Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-12-12-Speech-3-372"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20071212.34.3-372"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Madam President, first I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Klinz, for his own-initiative report and also for taking on board all the proposals and opinions of the other groups.
Harmonising the environment for asset management and products on the fund market can bring huge benefits to the European economy, as proven also by the 1985 UCITS Directive.
The UCITS Directive has become a huge brand globally. It sells well abroad. UCITS represent the basis for a robust fund market in Europe and they make the economy more buoyant through increased stability and the productive reinvestment of savings.
However, the topic of this report is not the UCITS revision, which is forthcoming and which we welcome. The report addresses, instead, non-harmonised retail funds that are outside the scope of UCITS, calling for a number of important measures.
I would particularly like to welcome the private placement regime, which was also mentioned by the Commissioner. Initiative is very instrumental in achieving the European market in non-harmonised funds.
Second, fee transparency is a long-due and underrated feature for increasing investor information. Other measures in the report go in the right direction as well, removing market distortions.
However – and coming back to UCITS’ success – we must not get greedy here or mix things up hastily. I am, of course, referring to the debate on extending UCITS’ scope to new asset classes such as open-ended real estate funds or funds of hedge funds. I do not think the time is right now to discuss these sensitive matters. We might end up with a more rigid regime, and we would probably find ourselves in a different financial market environment.
I also think it is very important to discuss the role of guaranteed funds. There is no such thing as a guaranteed fund. Our group wanted to have some flexibility. We do not think that having a capital adequacy regime for funds solves the problem. Guaranteed funds do not exist, and this kind of definition should be removed from the regime. That is why we have both put forward a proposal from the PPE-DE Group."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples