Schlagwort: MiFID II

Building a Capital Markets Union for Europe: The Commission unveils new legislative proposals

Veröffentlicht am von Miroslav Ðuric, LL.M.

Introduction

Back in 2015, the Commission has adopted its first Action Plan on Building a Capital Markets Union (CMU), whose main aim was to start the process of creation of a single capital market in the EU that would reduce existing market fragmentation and mobilise more funds for capital markets based financing of European businesses. Almost 5 years after publication of its first Action Plan, in September 2020 the Commission has unveiled its revised Action Plan on CMU, which was tailored in accordance with new economic priorities of the EU, recovery from the economic crisis caused by the coronavirus pandemic and transition to a digital and sustainable economy.

By a way of delivering on its commitments from the revised Action Plan, the Commission has published on 25 November 2021 a package of four legislative proposals that aim to contribute to achieving the CMU objectives and boost European capital markets.

The package contains the following legislative proposals:

  1. Regulation establishing a European Single Access point (ESAP)
  2. Regulation amending Regulation on European long-term investment funds (ELTIF)
  3. Directive amending the Alternative Investment Funds Managers Directive (AIFMD) and UCITS Directive
  4. Regulation amending the Markets in Financial Instruments Regulation (MiFIR)

The main proposals contained in these proposed legislative acts can be summarised as follows:

The European Single Access Point

With the idea of creating a common source of public information about EU companies and investment products, the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) shall establish the European Single Access Point (ESAP) by 2024. The information that will be publicly accessible on the ESAP will be collected by designated collection bodies and will be accessible through a single application-programming interface (API). By providing data in digital format (data extractable or machine-readable format), the ESAP is intended to be a cornerstone of the EU Digital Finance Strategy that would enable planned transition to data-driven finance.

Further, when it comes to existing EU policy on sustainable growth (anchored in the EU Green Deal and the Sustainable Finance Strategy) companies in the EU are currently faced with significant challenge of how to obtain relevant ESG information based on which they can ensure their compliance with relevant rules on corporate sustainability reporting or financial sustainability disclosure requirements. To that end, the ESAP shall also serve as a centralised access point for all ESG data of EU companies and information on ESG related financial products with a great potential to boost the green transition.

Review of the ELTIF Regulation

Back in 2015, the first Regulation on European-long-term investment funds (ELTIFs) was published with the aim to enable channelling of long-term financing to listed and non-listed small and medium enterprises as well as long-term infrastructure projects in the EU.  Despite the ambitious plan behind it, the Regulation did not seem to have achieved much so far: the number of ELTIFs in the EU remains relatively small with only 57 funds authorised by October 2021 in only four EU Member States.

The proposed amendments aim to make the ELTIF framework more attractive for the fund management industry by expanding the range of eligible investment assets and making necessary amendments to authorisation, operational and marketing requirements. Further, specific regime for ELTIFs that are to be marketed to professional investors, featured by new rules on portfolio diversification and composition, minimum threshold for eligible assets and concentration limits, will be introduced. The existing minimum investment threshold of EUR 10 000 shall also be removed to enable easier access to ELTIFs for retail investors.

Review of the AIFMD and UCITS framework

More than a year after the ESMA has sent its letter to the EU Commission with 19 key areas of improvement for AIFMD framework, the EU lawmaker has published a long-awaited proposal for the revision of the AIFMD (Directive 2011/61/EU).  Focused on establishing similar rules in certain areas for both AIFs and UCITS, the proposal makes some amendments to UCITS Directive (Directive 2009/65/ec) as well that largely follow amendments to AIFMD framework.

The proposal makes changes to AIFMD and UCITS framework in several areas that include, among other, the following:

  • Loan originating funds

Rules on loan originating AIFs will be harmonised to ensure a uniform level of investor protection and create a level playing field for loan originating AIFs in the EU. To that end, AIFMs that manage AIFs engaging in lending activities will need to comply with additional requirements on risk management and conflict of interest as well as risk-retention requirements when it comes to sale of granted loans in the secondary market. In the future, loan originating AIFs whose notional value of their originated loans exceeds 60 % of their net asset value, will need to be structured as closed-ended funds.

  • Delegation arrangements

The proposal clarifies that all activities listed in Annex I of the AIFMD (Annex II of the UCITS Directive) can be subject to delegation and the revised language is now referring to services and not only functions (like portfolio management or risk management). The new framework will continue allowing sourcing of expertise from third countries based on delegation arrangements, which certainly comes as a relief for the fund management industry after years of discussion on how the future of delegation arrangements will look like in the post-Brexit world. Further, NCAs will be required to notify ESMA about delegation arrangements where more risk or portfolio management function is delegated to third country entities than retained by an EU-AIFM.

  • Substance requirements

Fund managers applying for authorisation under AIFMD or UCITS framework will need to have appropriate technical and human resources and will need to describe in detail in their license applications how these resources will be used to carry out their functions and supervise the delegates. Further, in order to meet minimum substance requirements, all AIFMs and UCITS management companies will have to employ at least two persons (or engage two persons on a contractual basis) who are residents in the EU on a full-time basis.

Due to their significance and comprehensiveness, we will elaborate the changes introduced to AIFMD and UCITS framework in a separate publication in which we will also analyse their practical impact on the fund management industry in the EU.

Consolidated Tape

Through targeted amendments of the backbone of the EU market infrastructure regulation, MiFIR, the Commission intends to introduce a long-awaited consolidated tape that would provide access to data on prices and volume of traded securities in the EU. Currently, only a handful of large professional investors have access to near real-time market data across trading venues.

The introduction of a consolidated tape shall enable all investors, both large and small, the access to consolidated data on prices and volume for several asset-classes, such as shares, exchange-traded funds and bonds. The relevant market data will need to be submitted by market operators to consolidated tape provider (entity authorised under MiFID II) and Member States are required to provide for sanctions for entities not operating in compliance with this rule.

Ban of the Payment for order flow (PFOF) practice

The package also includes a Regulation that introduces a ban of the widely discussed and criticized market practice used by many new online brokers nowadays, payment for order flow (PFOF). Namely, for several years now, many new online brokers that promote the “zero-commission policy” (also referred to as “neo-brokers”) have been building their business models on the PFOF practice. When relying on the PFOF, an online broker routes his clients’ orders to a market maker for execution and receives a fee in exchange for this.

The PFOF was an area of concern of the EU regulators for quite some time now, and the Commission has expressed its concerns that brokers’ reliance on PFOF may lead to retail orders not being executed on terms most favourable to the client but instead on the terms most profitable to brokers. The published proposal is now prohibiting all investment firms operating in the EU, who act on behalf of clients, from receiving any fee, commission or non-monetary benefit from any third party in exchange for forwarding them client orders for execution.

We will analyse this important topic, which promises to have a significant impact on businesses of many neo-brokers in the EU, in a separate article in more detail.

Outlook

The published proposals represent important milestones on the way towards creating a Capital Markets Union for Europe and will definitely have an impact on existing business of many firms in the financial services sector. The Commission is planning to deliver on all of its commitments from the Action Plan until the end of its term, and is planning to present further legislative proposals in 2022 on open finance and listing rules as well as proposals creating frameworks on corporate insolvency and financial literacy.

Investment based crowdfunding and crypto assets – Challenges ahead

Veröffentlicht am von Miroslav Ðuric, LL.M.

Crowdfunding Regulation

With the aim to overcome existing divergences in national frameworks on crowdfunding, in October 2020 the EU has adopted and published the long awaited final text of the Regulation on crowdfunding service providers (Regulation (EU) 2020/1503), the European Crowdfunding Service Provider Regulation “ECSPR”). The ECSPR provides a level-playing field for crowdfunding platforms in the EU, by introducing a harmonized set of rules that will be enable European crowdfunding service providers (CSPs) to explore the full potential of the EU single market.

The ECSPR covers two main types of practices used by crowdfunding platforms:

  1. Facilitation of granting loans (lending based crowdfunding)
  2. Placement of transferable securities within the meaning of Art. 4 para. 1 Nr. 44 MiFID II and/or instruments admitted for crowdfunding purposes that basically refer to shares in private limited companies that are not subject to restrictions that would effectively prevent them from being transferred (investment based crowdfunding)

Offers of financial instruments, either transferable securities or above-described instruments admitted for crowdfunding purposes under national law, of a single project owner whose total consideration is not exceeding 5.000.000 EUR will be eligible to be treated as crowdfunding offers and thereby will be exempted from more onerous requirements stipulated by EU and national rules on securities prospectus and securities issuing requirements.

The ECSPR will start to apply as of 10 November 2021. Crowdfunding service providers operating already under national regimes are provided with a 12-month transitional period within which they will have to ensure compliance with new rules.

Given that the ECSPR is primarily aimed to regulate crowdfunding service providers, the exact scope of application of the investment based crowdfunding in respective EU Member State can only be assessed based on relevant provisions of national law that implement MiFID II definition of transferable securities and define instruments that may fall under the definition of instruments admitted for crowdfunding purposes.

Investment based crowdfunding with crypto-assets – the new frontier?

In the wake of the ever increasing use of crypto-assets for fund raising, the legitimate question that can be raised is whether the crypto-assets can also be used for the purposes of fund raising in accordance with the new regime on investment based crowdfunding under the ECSPR.

Currently, most EU Member States do not stipulate de jure the possibility of issuing transferable securities via DLT or similar technology. However, majority of supervisory authorities across the EU tend to assess the legal status of each crypto-asset on a case by case basis by assessing its features based on various criteria like the level of standardization, tradability on financial markets etc.

  • Debt securities

In relation to crypto-assets with features of debt financial instruments (bonds, derivatives etc.) most supervisory authorities in the EU have taken pragmatic approach by assessing their legal status on a case by case basis and by treating them in accordance with applicable rules on issuance of financial instruments within the meaning of MiFID II. Nevertheless, there are also certain potential impediments to the issuance of debt transferable securities in tokenized form. These are particularly related to requirements under CSDR (e.g. requirement for transferable securities to be registered with CSD in book-entry form) as well as potential obstacles in national legislation like requirement for transferable securities to be represented in the form of a global certificate in physical form.

  • Equity securities

In addition to above mentioned challenges to tokenization of debt securities, the issuing of equity securities in tokenized form (in their literal meaning) has been prevented in most EU Member States due to open legal questions arising from company law that is barely harmonized at the EU level. Therefore, the possibility of using the new crowdfunding regulatory framework for the issuance and placement of equity based transferable securities depends largely on provisions of company law and securities law at national level. The recently published German Act on Electronic Securities (eWpG), which has for the first time allowed the issuing of securities in Germany in electronic or even crypto-form, is also one good example of how the issuing of tokenized shares can hardly be enabled by amendments of securities legislation. Due to related company law issues, German legislator has decided to make new provisions of eWpG solely applicable to debt instruments and units in investment funds, by leaving companies shares out of the scope of its application for the time being.

  • Reform of the MiFID II definition of financial instruments

With the intention to overcome the regulatory uncertainty around the application of MiFID II framework to crypto assets with features of financial instruments the European Commission has proposed in September 2020 a Directive that shall, among other, amend the MiFID II definition of financial instruments.

The new definition will be covering all types of financial instruments under MiFID II (including transferable securities) issued via DLT or similar technology as well. Due to the fact that MiFID II is a Directive, the revised definition will still need to be implemented into national law and currently significant divergences exist in national definitions of financial instruments across the EU. Last but not least, previously mentioned company law issues that prevent issuance of tokenized shares in many EU Member States and new laws on issuance of crypto-securities that fall short of covering all types of financial instruments in certain Member States (like in Germany) will represent challenges that will still need to be addressed. Until the new regime based on the expanded MIFID II definition becomes operational prospective the issuers of security tokens will still need to rely on national laws and the wide interpretative discretion of national supervisory authorities.

  • Instruments admitted for crowdfunding purposes

Looking into the issuing of instruments admitted for crowdfunding purposes (shares in private limited companies) in tokenized form, the picture doesn’t seems to be brighter either. The ECSPR stipulates explicitly that its definition and scope of application in relation to admitted instruments for crowdfunding purposes applies without prejudice to requirements under national laws that govern their transferability, such as the requirement for the transfer to be authenticated by a notary. To that end, EU Member States have a final say when it comes to deciding whether shares in private companies will be eligible to be used for crowdfunding purposes under the new regime. There is a fairly big chance that certain Member States will exclude shares in private limited companies from the scope of application of the new regime at national level by stipulating gold-platting provisions in national law. For instance, heavily criticized national transposition law in Germany, which was published in March this year, stipulates such an exclusion that will prevent shares in private limited companies of being used for crowdfunding offers under the new regime. Despite the fact that such measure would most probably just result in incorporation of fund raising SPVs in other EU jurisdiction (whose shares can still be offered on crowdfunding platforms anywhere in the EU) it cannot be excluded that some other EU Member State will follow similar approach.

Conclusion

Against the backdrop of everything mentioned above, it is fair to conclude that prospective fund raisers intending to leverage the new regime on crowdfunding as a less onerous regulatory framework comparing to regime under Prospectus Regulation will still largely need to ensure compliance with national laws in respective Member States from where they are intending to operate / set up an SPV for fund raising. The proposed EU Regulation on markets in crypto-assets (MiCAR) doesn’t seem to provide any further clarity to this topic either, because its scope of application will be limited solely to crypto assets that do not qualify as financial instruments under the MiFID II framework.

Therefore, despite the fact that the ECSPR has achieved significant progress in harmonization of rules on crowdfunding in the EU, there are still many challenges ahead that will need to be addressed before the crowdfunding as an alternative finance model starts to leverage DLT and crypto-assets in full capacity.

Langsam wird es ernst: Die neue Mantelverordnung zum Wertpapierinstitutsgesetz

Veröffentlicht am von Dr. Verena Ritter-Döring and Charlotte Dreisigacker-Sartor

In wenigen Wochen, nämlich am 26. Juni 2021, wird das neue Wertpapierinstitutsgesetz („WpIG“) in Kraft treten. Durch das WpIG wurde ein eigenes Aufsichtsregime für Wertpapierfirmen geschaffen und sog. kleine und mittlere Wertpapierinstitute aus dem Aufsichtsregime des Kreditwesengesetzes („KWG“) herausgelöst. Letzteres wird in Zukunft nur noch für bankenähnliche, sog. große Wertpapierfirmen, gelten. Das neue WpIG haben wir bereits hier und hier ausführlich vorgestellt.

Anfang Mai diesen Jahres hat die Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht („BaFin“) ihre Konsultation zur Mantelverordnung zum WpIG veröffentlicht. Darin hat sie Entwürfe der

  • Wertpapierinstituts-Prüfungsberichtsverordnung („WpI-PrüfbV),
  • Wertpapierinstituts-Vergütungsverordnung („WpI-VergV“),
  • Wertpapierinstituts-Inhaberkontrollverordnung („WpI-IKV“) und der
  • Wertpapierinstituts-Anzeigenverordnung („WpI-AnzV“)

zur Ergänzung und Vervollständigung des neuen Aufsichtsregimes des WpIG veröffentlicht. Bis Ende Mai konnten Stellungnahmen dazu abgegeben werden. Im Folgenden stellen wir die einzelnen Verordnungen im Überblick vor.

Die Wertpapierinstituts-Prüfungsberichtsverordnung

Die WpI-PrüfbV regelt den Gegenstand und den Zeitpunkt der Prüfung des externen Wirtschaftsprüfers, denen sich die verpflichteten Wertpapierinstitute unterziehen müssen, sowie den Inhalt und die Form der vom externen Prüfer anzufertigenden Prüfungsberichte. Damit werden die §§ 77 ff WpIG konkretisiert. Die WpI-PrüfbV wird nur für kleine und mittlere Wertpapierinstitute gelten. Große Wertpapierinstitute werden weiterhin der nach dem KWG ergangenen Prüfungsverordnung (PrüfbV) unterliegen.

Die Wertpapierinstituts-Vergütungsverordnung

Die WpI-VergV wird die Artikel 30 bis 34 der Richtlinie EU 2019/2034 über die Beaufsichtigung von Wertpapierfirmen („IFD“) umsetzen. Inhaltlich orientiert sie sich an der nach dem KWG erlassenen Instituts-Vergütungsverordnung, ist aber in ihrem Umfang deutlich schlanker.

Nach § 3 der WpI-VergV trägt die Geschäftsleitung die Verantwortung für die angemessene Ausgestaltung der Vergütungssysteme. Es werden Kriterien vorgegeben, wann von einer angemessenen Ausgestaltung des Vergütungssystems auszugehen ist (§ 5 WpI-VergV). Die Vergütungsstrategie und die Vergütungssysteme des Wertpapierinstituts müssen auf die Erreichung der Ziele ausgerichtet sein, die in den Geschäfts-und Risikostrategien des Instituts niedergelegt sind (§ 4 WpI-VergV). Damit sollen Fehlanreize verhindert werden. Entsprechend der Instituts-Vergütungsverordnung sind insbesondere auch die Anforderungen an die variable Vergütung detailliert geregelt (§ 6 WpI-VergV). Die Grundsätze zum Vergütungssystem sind vom Institut schriftlich niederzulegen und zu dokumentieren (§ 9 WpI-VergV).

Zudem sieht die WpI-VergV vor, dass das Wertpapierinstitut darauf hinwirkt, dass bestehende Verträge mit den Mitarbeiterinnen und Mitarbeitern, die mit den Vorgaben der WpI-VergV nicht vereinbar sind, angepasst werden (§ 12 WpI-VergV). Schließlich werden auch die Aufgaben des Vergütungskontrollausschusses und die Offenlegungspflichten in Bezug auf die Vergütung geregelt (§§ 13, 14 WpI-VergV).

Die WpI-VergV wird nur für mittlere Wertpapierinstitute gelten. Für kleine Wertpapierinstitute sieht das WpIG eine entsprechende Befreiung vor. Große Wertpapierinstitute unterliegen weiterhin der Instituts-Vergütungsverordnung nach dem KWG.

Die Wertpapierinstituts-Inhaberkontrollverordnung

Die WpI-IKV regelt, welche Informationen und Unterlagen bei einer im Rahmen des Erlaubnisverfahrens bzw. sonstigen Inhaberkontrolle eines Wertpapierinstituts bei der BaFin einzureichen sind. Inhaltlich orientiert sie sich an der Inhaberkontrollverordnung des KWG, ist aber wesentlich schlanker, da die Inhaberkontrolle bei Wertpapierfirmen seit einiger Zeit EU-weit einheitlich (Delegierte Verordnung (EU) 2017/1946) geregelt ist; so konkretisiert die WpI-IKV zum Teil (lediglich) die Vorgaben der Delegierten Verordnung (§ 6 WpI-IKV). Die WpI-IKV gilt für kleine, mittlere und große Wertpapierinstitute.

Die Wertpapierinstituts-Anzeigenverordnung

Die WpI-AnzV orientiert sich inhaltlich an der Anzeigeverordnung nach dem KWG (AnzV). Sie konkretisiert die Anzeigepflichten nach §§ 64 ff WpIG und verweist auf entsprechend zu verwendende Formulare, die sich im Anhang der WpI-AnzV befinden. Je nach konkreter Anzeigepflicht ist danach zu unterscheiden, ob z.B. alle Wertpapierinstitute verpflichtet sind (§ 64 WpIG), nur große Wertpapierinstitute (§ 65 WpIG), nur kleine und mittlere Wertpapierinstitute (§ 66 WpIG) oder die Geschäftsleiter eines Wertpapierinstituts (§ 67 WpIG). Die WpI-AnzV gilt deshalb, je noch konkreter Anzeigepflicht, für kleine, mittlere und große Wertpapierinstitute.

Fazit Die Mantelverordnung soll zusammen mit dem WpIG, also am 26. Juni 2021 in Kraft treten. Das neue Aufsichtsregime für Wertpapierfirmen nimmt damit nun endgültig konkrete Gestalt an. Durch die Mantelverordnung kann das WpIG nunmehr auch gut in der Praxis umgesetzt werden und den Besonderheiten der Wertpapierinstitute bzw. der von ihnen ausgehenden Risiken wird passgenau Rechnung getragen.

Sustainable Finance Package

Veröffentlicht am von Dr. Verena Ritter-Döring

Finalisation of the regulatory framework on sustainable finance in sight

The EU has taken major steps over the past number of years to build a sustainable financial system. On this blog, we have repeatedly given updates on the EU Taxonomy Regulation, the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation and the Benchmark Regulation that form the foundation of the EU’s work to increase transparency and provide tools for investors to identify sustainable investment opportunities. We are now steering toward a final regulatory framework on sustainable finance.

Sustainable Finance Package in a nutshell

On 21 April 2021, the European Commission has adopted a comprehensive package of measures (the Sustainable Finance Package) as part of its wider policy initiative on sustainable finance, which aims to re-orient capital flows towards more sustainable investments and enable the EU to reduce its carbon-footprint by at least 55% by 2030 and reach carbon neutrality by 2050.

The Sustainable Finance Package is comprised of:

  • Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), which amends the existing reporting requirements under Directive 2014/95/E (Non-Financial Reporting Directive, NFRD) by expanding the scope of sustainability-related reporting requirements to more corporate entities;
  • Taxonomy Climate Delegated Act, which provides technical screening criteria under which an economic activity qualifies as environmentally sustainable, by contributing substantially to climate change mitigation or climate change adaptation while making no significant harm to any of the other environmental objectives;
  • Six Delegated Acts that amend requirements under UCITS, AIFMD, and MiFID II framework by incorporating new rules on consideration of sustainability risks, factors and preferences by investment managers and investment firms.

Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD)

With the aim to capture a wider group of companies and to bring sustainability reporting over time on a par to financial reporting, CSRD expands the scope of the existing NRFD, which currently applies only to companies with over 500 employees (even though national law in certain EU Member States stipulates lower thresholds).

The CSRD expands the scope of application of sustainability-related reporting requirements to all large undertakings (whether listed or not) that meet two of the following three criteria:

  • balance sheet total of EUR 20,000,000,
  • net turnover of EUR 40,000,000,
  • an average of 250 employees during the financial year.

In addition to large undertakings, the CSRD reporting requirements will apply to all companies listed on the EU regulated market as well, with the exception of listed micro companies.

To that end, the CSRD aims to capture nearly 50,000 companies in the EU in comparison to only 11,000 companies that are currently subject to reporting requirements under NFRD. This should provide financial institutions that are subject to Regulation (EU) 2020/2088 (Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation, SFDR) with more relevant sustainability-related data about prospective investee companies, based on which they will be able to fulfil disclosure requirements under the SFDR.

As a next step, the Commission will engage in discussions on the CSRD Proposal with the European Parliament and Council.

Taxonomy Climate Delegated Act

The Taxonomy Climate Delegated Act represents the first set of technical screening criteria that are intended to serve as a basis for the determination which economic activities can be deemed as environmentally sustainable under the Taxonomy Regulation. Developed based on the scientific advice of the Technical Expert Group (TEG), the Delegated Act provides technical screening criteria for determination whether an economic activity contributes significantly to either climate change mitigation or climate change adaption while making no significant harm to any other environmental objective under Article 9 of the Taxonomy Regulation.

Final Draft of the Delegated Act still needs to be officially adopted by the Commission, after which the European Parliament and the Council will have 4 months (which can be extended by additional 2 months) to officially adopt it.

Amending Delegated Acts

As part of the Sustainable Finance Package, the Commission has also published six long-awaited final versions of the draft amending delegated acts under MiFID II, UCITS and AIFMD framework with the aim of incorporating additional requirements on consideration of sustainability risks, factors and preferences by investment managers and investment firms.

The proposed changes introduced by delegated acts, which are expected to apply from October 2022, can be summarized as follows:

Product Governance: changes to MiFID II Delegated Directive (EU) 2017/593 put the obligation on manufacturers and distributors of financial instruments to take into consideration relevant sustainability factors and clients’ sustainability objectives in the process of product manufacturing and distribution.

Suitability assessment: changes to MiFID II Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/565 require investment firms to take into account clients’ sustainability preferences in the course of suitability assessment. Given that requirements on suitability assessment apply only to firms providing investment advisory and portfolio management services, ESMA is separately considering (ESMA Consultation on appropriateness and execution only under MiFID II) whether the consideration of sustainability risks and factors shall be taken into account in the case of provision of other investment services for which requirements on appropriateness assessment apply.

Integration of sustainability risks and factors: amendments to MiFID II Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/565, UCITS Delegated Directive 2010/43/EU and AIFMD Delegated Regulation (EU) 231/2013 impose new obligations on investment firms and asset managers, by requiring them to take into account sustainability risks and factors when complying with organisational requirements, including requirements on risk management and conflict of interest requirements.

Further, UCITS and AIF management companies that consider principal adverse impacts of their investment decisions on sustainability factors under SFDR (e.g. impact of an investment in a fossil fuel company on climate and environment), will be required to consider this when complying with due diligence requirements stipulated under UCITS and AIFMD framework.

The Sustainable Finance Package also includes similar changes to Delegated Acts under IDD, which affect insurance distributors.

Conclusion

The proposals published as part of the Sustainable Finance Package represent some of the last pieces in the puzzle of the EU regulatory framework on sustainable finance, which aims to support the EU on its way towards creation of a more sustainable economy. These latest efforts by the Commission provide some further clarity to corporate entities and financial institutions that have been facing with new regulatory challenges for quite some time now.  In the meantime, on 7 May 2021 the Commission has also published one additional Delegated Act under the Taxonomy Regulation, which outlines requirements on the content, methodology and presentation of key performance indicators (KPIs) that entities, which are subject to reporting requirements under Article 8 of the Taxonomy Regulation, need to comply with.

Nevertheless, there are some other important legislative proposals that still need to be published, like the final version of regulatory technical standards under the SFDR that is essential for compliance of financial institutions with disclosure requirements stipulated by this Regulation.  Those regulatory initiatives show that aiming at a sustainable financial market in Europe is more than a fancy trend but rather a new effort which needs to be taken seriously and is not to be underestimated. If you have any questions about the EU regulatory framework on sustainable finance and its impact on your business, please get in touch with us.

Finanzmarktteilnehmer und Finanzberater aufgepasst! Seit dem 10. März ist die Transparenzverordnung umzusetzen

Veröffentlicht am von Dr. Verena Ritter-Döring and Charlotte Dreisigacker-Sartor

Sie ist, für neue Finanzmarktregulierung ungewöhnlich leise und unscheinbar, dahergekommen: die sog. Transparenzverordnung (Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation – SFDR). Bereits Ende 2019 in Kraft getreten, ist die SFDR nun in wesentlichen Teilen ab 10. März 2021 anzuwenden. Die SFDR ist Teil des EU Aktionsplans für eine nachhaltige Finanzwirtschaft und verfolgt den Zweck, dem Anleger eine fundierte Informationsgrundlage über die Berücksichtigung von Nachhaltigkeitsrisiken (Environmental, Social and Governance – ESG)  im Rahmen der ihm gegenüber erbrachten Finanzdienstleistung und der ihm angebotenen Produkte zur Verfügung zu stellen, damit er diese in seiner Anlageentscheidung besser und gezielter berücksichtigen kann. Dazu legt sie Finanzmarkteilnehmer und Finanzberatern vielfältige Transparenzpflichten auf, die v.a. durch zahlreiche Veröffentlichungen auf der Homepage, im Rahmen vorvertraglicher Informationen und in regelmäßigen Berichten zu erfüllen sind. Über das neue Pflichtenregime der SFDR haben wir hier und hier bereit ausführlich gebloggt.

Die Erfüllung aller Transparenzpflichten erfordert einen hohen internen Umsetzungs- und Anpassungsaufwand. Manch einer wird überrascht sein – aber ein Vergleich zur MiFID II lässt sich durchaus ziehen.

Besonders herausfordernd ist die praktische Umsetzung der SFDR auch deshalb, weil bislang noch viele der Daten fehlen, die zur Erfüllung der Transparenzpflichten benötigt werden. Ein anschauliches Beispiel: Zukünftig ist der Anleger z.B. für jedes ihm angebotene Fondsprodukt darüber zu informieren, ob und wie in dem Fonds ESG-Risiken berücksichtigt werden. Diese Informationen muss der Portfolioverwalter bzw. Anlageberater im Wege der vorvertraglichen Information zur Verfügung zu stellen. Portfolioverwalter und Anlageberater erstellen diese Informationen aber nicht selbst, sondern sind dafür auf Input der KVGen angewiesen. Und diese benötigen wiederum eine entsprechende Datenbasis, um die erforderlichen Informationen überhaupt bereitstellen zu können. Der Markt wird sich anpassen und entsprechende Daten werden bald verfügbar sein – bis dahin gilt es, die SFDR so gut umsetzen, wie es derzeit eben geht.

Aber da nach der Regulierung vor der Regulierung ist, sind neue Vorgaben dem Thema ESG bereits unterwegs. So hat die EBA etwa Anfang März ihre Implementing Technical Standards on Pillar 3 disclosures of ESG risks zur Konsultation gestellt: große Institute sollen zukünftig Informationen über ihr ESG Exposure und ihre ESG Strategien veröffentlichen – stay tuned!

Finanzmarktteilnehmer und Finanzberater aufgepasst! Seit dem 10. März ist die Transparenzverordnung umzusetzen

Veröffentlicht am von Dr. Verena Ritter-Döring and Charlotte Dreisigacker-Sartor

Sie ist, für neue Finanzmarktregulierung ungewöhnlich leise und unscheinbar, dahergekommen: die sog. Transparenzverordnung (Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation – SFDR). Bereits Ende 2019 in Kraft getreten, ist die SFDR nun in wesentlichen Teilen ab 10. März 2021 anzuwenden.

Die SFDR ist Teil des EU Aktionsplans für eine nachhaltige Finanzwirtschaft und verfolgt den Zweck, dem Anleger eine fundierte Informationsgrundlage über die Berücksichtigung von Nachhaltigkeitsrisiken (Environmental, Social and Governance – ESG)  im Rahmen der ihm gegenüber erbrachten Finanzdienstleistung und der ihm angebotenen Produkte zur Verfügung zu stellen, damit er diese in seiner Anlageentscheidung besser und gezielter berücksichtigen kann. Dazu legt sie Finanzmarkteilnehmer und Finanzberatern vielfältige Transparenzpflichten auf, die v.a. durch zahlreiche Veröffentlichungen auf der Homepage, im Rahmen vorvertraglicher Informationen und in regelmäßigen Berichten zu erfüllen sind. Über das neue Pflichtenregime der SFDR haben wir hier und hier bereit ausführlich gebloggt.

Die Erfüllung aller Transparenzpflichten erfordert einen hohen internen Umsetzungs- und Anpassungsaufwand. Manch einer wird überrascht sein – aber ein Vergleich zur MiFID II lässt sich durchaus ziehen.

Besonders herausfordernd ist die praktische Umsetzung der SFDR auch deshalb, weil bislang noch viele der Daten fehlen, die zur Erfüllung der Transparenzpflichten benötigt werden. Ein anschauliches Beispiel: Zukünftig ist der Anleger z.B. für jedes ihm angebotene Fondsprodukt darüber zu informieren, ob und wie in dem Fonds ESG-Risiken berücksichtigt werden. Diese Informationen muss der Portfolioverwalter bzw. Anlageberater im Wege der vorvertraglichen Information zur Verfügung zu stellen. Portfolioverwalter und Anlageberater erstellen diese Informationen aber nicht selbst, sondern sind dafür auf Input der KVGen angewiesen. Und diese benötigen wiederum eine entsprechende Datenbasis, um die erforderlichen Informationen überhaupt bereitstellen zu können. Der Markt wird sich anpassen und entsprechende Daten werden bald verfügbar sein – bis dahin gilt es, die SFDR so gut umsetzen, wie es derzeit eben geht.

Aber da nach der Regulierung vor der Regulierung ist, sind neue Vorgaben dem Thema ESG bereits unterwegs. So hat die EBA etwa Anfang März ihre Implementing Technical Standards on Pillar 3 disclosures of ESG risks zur Konsultation gestellt: große Institute sollen zukünftig Informationen über ihr ESG Exposure und ihre ESG Strategien veröffentlichen – stay tuned!

Final ESMA Guidelines on cloud outsourcing

Veröffentlicht am von Dr. Verena Ritter-Döring and Charlotte Dreisigacker-Sartor

At the end of December 2020, the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) published its final report on its guidelines on outsourcing to cloud service providers (CSP). The purpose of the guidelines is to help firms identify, address and monitor the risks that may arise from their cloud outsourcing arrangements. Since the main risks associated with cloud outsourcing are similar across financial sectors, ESMA has considered the European Banking Authority (EBA) Guidelines on outsourcing arrangements, which have incorporated the EBA Recommendations on outsourcing to cloud services providers and the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA) Guidelines on outsourcing to cloud service providers. This ensures consistency between the three sets of guidelines. The ESMA Guidelines on cloud outscoring apply to MiFID II firms such as investment firms and other financial services providers indirectly but they describe the market standard and set the supervisory framework for the National Competent Authorities (NCAs) in Europe such as the German Federal Financial Supervisory Authority (Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht – BaFin).

For the German jurisdiction, BaFin published guidance on outsourcing to cloud providers back in 2018. Please note that the amended MaRisk include outsourcing requirements for investment firms and other financial services providers and already reflect the EBA Guidelines on outsourcing, including cloud outsourcing. For more information on the MaRisk amendment, please see our previous Blogpost.

The guidelines in more detail

The following gives a brief overview of the main content of the ESMA cloud outsourcing guidelines.

  • Guideline 1: Governance, oversight and documentation

Firms should have a defined and up-to date cloud outsourcing strategy which should include, inter alia, a clear assignment of the responsibility for the documentation, management and control of cloud outsourcing arrangements, sufficient resources to ensure compliance with all legal requirements applicable to the firm’s outsourcing arrangements, a cloud outsourcing oversight function directly accountable to the management body and responsible for managing and overseeing the risk of cloud outsourcing arrangements, a (re)assessment of whether the cloud outsourcing arrangements concern critical or important functions as well as an updated register of information on all cloud outsourcing arrangements. For the outsourcing of critical or important functions, the ESMA guidelines include a detailed list of information which should be included in the register.

  • Guideline 2: Pre-outsourcing analysis and due diligence

ESMA provides information on what is required for the pre-outsourcing analysis (e.g. an assessment if the cloud outsourcing concerns a critical or important function). In the case of outsourcing of critical or important function, firms should conduct a comprehensive risk analysis and take into account benefits and costs of the cloud outsourcing and perform an evaluation of the suitability of the CSP.

  • Guideline 3: Key contractual elements

The guidelines provide a detailed list of what a written cloud outsourcing agreement should include in case of outsourcing of critical or important functions. Such agreements should include, inter alia, provisions regarding data protection, agreed service levels incident management, business continuity plans, termination rights and access and audit rights for the firm and its competent supervisory authority.

  • Guideline 4: Information security

Firms should set information security requirements in its internal policies and procedures and within the cloud outsourcing written agreement and monitor compliance with these requirements on an ongoing basis. In case of outsourcing of critical or important functions, additional requirements apply regarding information security organization, identity and access management, encryption and key management, operations and network security, application programming interfaces, business continuity and data location.

  • Guideline 5: Exit strategies

In case of outsourcing of critical or important functions, firms should develop and maintain exit strategies that ensure that the firm is able to exit the cloud outsourcing arrangement without undue disruption to its business activities and services to its client. Exit strategies should include comprehensive and documented exit plans, the identification of alternative solutions and provisions in the written outsourcing agreements that oblige the CSP to support orderly transfer of the outsourced function from the CSP to another CSP.

  • Guideline 6: Access and audit rights

Firms should ensure that the cloud outsourcing written agreement does not limit the firm´s and competent authority´s effective exercise of the access and audit rights on the CSP (see also Guideline 3). However, the Guideline also includes provisions aimed at reducing the organizational burden on the CSP and its clients when exercising access and audit rights: firm may use e.g. third-party certifications and external or internal audit reports made available by the CSP. However, in case of outsourcing of critical or important functions, the guidelines stipulate additional requirements that must be met in order to be able to rely on third party certifications or assessments.

  • Guideline 7: Sub-outsourcing

In case of sub-outsourcing, the firm should ensure that the CSP appropriately oversees the sub-outsourcer. In addition, ESMA provides information on the provisions that should be included in the written outsourcing agreement between the firm and the CSP in the case of sub-outsourcing critical or important function. This includes the remaining accountability of the CSP, a notification requirement for the CSP in case of any intended sub-outsourcing allowing the firm sufficient time to carry out a risk assessment of the proposed sub-outsourcer, the firm´s right to object to the intended sub-outsourcing and termination rights in case of such objection.

  • Guideline 8: Written notification to competent authorities

Firms should notify in writing its competent authority in a timely manner of planned cloud outsourcing arrangement that concern critical or important functions. The notification should include, inter alia, a description of the outsourced functions, a brief summary of the reasons why the outsourced function is considered critical or important and the individual or decision-making body in the firm that approved the cloud outsourcing arrangement.

What´s next?

In a next step, the guidelines will be translated in the official EU languages and published on the ESMA´s website. The publication of the translation will trigger a two-month period during which the national competent authorities must notify ESMA whether they comply or intend to comply with the guidelines (comply or explain mechanism). For the German jurisdiction, it is to be expected that BaFin will comply with the ESMA guidelines.

Brexit update on cross-border services: MiFID II requirements vs. reverse solicitation

Veröffentlicht am von Dr. Verena Ritter-Döring and Charlotte Dreisigacker-Sartor

The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) has recently issued a public statement to remind firms of the MiFID II requirements on the provision of investment services to retail or professional clients by third-country firms. With the end of the UK transition period on December 2020, UK firms now qualify as third-country firms under the MiFID II regime. The third country status of the UK as of 2021 was explicitly confirmed by the German regulator BaFin in a recent publication.

Pursuant to MiFID II, EU Member States may require that a third-country firm intending to provide investment services to retail or to professional clients in its territory have to establish a branch in that Member State or may conduct business requiring a license on a cross-border basis, without having a presence in Germany (so-called notification procedure/EU Passport). However, according to MiFID II, where a retail or professional client established or situated in the EU initiates at its own exclusive initiative the provision of an investment service or activity by a third-country firm, the third country firm is not subject to the MiFID II requirement to establish a branch and to obtain a license (so-called reverse solicitation).

With the end of the UK transition period on December 2020, ESMA notes that some “questionable” practices by firms around reverse solicitation have emerged. For example, ESMA states that some firms appear to be trying to circumvent MiFID II requirements by including general clauses in their Terms of Business or by using online pop-up boxes whereby clients state that any transactions are executed in the exclusive initiative of the client.

With its public statement, ESMA aims to remind firms that pursuant to MiFID II, where a third-country firm solicits (potential) clients in the EU or promotes or advertises investment services in the EU, the investment service is not provided at the initiative of the client and, therefore, MiFID II requirements apply. Every communication means used (press release, advertising on internet, brochures, phone calls etc.) should be considered to determine if the client has been subject to any solicitation, promotion or advertising in the EU on the firm´s investment service or activities. Reverse solicitation only applies if the client actually initiates the provision of an investment service or activity, it does not apply if the investment firm “disguises” its own initiative as one of the client.

However, despite this seemingly rather strict approach of ESMA, reverse solicitation is generally still applicable if a (UK) third-country firm

  • only offers services at the sole initiative of the client,
  • (only) continues an already existing client relationship or
  • continues to inform its clients about its range of products within the scope of existing business relationships (which is often agreed upon in the client´s contract).

It is argued that, for example, in the case of an existing account or deposit or an existing loan agreement that a UK third country firm continues to provide to an EU client after Brexit, no direct marketing or solicitation of the client in the EU takes place. In this case, the third country firm would not have solicited the client.

In a nutshell: What UK firms should consider

The provision of investment services in the EU is subject to license requirements and can include the requirement to establish a branch or a subsidiary in the relevant EU member state. The provision of investment services without proper authorization exposes investment firms to administrative or criminal proceedings. Where a client established in the EU initiates at its own exclusive initiative the provision of an investment service by a third-country firm, such firm is not subject to the requirement to establish a branch or to obtain a license (reverse solicitation). Generally, reverse solicitation also applies when existing client relationships are continued (which have been legitimately established), as the investment firm would not solicit a client in this case.

ESMA update: Impact of Brexit on MiFID II/MiFIR and Benchmark Regulation

Veröffentlicht am von Dr. Verena Ritter-Döring and Charlotte Dreisigacker-Sartor

At the beginning of October 2020, the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) has updated its previous statements from March and October 2019 on its approach to the application of key provisions of MiFID II/MiFIR and the Benchmark Regulation (BMR) in case of Brexit. As the EU-UK Withdrawal Agreement entered into force on February 2020 and the UK entered a transition period (during which EU law still applies in and to the UK) that will end on 31 December 2020, these statements needed to be revised.

This Blogpost highlights the updated ESMA approach on third-country trading venues regarding the post-trade transparency requirements (MIFID II/MiFIR) and the inclusion of third country UK benchmarks and administrators in the ESMA register of administrators and third country benchmarks (BMR).

MiFID II/MIFIR: Third-country trading venues and post-trade transparency The regulations of MiFID II/MiFIR provide for post-trade transparency requirements. EU investment firms which, for their own account or on behalf of clients, carry out transactions in certain financial instruments traded on a trading venue, are obliged to publish the volume, price and time of conclusion of the transaction. Such publication requirements serve the general transparency of the financial market. As ESMA has already stated in 2017, post-trade transparency obligations also apply where EU investment firms conduct transactions on a third country trading venue.

By the end of the transition period on 31 December 2020, UK trading venues will qualify as third country trading venues. Therefore, if an EU investment firm carries out transactions via a UK trading venue, it is, in general, subject to the MiFID II/MiFIR post-trade transparency obligations.

However, EU-investment firms would not be subject to the MiFID II/MiFIR post-trade transparency requirements if the relevant UK trading venue would already be subject to EU-comparable regulatory requirements itself. This would be the case if the trading venue would be subject to a licensing requirement and continuous monitoring and if a post-trade transparency regime would be provided for.

In June 2020, ESMA published a list of trading venues that meet these requirements. While the UK was a member of the EU and during the transition period, ESMA did not asses UK trading against those criteria. However, ESMA intends to perform such assessment of UK trading venues before the end of the transition period. Transactions executed by an EU investment firm on a UK trading venue that, after the ESMA assessment, would be included in the list, will not be subject to MiFID II/MiFIR post-trade transparency. In this case, sufficient transparency requirements would already be ensured by the comparable UK regime. However, any transactions conducted on UK trading venues not included in the ESMA list on EU-comparable trading venues will by the end of the transition period be subject to the MiFID II/MiFIR post-trade transparency rules.

BMR: ESMA register of administrators and third country benchmarks

Supervised EU-entities can only use a benchmark in the EU if it is provided by an EU administrator included in the ESMA register of administrators and third country benchmarks (ESMA Register) or by a third country administrator included in the ESMA Register. This is to ensure that all benchmarks used within the EU are subject to either the BMR Regulation or a comparable regulation.

So far, UK administrators qualified as EU administrators and have been included in the ESMA Register. After the Brexit transition period, UK administrators included in the ESMA register will be deleted as the BMR will by then no longer be applicable to UK administrators. UK administrators that were originally included in the ESMA Register as EU administrators, will after the Brexit transition period qualify as third country administrators. The BMR foresees different regimes for third country administrators to be included in the ESMA Register, being equivalence, recognition or endorsement.

“Equivalence” must be decided on by the European Commission. Such decision requires that the third country administrator is subject to a supervisory regime comparable to that of the BMR. So far, the European Commission has not yet issued any decision on the UK in this respect.  Until an equivalence decision is made by the European Commission, UK administrators therefore have (only) two options if they want their benchmarks eligible for being used in the EU: They/their benchmarks need to be recognized or need to be endorsed under the BMR.

Recognition of a third country administrator requires its compliance with essential provisions of the BMR. The endorsement of a third country benchmark by an administrator located in the EU is possible if the endorsing administrator has verified and is able to demonstrate on an on-going basis to its competent authority that the provision of the benchmark to be endorsed fulfils, on a mandatory or on a voluntary basis, requirements which are at least as stringent as the BMR requirements.

However, the BMR provides for a transitional period itself until 31 December 2021. A change of the ESMA Register would not have an effect on the ability of EU supervised entities to use the benchmarks provided by UK administrators. During the BMR transitional period, third country benchmarks can still be used by supervised entities in the EU if the benchmark is already used in the EU as a reference for e.g. financial instruments. Therefore, EU supervised entities can until 31 December 2021 use third country UK benchmarks even if they are not included in the ESMA Register. In the absence of an equivalence decision by the European Commission, UK administrators will have until the end of the BMR transitional period to apply for a recognition or endorsement in the EU, in order for the benchmarks provided by these UK administrators to be included in the ESMA Register again.

Brexit, still great uncertainty

Currently, the whole Brexit situation is fraught with great uncertainty due to the faltering political negotiations. The updated ESMA Statement contributes to legal certainty in that it clearly sets out the legal consequences that will arise at the end of the transition period. This is valuable information and guidelines for all affected market participants, who must prepare themselves in time for the end of the transition period and take appropriate internal precautions.

Finanzanlagenvermittler: Das neue Compliance-Regime ist in Kraft

Veröffentlicht am von Dr. Verena Ritter-Döring and Charlotte Dreisigacker-Sartor

Im letzten halben Jahr gab es viele Diskussionen darüber, wer denn nun künftig die Aufsicht über die Finanzanlagenvermittler erhalten soll: wie bisher die regionalen Gewerbeämter bzw. die Industrie- und Handelskammern oder die BaFin. Ein Gesetzt, das die Aufsicht auf die BaFin überträgt, ist noch nicht verabschiedet, zeichnet sich aber ab. Seit 1. August 2020 gilt eine geänderte Finanzanlagevermittler-Verordnung (FinVermV), die die Wohlverhaltenspflichten für Finanzanlagenvermittler dem MiFIDII-Regime annähert. Wir hatten bereits früher dazu berichtet hier.

Die Neuerungen im Überblick

In § 11a FinVermV regelt den Umgang mit Interessenskonflikten. Bislang gab es nur eine Hinweispflicht gegenüber den beratenen Kunden, wenn ein Interessenskonflikt seitens des Vermittlers vorlag. Nun gibt es neue Vorgaben zur Vermeidung, zum Umgang und zur Offenlegung von Interessenskonflikten, die denen des WpHG, das für volllizensierte Anlageberater und Anlagevermittler gilt, angeglichen sind. Interessenskonflikte müssen nun zuerst durch geeignete Maßnahmen vermieden werden. Sollte das im Einzelfall nicht gehen, müssen weitere Maßnahmen ergriffen werden, die eine Beeinträchtigung der Anlagerinteressen vermeidet. Und erst wenn die Maßnahmen insgesamt nicht ausreichen, sind die Interessenskonflikte dem Anleger gegenüber offenzulegen. Mit dieser Regelung Hand in Hand geht die allgemeine Verhaltenspflicht des § 11 FinVermV, wonach der Finanzanlagenvermittler verpflichtet ist, seine Tätigkeit mit der erforderlichen Sachkenntnis, Sorgfalt und Gewissenhaftigkeit im bestmöglichen Interesse des Anlegers auszuüben.

Eine weitere Neuregelung betrifft die Vergütung. Bislang gab es für Finanzanlagevermittler keine Vorgaben zur Ausgestaltung der Vergütung. § 11a Abs. 3 FinVermV sieht nun eine solche Regelung vor. Danach müssen Finanzanlagevermittler für die Vergütung ihrer Mitarbeiter Grundsätze und Praktiken festlegen und umsetzten, um sicherzustellen, dass durch die Vergütungspolitik keine Interessenskonflikte der Berater gegenüber den Kunden entstehen oder gefördert werden. Im Ergebnis müssen künftig variable Vergütungskomponenten an qualitativen Kriterien orientiert sein, um Anlegerinteressen Priorität einräumen zu können.

Zuwendungen etwa in Form von Abschluss-, Vertriebs- oder Bestandsprovisionen sind in den Vertriebsketten für Fondsanteile gängige Praxis. § 17 FinVermV verlangt, dass weiterhin Zuwendungen gegenüber den Anlegern offengelegt werden, neu ist, dass ausdrücklich normiert ist, dass Zuwendungen nur dann angenommen werden dürfen, wenn sie nicht nachteilig auf die Qualität der Beratung und Vermittlung auswirken und Kundeninteressen dadurch nicht beeinträchtigt werden.

Die Prüfung, ob eine Anlageempfehlung für den Kunden geeignet ist, erfolgt nun nach § 16 FinVermV mit einem Verweis auf Art. 54 und 55 der MiFID-DelVO. Die Geeignetheitsprüfung ist also nun spezifiziert. So gelten etwa über die Verweise nun auch die ESMA-Guidelines zur Geeignetheitsprüfung nach MiFID II für Finanzanlagenvermittler. Der Finanzanlagenvermittler hat also nun im Rahmen der Anlageberatung vom Anleger alle Informationen (1) über Kenntnisse und Erfahrungen des Anlegers in Bezug auf bestimmte Arten von Finanzanlagen, (2) über die finanziellen Verhältnisse des Anlegers, einschließlich seiner Fähigkeit, Verluste zu tragen, und (3) über seine Anlageziele, einschließlich seiner Risikotoleranz, einzuholen, die erforderlich sind, um dem Anleger eine Finanzanlage empfehlen zu können, die für ihn geeignet ist und insbesondere seiner Risikotoleranz und seiner Fähigkeit, Verluste zu tragen, entspricht. Sofern eine Anlage nicht geeignet ist, darf sie nicht empfohlen werden. Sofern der Vermittler die erforderlichen Informationen nicht erlangt, darf er dem Anleger im Rahmen der Anlageberatung keine Finanzanlage empfehlen.

Mit der neuen erweiterten Pflicht zur Geeignetheitsprüfung geht einher, dass das bisherige Beratungsprotokoll durch eine Geeignetheitserklärung ersetzt wird (§ 18 FinVermV).

Schließlich trifft aus Beweissicherungsgründen nun nach § 18a FinVermV auch die Finanzanlagenvermittler die Pflicht, Telefongespräche und elektronische Kommunikation aufzuzeichnen, soweit diese sich auf die Vermittlung oder Beratung von Finanzanlagen bezieht. Persönliche Gespräche sind auf einem dauerhaften Datenträger zu dokumentieren. Damit trifft nun auch die Finanzanlagenvermittler, was der Markt seit MiFID II bereits umgesetzt hat.

Ausblick

Die FinVermV soll künftig in das WpHG integriert werden und es soll einen neuen Erlaubnistatbestand für Finanzanlagendienstleister ebenfalls im WpHG geben. Die Regelung in der GewO würde damit entfallen.

Eine hohe Anzahl der Finanzanlagenvermittler verfügen gleichzeitig über eine Erlaubnis als Versicherungsvermittler. Sollte die Aufsicht der BaFin über die Finanzanlagenvermittler kommen, würde das für die Vermittler mit doppelter Erlaubnis eine doppelte Beaufsichtigung bedeuten, nämlich einerseits für die Tätigkeit als Finanzanlagenvermittler durch die BaFin und andererseits als Versicherungsvermittler weiterhin durch die regionalen Gewerbeämter bzw. Industrie- und Handelskammern.