Publications
& Policy

In our response to the European Commission feasibility assessment on the establishment of an SME Referral Scheme we express our concerns around the functioning and benefits of such a scheme. We outline the characteristics that make PE and VC funding different to justify why this type of funding is not interchangeable with bank financing and why we fear the scheme could give this mistaken idea to SMEs. Therefore, even though we fully support the objectives of increasing funding options and awareness of PE and VC funding for SMEs we do not believe a referral scheme would be the best way to do so.

In this webinar Stephen Ziff, Partner & Co-Head of Investor Relations and Fundraising at Coller Capital, moderated a discussion on the impact on organisations, how private equity is adapting to this changing paradigm and how investors are effectively deploying capital in the current environment.

In this response, we have stressed that funds and fund managers should not be included in the scope of a potential digital levy proposal, and that a potential EU proposal should be consistent with OECD work and not be pushed forward while work is still ongoing on OECD proposals.

As investors in innovative and high-growth companies and start-ups, we find it crucial that a tax regime for the 21st century encourages and supports the innovation and research needed for the green and digital transition and the recovery of the European economy after the COVID-19 crisis.

In this response, we have shared our views on the European Commission’s initiative to increase convergence of national insolvency laws to encourage cross-border investment. From an investors’ perspective, we believe that harmonised rules offer transparency and clarity across the EU market and should be the goal in the long term.

Guidelines on sound variable remuneration will apply to all MiFID investment firms, although some rules will be waived below a defined threshold. In this response we reiterate the importance of protecting the carried interest model while flagging some technical concerns we have with some sections of the Guidelines, including on the definition of the thresholds.

As investors in innovative and high-growth companies and start-ups we believe it was necessary to position ourselves on the issue. We support and welcome the EC’s ambitions and 2030 digital targets, and we want to make sure that the PE/VC industry is seen as key enabler of the digital transformation. Moreover, we want to ensure that the EC makes creating the right policy and tax environment to allow the digital transformation one of its priorities as these will be essential in achieving the 2030 digital targets.

In our response we highlight the need for the collection of financial and environmental data in a harmonised way whilst ensuring that this is of the highest quality and foremost reliable. Moreover, we also point out the need of correctly assessing the costs for data providers. We believe is necessary to ensure that no further administrative burden or duplication of information requirements arise as a result of the establishment of the ESAP.

In this letter, Invest Europe expresses its concerns about the draft RTS under SFDR that were published by the European Supervisory Authorities (ESAs) on 4 February. In particular, we shed light on issues of potential overreach by the ESAs and/or divergence from the Level 1 legislation.

In this consultation response, we have shared our views on the European Commission's Initiative on Sustainable Corporate Governance. Particular areas of focus were directors’ duty of care and due diligence duty. We stressed that while there are a number of good principles behind the idea put forward by the European Commission – such as holding directors accountable for creating real long-term value – it would create significant uncertainties and risks, if directors could be held to account by all different kinds of stakeholders, with no clear prioritisation on how they should weight all the different stakeholders’ interests.

In this response we have expressed our concerns that ESMA has not taken proper account of the differences between the overwhelmingly institutional AIF industry and the retail fund industry, with respect to their respective distribution models. Concretely, ESMA has made some assumptions about the application of MiFID rules in the institutional marketplace which are not necessarily correct. This is particularly relevant in the context of: (i) the categorisation of AIF marketing as a MiFID investment service or activity; and (ii) the disclosure of information on past and expected future performance.

Ahead of the fast approaching application date (10 March 2021), Invest Europe has been in contact with the European Commission to express its concerns about some of the grey areas around SFDR, including the scope of Article 8 and the public disclosures pursuant to Article 10 by private funds.

In this consultation response, Invest Europe reiterates that there is no need for a re-opening of the AIFMD because of a variety of factors. In addition, any changes to the AIFMD regime would lead to additional costs and (administrative) burden for the industry as members will need to re-adapt and get to grips with new requirements. If necessary, improvements to the AIFMD regime can be sought via Level 2 or 3 measures, or in the context of other legislative reviews.

The European Long Term Investment Funds (ELTIF) framework, if not currently successful, has the potential to become a relevant tool in the future if it appropriately takes into consideration the needs of private equity managers. In this response we detail which changes would increase the take-up of this voluntary retail passport: broadened eligible assets, opening to fund-of-funds and requirements that are more tailored to the specificities of long-term, closed-ended funds.