material risks from the perspective of effective supervision or

investor protection?

including spaces and line breaks, i.e. stricter than the MS Word characters counting method.

No opinion

5000 character(s) maximum

Question 39. Please elaborate on whether and to what extent the current

ELTIF regime is appropriate for the AIFMs falling under Article 3(2) of

Directive

2011/61/EU

have

incentive

market

ELTIFs.

Please explain:

including spaces and line breaks, i.e. stricter than the MS Word characters counting method.

No opinion

5000 character(s) maximum

Question 40. Please provide examples of any national taxation regimes

towards long-term investment funds that are either discriminatory or that you

deem materially reduce the relative attractiveness of the ELTIF framework vis-

à-vis other (national) fund vehicles, also taking into account the interaction

with foreign tax systems? Please provide specific examples of such cases:

including spaces and line breaks, i.e. stricter than the MS Word characters counting method.

No opinion

5000 character(s) maximum

Question 41. You are kindly invited to make additional comments on this

consultation if you consider that some areas have not been adequately

covered. Please elaborate, more specifically, which amendments of the ELTIF

framework could be beneficial in providing additional clarity and practical

guidance in facilitating the pursuit of the ELTIF strategy. Please include

examples and evidence on any issues, including those not explicitly covered

by the questions raised in this public consultation:

including spaces and line breaks, i.e. stricter than the MS Word characters counting method.

We noted that in the longer version of the questionnaire it was not possible to include answers to questions

4-6. Therefore we enclose in an attachment at the end responses to the questions 4 and 5 (replicated below

for ease of reference)

Question 4. Which provisions and requirements pertaining to the eligibility of investments and investment

assets set out in the ELTIF Regulation need to be updated to improve the functioning of the ELTIF

framework? (rating)

Question 5. Should any of the following provisions of the ELTIF legal framework be amended, and if so how,

to improve the participation and access of retail investors to ELTIFs?

5000 character(s) maximum

Question 42. Would you be willing to provide additional clarifications or

follow-up input upon a direct request from the Commission services?

Yes

Under certain conditions

Question 42.1 Please specify under which conditions you would be willing to

provide additional clarifications or follow-up input upon a direct request from

the Commission services:

including spaces and line breaks, i.e. stricter than the MS Word characters counting method.

N/A

5000 character(s) maximum

Additional information

Should you wish to provide additional information (e.g. a position paper,

report) or raise specific points not covered by the questionnaire, you can

upload your additional document(s) here:

The maximum file size is 1 MB.

You can upload several files.

Only files of the type pdf,txt,doc,docx,odt,rtf are allowed

16be825b-6cbe-4ce9-9634-1c87076fe043/2020-eltif-review-consultation-

document_en_DK_addtional_answers_to_short_version_Q4-6.pdf

be8a7c91-0f7d-4f01-b5ed-d38bfcb83c56/Note_to_Commissioner.pdf

Useful links

More on this consultation (https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/finance-consultations-2020-eltif-review_en)

Consultation document (https://ec.europa.eu/info/files/2020-eltif-review-consultation-document_en)

More on investment funds (https://ec.europa.eu/info/business-economy-euro/growth-and-investment/investment-

funds_en)

Specific privacy statement (https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/specific-privacy-statement_en)

More on the Transparency register (http://ec.europa.eu/transparencyregister/public/homePage.do?locale=en)

Contact

[email protected]