EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 30.9.2015 SWD(2015) 184 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Feedback Statement on the Green Paper "Building a Capital Markets Union" Accompanying the document Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions Action Plan on Building a Capital Markets Union {COM(2015) 468 final}

{SWD(2015) 183 final}



Contents 1. Introduction FEEDBACK STATEMENT 2. Overview of the responses 2.1. Priorities for early action 2.2. Improving access to finance 2.3. Boosting institutional investment 2.4. Boosting retail investment 2.5. Attracting international investment 2.6. Improving market effectiveness – intermediaries, infrastructures and the broader legal framework 2.7. Other issues Annex: DETAILED Summary of individual responses



1. INTRODUCTION On 18 February 2015, Directorate-General for Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union (DG FISMA) of the European Commission launched a public consultation on the basis of the Green Paper "Building a Capital Markets Union" (CMU). The purpose of the Green Paper was to consult all interested parties on the European Commission’s overall approach to putting in place the building blocks for CMU by 2019, the underlying economic rationale of CMU, and possible measures which could be taken to achieve this objective. The main areas that the Green Paper sought to address were: 1.Improving access to financing for all businesses across Europe and investment projects, in particular start-ups, SMEs and long-term projects; 2.Increasing and diversifying the sources of funding from investors in the EU and all over the world; and

3.Making the markets work more effectively so that the connections between investors and those who need funding are more efficient and effective, both within Member States and cross-border. DG FISMA received some 430 responses to the consultation that ended on 13 May 2015. Contributions were made by a broad variety of respondent groups, including capital market participants and their representatives, investors, companies, SMEs, consumers, universities, as well as regional, national, EU and international authorities (see Chart A). Replies originated in the 27 EU Member States, other European countries and countries outside Europe (see Chart B). An additional number of comments, position papers and contributions were received outside the consultation, including official positions provided by some governments. Even though they are not reflected in the figures of this feedback statement, they have also been taken into account in the analysis of the legal and factual situation, and in the preparation of the steps ahead. DG FISMA would like to thank the respondents for their contributions. This feedback statement summarises the answers received for each of the 32 questions. The feedback statement does not provide detailed statistical data but rather seeks to give a qualitative presentation of the contributions received.







Chart A – Replies by type of respondent Chart B – Replies by country FEEDBACK STATEMENT 2. Overview of the responses 2.1. Priorities for early action Q1. Beyond the five priority areas identified for short term action, what other areas should be prioritised? A majority of the respondents supported the five priorities for early action, i.e. simple, transparent and standardised securitisation; the revision of the Prospectus Directive; the improvement of the availability of credit information on SMEs; the development of a pan-European private placement regime; and the taking up of ELTIFs. Beyond those five priorities, the respondents suggested a number of initiatives for prioritisation, including notably: (i) a harmonised definition of SMEs in EU legislation; (ii) development of crowd-funding, business angels, venture capital and loan-originating funds; (iii) finalisation of the European Money Market Funds reform; (iv) improvement of corporate bond market liquidity; (v) reduction of the capital charge for infrastructure investments by insurance undertakings under Solvency II; and (vi) lowering of the remaining legal barriers to support efficient post-trade processes for cross-border securities transactions. Q2. What further steps around the availability and standardisation of SME credit information could support a deeper market in SME and start-up finance and a wider investor base? Respondents clearly highlighted the need for improving the standardisation and availability of SME credit and financial information at a reasonable cost. Different solutions were proposed to achieve this: (i) making more information on companies publicly available through national centralised systems, as established already in some Member States; (ii) creating an EU-wide register to centralise the financial accounts of all companies (including SMEs); and (iii) creating a database with standardised credit and/or financial information either on all SMEs - mandatory approach - or only on SMEs seeking capital markets funding - voluntary approach. Some respondents insisted on the need to build a centralised information system on SMEs, using already existing infrastructures such as public repositories and taking into account the possibilities of new technology offered by fintech companies. Specific suggestions to improve standardisation included: (1) introducing an EU-wide minimum standard in respect of credit information; (2) ensuring consistent accounting standards and the systematic disclosure of statutory accounts; (3) developing reporting guidelines (including financial indicators and ratios) for SMEs seeking capital market funding; and (4) harmonising the format in which the information is available. Q3. What support can be given to ELTIFs to encourage their take up? A majority of respondents, among them insurance companies, pension funds and other long-term investors, favoured incentives in the form of preferential regulatory capital treatment under Solvency II and CRD IV/CRR, and tax incentives for investors in such funds. Many respondents stated that the use of ELTIFs could also be an appropriate way to channel long-term finance into infrastructure projects characterised by new technologies and higher risks. Support through public guarantees or risk-taking provided under the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) might be necessary to encourage the setting-up of ELTIFs for that purpose. The take-up of ELTIFs could also be supported by creating a level playing field with existing national regulatory frameworks for long-term investment funds, thus avoiding the imposition of particular fees on ELTIFs.

Many respondents suggested that certain provisions of the ELTIF Regulation entering into force at the beginning of 2016 might need to be reviewed, such as the obligation to invest at least 70% into eligible long-term assets or the ceiling of 20% investments in other ELTIFs, EuVECAs or EuSEFs. Q4. Is any action by the EU needed to support the development of private placement markets other than supporting market-led efforts to agree common standards? A significant number of respondents favoured market-led solutions over a legislative initiative to create a European private placement regime. Many respondents suggested that the European Commission should first review and monitor the situation more closely before taking any action, the more so as market-led initiatives were fairly recent and their effects as yet unknown. Market-led solutions were preferred because each private placement deal was specific, and therefore it would be difficult to regulate the issue at EU level. Such regulation could result in an administrative burden which would reduce the benefits of harmonisation. At the same time, many respondents suggested either some targeted legislative action at EU level or non-legislative action, if only in the form of support or endorsement of existing or forthcoming market-led solutions. The main actions proposed by respondents, going beyond market-led efforts to agree common standards, were the following: (i) guidance on the regulatory environment; (ii) improvement of information about the creditworthiness of issuers; (iii) support for private placement through dedicated funds of guarantee mechanisms; (iv) standardisation; (v) legislative action to create a European private placement regime; (vi) increase of the exemption threshold in the context of the Prospectus Directive review; (vii) amendment of Solvency II delegated acts to reduce the current capital treatment of private placements; and (viii) development of a credit scoring system and a safe harbour/no action regime. 2.2. Improving access to finance Q5. What further measures could help to increase access to funding and channelling of funds to those who need them? Respondents did not identify new policy areas to support access to funding beyond those identified in the Green Paper. Most respondents proposed measures to support access to funding by SMEs such as an accreditation system for business angels and an EU framework for loan-originating funds. Respondents, mostly those representing institutional investors, emphasised measures to support access to funding for infrastructure projects such as a reduction in Solvency 2 calibration requirements of capital charges and creation of an infrastructure projects pipeline. Asset management associations called for a more holistic approach to corporate reporting and for delivering a consolidated tape for equities. Q6. Should measures be taken to promote greater liquidity in corporate bond markets, such as standardisation? If so, which measures are needed and can these be achieved by the market, or is regulatory action required? A majority of respondents considered that there is a liquidity issue in the secondary market for corporate bonds that would warrant action. Many respondents focused on the need to promote or not standardisation. Respondents had mixed views on the standardisation of issuance parameters, such as maturity date or coupon payment dates. On the one hand, a majority of respondents considered that mandatory standardisation is not desirable because it prevents tailor-made financing solutions, might exclude smaller issuers and lead to excessive volatility on a limited number of trading days. At the same time, some respondents considered that at least a limited standardisation of issuance parameters, on a voluntary basis, could help to reduce the overall number of new issues and thus concentrate liquidity in a smaller number of fixed income products. The views regarding standardisation of bond documentation were more homogenous, and many respondents would support a market-led initiative. Other measures suggested to support liquidity included: (i) preserve banks' ability to hold inventories and perform market-making activities; (ii) develop electronic platforms for corporate bond trading, as this would potentially increase the participation of a wider range of investors, including smaller investment funds; (iii) use the Prospectus Directive review to facilitate the subscription of bonds by retail investors, remove the dual-standard for disclosure requiring more disclosures for small issues, and facilitate the re-opening of old issuances; and (iv) support the development of a consolidated tape of transactions in the secondary corporate bond market. Q7. Is any action by the EU needed to facilitate the development of standardised, transparent and accountable ESG (Environment, Social and Governance) investment, including green bonds, other than supporting the development of guidelines by the market? A large number of respondents pointed out that the ESG concept is still under development, and that the needs of this approach to investment seem to be satisfactorily catered for by the industry at this stage. Almost half of the respondents believed that regulation would not be the most effective way to promote investment in asset classes associated with the ESG concept (e.g., green bonds). A consistent definition of 'green' investments or, more broadly, investments that take into account environment, social and governance concerns is considered beneficial both at the point of issuance and thereafter. While too many different definitions might confuse investors, a majority of respondents preferred to let market-driven initiatives develop and saw the role of the European Commission rather in possible future rules of a facilitative nature and measures to prevent abuse of ESG initiatives ('greenwashing'). In addition, a number of respondents pointed to a wide variety of possible other measures to facilitate a more sustainable approach to investment. Q8. Is there value in developing a common EU level accounting standard for small and medium-sized companies listed on MTFs? Should such a standard become a feature of SME Growth Markets? If so, under which conditions? Some respondents considered that the current situation is appropriate and should not be changed. Currently, SMEs listed on most MTFs prepare their financial reports according to national accounting standards, although there are already MTFs that require SMEs to apply the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). Most respondents considered, however, that some kind of initiative or incentive, legislative or other, is needed to render EU SMEs listed on MTFs more attractive to European and international investors through enhanced transparency and comparability of relevant financial information. Rather than a full application of the IFRS or use of the IFRS for SMEs, many respondents suggested that a pragmatic IFRS-based solution be found in order to deliver for SMEs listed on MTFs the advantages of a high-quality, comparable, international set of accounting rules, whilst avoiding excessive administrative burden and costs, particularly in relation to disclosure. Q9. Are there barriers to the development of appropriately regulated crowdfunding or peer to peer platforms including on a cross border basis? If so, how should they be addressed? Respondents identified the following barriers: regulatory barriers, poor availability and quality of information, and other barriers such as a lack of secondary markets and taxation barriers. In particular, differences in market conditions and legal status lead to difficulties to assess risks across borders. Many respondents called for some form of legal intervention at EU level, ranging from a light touch intervention to calibrate existing requirements to a creation of a fully harmonised regime. There were also some respondents who thought that soft measures, such as coordination or sharing of best practice, is the best way forward. Those calling for EU legislative intervention most often referred to the need to ensure investor protection. Some respondents also considered that EU intervention would facilitate cross-border transactions at lower costs. A few respondents clearly stated that no action was necessary at EU level, and that it would be better to follow a market-led approach.

2.3. Boosting institutional investment Q10. What policy measures could incentivise institutional investors to raise and invest larger amounts and in a broader range of assets, in particular long-term projects, SMEs and innovative and high growth start-ups? Respondents proposed a series of policy measures, including: (a) establishing a more supportive capital requirement framework for high-quality securitisation (under CRD IV/CRR and Solvency II), as well as for infrastructure and unlisted asset classes (under Solvency II); (b) removing restrictions imposed on occupational pension funds' investment decisions; (c) establishing a cross-border investment-friendly tax environment by removing unfair tax treatment (mainly in the withholding tax area) and introducing tax incentives; (d) increasing the availability and accessibility of information on investment opportunities in SMEs and infrastructure; and (e) supporting private investment by a targeted public support for investment in certain asset classes. Q11. What steps could be taken to reduce the costs to fund managers of setting up and marketing funds across the EU? What barriers are there to funds benefiting from economies of scale? Respondents pointed out that in spite of the passport regimes available under the UCITS and AIFM Directives, the EU investment fund market remains highly fragmented. Such fragmentation results in proportionally higher costs to run funds and prevents the EU fund industry from realising economies of scale to the same extent as their US counterpart. Cross-border competition is hampered by domestic tax regimes and varying national requirements applicable to the marketing of UCITS. While the penultimate iteration of the UCITS Directive (UCITS IV) provided for dedicated structures that support further consolidation of funds (i.e., cross-border mergers, master-feeder structures) the take-up of these vehicles has been limited, mainly due to a very cumbersome process or complex local tax treatments. In the context of the AIFMD, the administrative fees levied by some host authorities for cross-border notifications were often seen as excessive and opaque. Furthermore, the appointment of a local paying agent was seen by many respondents as an additional cost and burden that is not always justified by its added value for local investors. Q12. Should work on the tailored treatment of infrastructure investments target certain clearly identifiable sub-classes of assets? If so, which of these should the Commission prioritise in future reviews of the prudential rules such as CRD IV/ CRR and Solvency II? Respondents, including industry associations, generally favoured a tailor-made treatment of infrastructure investments and asked for a definition of a (sub-) asset class which reflects the long-term, lower risk nature of such investments. Such treatment should include preferential regulatory capital requirements under Solvency II for insurers and CRD IV/ CRR for banks. In this context, many respondents, notably from the insurance sector, stated that the current standardised approach under Solvency II determines inappropriately high capital requirements for infrastructure investments. A review and a risk-sensitive recalibration would remove currently existing disincentives for insurance companies to invest in long-term infrastructure. A considerable number of respondents made reference to the current public consultation conducted by EIOPA with respect to proposing a suitable definition of infrastructure, criteria for an infrastructure asset class and adequate treatment under Solvency II. Some respondents, including investment firms and some EU Finance Ministries, however opposed any preferential capital treatment for infrastructure investments in the light of protecting investors and avoiding wrong incentives for a particular asset class. Q13. Would the introduction of a standardised product, or removing the existing obstacles to cross-border access, strengthen the single market in pension provision? A large number of respondents supported a European Personal Pension Product (EPPP) that provides a cross-border alternative to existing national schemes. This could circumvent widespread obstacles, many of which are due to national social and tax legislation. Consumer organisations favoured a European approach to personal pensions. They called for a product that offers value for money, certainty and mobility. They stressed that multiple fees and charges have a significant impact on capital accumulation over the life of a pension, and that this has a very detrimental effect on the real return of pension products. Moreover, weak disclosure practices add to the opacity of often very complex personal pension products. An EPPP should allow for several investment options, withdrawal restrictions with some key exceptions and several pay-out options. Most personal pension providers recognised the importance of looking at possible ways of encouraging and supporting citizens to save for their retirement at EU level. The insurance industry was generally open to considering an EPPP, but insisted that its features be carefully assessed. Notably, EPPPs should have an explicit retirement purpose (to distinguish them from other investment products), restrict early withdrawal (to create long-term liabilities) and provide savers with the possibility to purchase cover against longevity risk (guarantees). The investment fund industry was strongly in favour of an EPPP and considered that this would boost competition. Some respondents suggested that the need for an EPPP is likely to be higher in smaller Member States where there is currently no or limited access to retirement savings vehicles. Q14. Would changes to the EuVECA and EuSEF Regulations make it easier for larger EU fund managers to run these types of funds? What other changes if any should be made to increase the number of these types of fund? The majority of those who responded to this question believed that changes should be made, notably as regards the following issues: (i) many respondents advocated a revision of the calibration of the threshold before the AIFMD authorisation requirement applies; (ii) many respondents called for clarifying that fully authorised and above-threshold AIFMs are equally entitled to set up and market EuVECA and EuSEF funds; (iii) some respondents indicated that additional requirements in different jurisdictions, in particular as regards setting-up fees and costs for host registration, constitute an impediment to setting up EuVECA or EuSEF funds; (iv) some respondents indicated that the minimum investment commitment of €100.000 could dissuade potential investors, particularly non-professionals and retail investors; and (v) some respondents proposed broadening the range of eligible assets. Some respondents, mostly public authorities, believed that no changes are needed to those two regulations, or that it is too early to conclude that there is a need for changes. They argue that further assessment is necessary. Q15. How can the EU further develop private equity and venture capital as an alternative source of finance for the economy? In particular, what measures could boost the scale of venture capital funds and enhance the exit opportunities for venture capital investors? Many respondents focused on issues around the regulation of investment funds, including: barriers to the AIFMD marketing passport across the EU and the extension of this passport to fund managers from third countries. Respondents suggested changes to the EuVECA Regulation in order to lower the entry ticket for investors and increase the threshold for using the label by fund managers. A large number of respondents identified taxation issues as important to foster private equity and venture capital in Europe. Several respondents underlined that an increasing number of Member States is already encouraging venture capital investment through tax incentives. Several respondents argued for a recalibration of the capital requirements under CRD IV/CRR and Solvency II to have risk weights more suitable for investment by banks and insurance companies in private equity and venture capital. Some respondents stressed that some form of risk sharing with the public sector is essential to increase the scale of venture capital funds in Europe. In particular, respondents suggested creating new types of risk capital funds, such as a private sector-managed pan-European fund-of-funds partially funded from the EU budget and with a high commitment to venture capital. Q16. Are there impediments to increasing both bank and non-bank direct lending safely to companies that need finance? Respondents identified a number of impediments both to bank lending (e.g., some aspects of prudential regulation, the high level of non-performing loans, and weak demand for credit from SMEs) and to non-bank lending (e.g., elements of prudential regulation of insurance companies, restrictions on loan-originating funds, regulatory and supervisory requirements, and lack of an EU-wide harmonisation in insolvency, taxation, property and company law).

Respondents also provided some suggestions on how to develop alternative sources of finance (e.g., establish a consistent legal framework for loan-originating funds across the EU, regulate non-bank credit platforms and crowdfunding activities, and improve the availability of credit data to enhance competition between banks and alternative finance providers). At the same time, some respondents underlined the importance for investor protection of appropriate regulation and supervision of financial stability risks stemming from market-based lending. Some respondents also stressed the need to ensure a level playing field for all actors engaged in direct lending activities, whether they are banks or not. 2.4. Boosting retail investment Q17. How can cross-border retail participation in UCITS be increased? Respondents mentioned that increasing cross-border retail participation in UCITS requires the re-establishment of trust in capital markets, unbiased and affordable advice and transparency, as well as the removal of barriers to cross-border sales. First, it was proposed to restore the public's confidence in financial markets by providing a stable legal framework which entails the proper and consistent enforcement of existing rules. Second, the public should be provided with better financial education, thus enabling retail investors to assess the risk profile of funds vis-à-vis deposits or other investment products. Respondents mentioned (as in question 11) burdens incurred by asset managers seeking to sell their UCITS on a cross-border basis related to taxation, marketing and distribution. A number of respondents highlighted the importance for UCITS of cross-border retail markets outside Europe, i.e., the US and Asian markets. Respondents mentioned that while UCITS constitute the strongest brand in Asia, the European Commission must preserve a strong footprint by exploring opportunities to engage in strategic partnerships in the region. Q18. How can the ESAs further contribute to ensuring consumer and investor protection? Many respondents from all respondent categories considered that the ESAs would contribute to ensuring consumer and investor protection through focusing more on achieving supervisory convergence and consistent and effective implementation of EU rules. Many respondents considered that effective fulfilment of these tasks might receive more resources. Some consumer associations and a few national authorities saw a need for improving the governance of the ESAs – ESMA in particular - in order to give a stronger weight to the EU-wide interests. Several banks and asset managers called for improving the reporting channels and for developing centralised IT systems as they considered that some reporting requirements overlap or have to be performed under different formats. Q19. What policy measures could increase retail investment? What else could be done to empower and protect EU citizens accessing capital markets? A majority of respondents acknowledged that CMU needs to be complemented by policy measures enabling retail investors to invest more directly into capital markets and ensuring adequate investor protection. This requires investors to have the confidence, trust, knowledge and support necessary to understand the risks and benefits of different products and services in order to make informed investment decisions. Many respondents asked for consistent and clear information disclosure requirements for all retail investment products, as well as for high-quality distribution channels within an effective investor protection framework. Several respondents suggested that it is necessary to implement solid and secure investor compensation schemes to ensure their effective operation in cross-border scenarios. Some respondents urged the European Commission to present a proposal for the establishment of a European collective redress mechanism. As regards further measures to empower and protect retail investors, respondents from the financial industry stressed the importance of a simple, predictable and consistent regulatory framework, as well as clear and, where possible, convergent fiscal rules. The representatives of retail investors were of the opinion that better access to independent and affordable financial advice or guidance for consumers would improve their access to capital markets. Further proposals to support retail investment included improving cross-border redress and facilitating the creation of comparison websites. Q20. Are there national best practices in the development of simple and transparent investment products for consumers which can be shared? Respondents representing consumers, public authorities and financial industry provided a number of national and European examples of product schemes which they considered simple (e.g., UCITS). At the same time, industry representatives raised concerns regarding the definition of simple products and expressed their strong support for the market to design products which allow for innovation and increased competition. Consumers pointed to the problem of mis-selling and lack of understanding of complex products, and therefore suggested improving the enforcement of existing rules (e.g., MiFID) and developing an affordable and simple advice model. In addition, the need for better product design and governance by providers and oversight by regulators was stressed. 2.5. Attracting international investment Q21. Are there additional actions in the field of financial services regulation that could be taken to ensure that the EU is internationally competitive and an attractive place in which to invest? Few particular measures that could complement the CMU were proposed. In itself, the CMU was perceived as a positive movement towards increasing Europe's competitiveness and making it a more attractive place for investments. In the same vein, the pursuit and success of current EU trade policy was considered widely as an essential tool to improve competitiveness and attract more investments. Although not numerous, more specific proposals for new measures included a better assessment of the overall impact of financial regulation, in particular cross-sectoral effects, and a closer alignment of EU regulations with international standards. Concerning the interactions between the CMU and non-EU investors / investments, the attention of the European Commission was drawn to the possibility to improve provisions governing third-country access in the current legislation, especially "equivalence" provisions. An increased participation of foreign financial operators was supported; this would imply the extension of passporting rights to non-established financial services providers if new passporting rights were to be created. Q22. What measures can be taken to facilitate the access of EU firms to investors and capital markets in third countries? The respondents welcomed the fact that the European Commission had identified this issue in the Green Paper. Developing the framework for global coordination towards regulatory convergence would facilitate and improve the access of EU firms to investors and capital markets in third countries. However, harmonisation at global level would take time, and therefore a shorter-term approach based on mutual recognition is needed to facilitate the development of cross-border business. While it is important to attract foreign investment into Europe, respondents considered that there is also a need to ensure that the European players have a similar treatment in third countries. For this Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) were seen to be instrumental. 2.6. Improving market effectiveness – intermediaries, infrastructures and the broader legal framework

Q23. Are there mechanisms to improve the functioning and efficiency of markets not covered in this paper, particularly in the areas of equity and bond market functioning and liquidity? Many respondents recommended policy actions to improve market liquidity on the secondary markets for equity and bonds, calling for the preservation of market-making activities and an appropriate regulatory framework for these activities. Many respondents saw the MiFID II pre- and post-transparency proposals, particularly those relating to transparency of corporate bonds, as having the potential to influence secondary market trading conditions. Respondents also underlined that the bank structural reform proposal would restrict banks’ market-making activities and notably their ability to hold inventories. Many respondents also highlighted that the Financial Transaction Tax could discourage financial transactions and reduce market liquidity. Some respondents supported an assessment of the cumulative impact of legislation adopted in recent years to be followed possibly by targeted legislative measures addressing any issues. Other respondents were in favour of a greater use of electronic platforms for corporate bond trading. Respondents also underlined the importance of a European consolidated tape containing all executed transactions in equity and non-equity markets. Q24. In your view, are there areas where the single rulebook remains insufficiently developed? Many respondents from all categories called for taking stock of the impact of legislation passed in recent years, especially in view of identifying possible unintended negative effects on market participants arising from inconsistencies or overlaps. There was also a strong call from a large number of respondents for a better supervision of the implementation of the single rulebook in order to ensure its correct and consistent implementation and to avoid gold plating. Respondents who called for extending the single rulebook mentioned the following areas in particular: crowdfunding, consolidated tape, CCP recovery and resolution, macro-prudential supervision, licensing requirements, sanctions, as well as securities law, collateral, insolvency law, company law and taxation. Q25. Do you think that the powers of the ESAs to ensure consistent supervision are sufficient? What additional measures relating to EU level supervision would materially contribute to developing a capital markets union? Most governments and industry associations considered ESMA's current powers as sufficient. Some public authorities and market participants called for more or stronger powers that evolve over time, e.g. with regard to enforcement, consumer protection, IFRS endorsement, supervision of critical market operators such as CSDs and CCPs, benchmarks, classification of complex instruments and issuance of no-action letters. As regards EU level supervision, the EIB and the ECB suggested that over the longer run consideration should be given to a single capital markets supervisor. However, other respondents raised concerns about this because of a weak link between supervisory responsibility and fiscal accountability. To ensure effective supervision on an EU-wide basis, respondents made several suggestions, including creating a supervisory handbook for the CMU, better using supervisory colleges, empowering ESMA to promote enhanced cooperation on data and IT issues, and putting in place more harmonised tools such as the creation of a Common European Reporting Platform. Q26. Taking into account past experience, are there targeted changes to securities ownership rules that could contribute to more integrated capital markets within the EU? A majority of respondents favoured targeted changes to securities ownership rules. Some respondents, however, considered it best for the European Commission to abstain from any legislative action, hinting at the complexity of the matter and past attempts at harmonisation. The majority of respondents were in favour of harmonising certain aspects of substantive securities laws at EU level. A small number explicitly recommended a solution based on the Unidroit Geneva Securities Convention of 2009. In addition, many respondents advocated a uniform rule that determines which of the different national securities laws shall apply to cross-border holdings (uniform conflicts-of-law rule). Q27. What measures could be taken to improve the cross-border flow of collateral? Should work be undertaken to improve the legal enforceability of collateral and close-out netting arrangements cross-border? Respondents primarily suggested to review the Financial Collateral Directive of 2002 with a view to placing a greater emphasis on aligned implementation across the EU, introducing targeted amendments to strengthen enforceability of collateral, extending the existing rules to a broader range of cross-border issues, avoiding opt-outs, and even replacing the Directive with a Regulation. They also suggested revising the Settlement Finality Directive of 1998 in order to adapt it to the new regulatory environment and further harmonise the rules on settlement finality. Some respondents recalled that meaningful harmonisation in the field of collateral would require harmonisation of the underlying securities holding and national insolvency rules. Several respondents asked the European Commission to remove persisting legal obstacles to the effectiveness of close-out netting arrangements in national insolvency laws. They suggested, inter alia, a legislative definition of close-out netting and harmonisation of both fundamental mechanisms of close-out netting and eligible transaction types / market participants. Q28. What are the main obstacles to integrated capital markets arising from company law, including corporate governance? Are there targeted measures which could contribute to overcoming them? Many respondents considered divergent company law and corporate governance regimes an obstacle to cross-border investments and further integration of capital markets. Cross-border exercise of shareholder rights, particularly voting rights in an operationally complex holding chain, was a cause for concern and led to calls for a digitalisation of corporate action procedures. Protection of minority shareholders and governance rules that take into account the situation of listed SMEs were considered desirable, as was the facilitation of cross-border company mobility. On the whole, investors seemed to see more of a need for further harmonisation measures than companies. Q29. What specific aspects of insolvency laws would need to be harmonised in order to support the emergence of a pan-European capital market? Various respondent groups expressed distinct views. Investors overall considered that a CMU would need more efficient insolvency regimes; companies supported this view but with a focus on improving the operational aspects of insolvency. In the public sector, central banks and national supervisors tended to expect considerable benefits from a further harmonisation of insolvency laws, whereas Finance Ministries express more reservations. The latter pointed to the complex links with other areas of civil law which are purely national and policy choices regarding (e.g., the treatment of employees in an insolvency). Q30. What barriers are there around taxation that should be looked at as a matter of priority to contribute to more integrated capital markets within the EU and a more robust funding structure at company level and through which instruments? Tax issues that were recurrently cited by many respondents as challenges to a CMU were withholding taxes on cross-border securities income, the lack of harmonisation of tax systems in the EU and the Financial Transaction Tax (FTT). A few respondents also cited the debt-equity tax bias, the discriminatory taxation of pension funds and life insurance companies, some recommendations from the OECD Base Erosion and Profit Shifting System (BEPS) project and inconsistencies in national tax regimes as running against the goals of a CMU.

While acknowledging that tax issues are difficult to address at EU level due to EU’s limited competence in the area, many respondents called on the EU to use the instruments at its disposal to address these challenges, for example by supporting the establishment of streamlined, efficient and simple procedures to reclaim excessive withholding tax, or by taking actions to eliminate or reduce the debt-equity tax bias. Many respondents also encouraged the European Commission to support tax incentives that would contribute to achieving the goals of the CMU, in particular as regards investment into SMEs and long-term projects. Q31. How can the EU best support the development by the market of new technologies and business models, to the benefit of integrated and efficient capital markets? A majority of the respondents focused on the role of regulation. Amongst those, some respondents considered that the EU should not intervene and leave the market to develop itself, while an equal number were in favour of some form of EU intervention (including public funding). A few respondents thought that financial legislation should target the fintech sector specifically. Some respondents considered that financial legislation should be loosened to allow new business models to develop. Many respondents advocated a regulatory framework that strikes the right balance between the need to establish a clear legal framework ensuring legal certainty for platforms, companies and investors, and the need to allow the nascent fintech industry to develop. Many respondents suggested that the use of common and integrated reporting channels and standardised IT formats would enable regulators to better use the vast amount of information for supervisory purposes submitted to them. Some respondents also mentioned that the EU can support market-led developments of new technologies and business models in the areas of trading, clearing and settlement, electronic communication (e.g., signature, identity and voting), crowdfunding, data-related issues, financial advice, cybersecurity, collaboration with third countries, and better SME credit information. 2.7. Other issues Q32. Are there other issues, not identified in this Green Paper, which in your view require action to achieve a Capital Markets Union? If so, what are they and what form could such action take? Respondents generally considered that the Green Paper had identified the key policy actions to achieve a CMU. Some respondents identified other issues, including the following four: (i) a review of recent legislative measures to assess any unintended consequences and remove inconsistencies; (ii) the importance of a well-functioning banking system for the success of the CMU as market-based and bank financing are complementary; (iii) consideration of new initiatives to improve the functioning of derivatives markets in Europe; and (iv) the importance of stability and legal certainty for investment.



Annex: DETAILED Summary of individual responses Question 1 – Beyond the five priority areas identified for short term action, what other areas should be prioritised? A majority of the respondents supported the five priorities for early action, i.e. simple, transparent and standardised securitisation; the revision of the Prospectus Directive; the improvement of the availability of credit information on SMEs; the development of a pan-European private placement regime; and the taking up of ELTIFs. Beyond those five priorities, respondents suggested that the following initiatives should also be prioritised: Some respondents, suggested introducing a harmonised definition of SMEs in EU legislation, as well as a definition for mid-tier enterprises (MTEs). A respondent proposed the creation of a single definition of quoted SMEs in the EU in order to provide them with the regulatory framework they need. Some respondents considered that one priority should be to promote the development of venture capital finance and business angels. Other respondents believed that closed-ended funds should be allowed to originate loans themselves (loan-originating funds), without undue restrictions. This will increase and diversify the sources of funds available to SMEs. As regards crowdfunding, some respondents underlined that national laws which are starting to govern this new funding technique may soon lead to normative differences. In order to reduce legislation asymmetries and facilitate cross-border use of this source of funding, some respondents considered that it would be important to encourage a homogenous legislation on crowdfunding across the EU. For some respondents, one of the key priorities in the short term should be the finalisation of the European Money Market Funds (MMFs) reform. Some respondents were concerned about the definition of eligible assets and liquidity ratios that have been discussed. For instance, one respondent underlined that the creation of "government MMFs" treated more favourably than other MMFs, would be detrimental to the short financing of companies. Likewise, if the final regulation unduly restricted the ability of MMFs to invest in Asset-Backed Commercial Paper, a key funding source for many SMEs and unlisted companies could be greatly impaired. Some respondents put the emphasis on the corporate bonds market. While this market represents an important source of funding for EU companies, those respondents considered it imperative that banks and brokers remain able to act as market makers. Furthermore, they were of the opinion that greater standardisation of information related to issuance and voluntary standardisation of larger issues could help improve liquidity. Many respondents considered that infrastructure investments by insurers should be subject to capital charges that reflect appropriately their specific characteristics, such as lower risk of default, higher recovery rates and more stable cash flows than corporate bonds. Therefore, they called for the creation of a new and separate infrastructure asset class within Solvency II in order to incentivise long-term investments (both in debt and equity) in infrastructure projects by insurance companies. The European Commission should give priority to the work of EIOPA on developing a definition of infrastructure for the purposes of Solvency II. Some respondents considered that one priority should be to lower the remaining legal barriers (e.g.,tax and legal restrictions) as identified in the two so-called "Giovannini" reports of 2001 and 2003 in order to support efficient post-trade processes for cross-border securities transactions. For some respondents, a priority area should be the establishment of an appropriate European fiscal framework that is more conducive to investment in securities, reducing tax arbitrage between equity and debt financing, and offering a more favourable tax treatment to long-term investment. For those respondents, tackling the tax bias against equity could also encourage companies to strengthen their equity base and discourage high levels of leverage, which would improve financial stability. Some respondents considered that the adoption of tax incentives for specific financial products, such as ELTIFs, should be identified as a short-term action. Some respondents recommended, as a priority, an analysis and a subsequent set of proposals to address third-country equivalence concerns. Inconsistent approaches to equivalence of regulatory regimes across jurisdictions and different pieces of legislation have stifled the ability of non-EU businesses and financial institutions to access the EU market. In particular, some respondents suggested a more generic recognition process to be implemented by the EU authorities (particularly ESAs) when assessing the equivalence of third countries’ financial market legislations.

Some respondents suggested that one priority of the European Commission should be a consistent implementation of EU legislation that has been passed since the financial crisis. Many respondents invited the European Commission to grant a "pause" from regulatory interventions, in order to adequately assess the cumulative impact of existing and incoming EU legislation - such as CRD IV/CRR, MiFID II/MiFIR, EMIR, CSDR, AIFMD, UCITS V, MAR - on economic growth and employment. The goal of this evaluation would be notably to identify inefficiencies, negative synergies, duplication of obligatory reporting or even contradictions negatively influencing the functioning of the capital market. Some respondents highlighted that the Financial Transaction Tax (FTT) must be avoided, as it would decrease the liquidity in stock markets, thereby creating a hurdle for smaller companies to successfully use capital markets as a source of financing. Some respondents also underlined that the FTT would inevitably imply, on the basis of a reinforced cooperation among only 11 Member States, a fragmentation of capital markets. Question 2 – What further steps around the availability and standardisation of SME credit information could support a deeper market in SME and start-up finance and a wider investor base? Respondents clearly highlighted the need for improving the standardisation and availability of credit and financial information on SMEs for non-bank investors at a reasonable cost in order to create a deeper market in SME and start-up finance. Many respondents were in favour of an increased level of standardisation of credit and financial data to improve the comparability of such data across Europe. Credit and financial data should inform investors’ assessment of the quality of a potential borrower, with definitions consistent across the EU. Specific suggestions included introducing an EU-wide minimum standard in respect of credit information, ensuring consistent accounting standards and the systematic disclosure of statutory accounts, developing reporting guidelines (including financial indicators / ratios) for SMEs seeking capital market funding and harmonising the format in which the information is available (for example, convergence to XBRL). Respondents mainly recommended that work start on improving the standardisation and availability of credit and financial information on SMEs through non-legislative measures. Credit and financial data should be readily available to a range of investors – and not just banks – thereby reducing barriers to entry and expansion, and enhancing competition. Different solutions were proposed: A first possible solution would consist in making more information on companies publicly available through national centralised systems. A number of Member States such as France, Germany, Italy, Spain and Portugal already operate publicly-accessible comprehensive business registers. Initiatives could be taken to further develop national credit registers across the EU to open up data access on SMEs. In countries with a well-developed privately managed credit reporting infrastructure, an alternative way to improve the availability of credit and financial data would be by broadening access to the existing credit reporting systems. The creation of a centralised EU-wide system containing standardised credit and/or financial information would be another possibility to facilitate the transparency and dissemination of information to potential investors. Different ideas were proposed, among which the creation of a single register centralising the financial accounts of all companies (including SMEs) and the creation of a database containing standardised credit and/or financial information (including research) either on all SMEs - mandatory approach - or only on SMEs seeking capital markets funding - voluntary approach. The majority of respondents highlighted the need for adopting a voluntary approach and restricting access to data as crucial success factors of such information system; the participating SMEs should have full control over the dissemination of their data. Adopting a voluntary approach would present the additional advantage of making willing firms more visible to prospective investors across Europe. Finally, some respondents suggested building such a centralised information system on SMEs, using already existing infrastructures such as public repositories and taking into account the possibilities of new technologies offered by fintech companies. Respondents underlined the importance of avoiding any disproportionate burden and cost on SMEs, for example by imposing new disclosure requirements and/or additional ad-hoc financial standards to all SMEs. A voluntary opt-in approach would offer optimal results in that regard. It is also crucial to ensure that participating SMEs will not be overburdened by the level of data they will have to provide and to limit the disclosure requirements to the most crucial information to increase their possibilities of getting funding on the European capital markets. A differentiated approach should be adopted based on the size of a company; disclosure requirements should be minimal in early stages. Finally, any proposed measure to increase the standardisation and availability of SME credit and financial information should firstly consider what is already proposed by the public authorities and the industry in that regard. Some other related messages emerged from the consultation: Respondents had mixed views on the necessity to develop a European credit scoring system for SMEs. Some respondents highlighted the positive impact that initiatives in that area would have on the funding of SMEs. Others, however, did not consider this as a priority for SMEs, underlining the drawbacks of mechanical scoring approaches, especially for newly created SMEs with limited historical data. Suggestions included (i) working on an EU-wide standardisation of SME scoring methodologies based on a minimum, simple and shared set of data, (ii) making available credit scores computed by central banks and other public authorities in a cost effective manner, and (iii) promoting a private or public European SME scoring agency that would score SMEs upon their own demand. The potential negative impact (crowding-out effect) of any public initiative on the private scoring industry was also stressed by respondents. Some respondents highlighted the importance of increasing the education and awareness of SMEs on the alternative (non-bank) sources of funding. On the one hand, better financial education of growth companies would allow them to explain their business models in an investor-friendly way. SMEs and business owners should be more aware of the existence of their credit score and financial profile, and the elements that contribute to its strengths/weaknesses. On the other hand, it is crucial to raise the awareness of SMEs about the way capital markets are structured and the range of investment possibilities. Alternatives proposed included Member States providing user-friendly platforms to educate firms on the variety of available funding options. The European Commission could use its convening power to share best practice about financial education for SMEs. Respondents also suggested that when a small business is rejected for financing by a bank, the bank should be obliged to direct the business to sources of information on alternative financing options. The majority of the respondents also agreed that banks should not be forced to disclose information about their borrowers due to confidentiality and competition reasons. Some respondents called for a harmonised definition of SMEs in EU legislation. A single definition would allow having a proper debate about what information is appropriate at different stages of growth and would help industry and government support SMEs. Several respondents strongly encouraged the Commission to ensure that Level 2 provisions currently under adoption as part of MiFID II do not negatively impact financial research coverage of SMEs. Question 3 - What support can be given to ELTIFs to encourage their take up? Some respondents, including some Finance Ministries of some EU Member States, regarded particular support for ELTIFs as unnecessary, unjustified or counter-productive. Those respondents either questioned the usefulness of ELTIFs as such as they may compete with already established long-term funds under national jurisdictions or did not see advantages of ELTIFs for investors (unattractiveness due to a lack of incentives).

A majority of respondents, however, amongst them insurance companies, pension funds, large banks, fund managers and other investors, were in favour of support to ELTIFs. Those respondents put forward the following main suggestions: 1. Preferential regulatory capital treatment under Solvency II and CDR IV/CRR reflecting the (potential) lower-risk nature of typical investments of ELTIFs (notably infrastructure). 2.Tax incentives for investing into ELTIFs: the view shared by many respondents was that preferential fiscal treatment for ELTIFs is needed to make them attractive or, at least, the application of the 'most favoured nation clause' to ELTIFs; this would put them at par with other forms of long-term investment funds governed by national laws and tax regimes (such as FPE in France or Venture Capital Trusts in the UK). 3.Some respondents, amongst them supervisors, governments and industry, proposed to combine ELTIFs with public support under the Investment Plan for Europe (i.e., the European Fund for Strategic Investments, EFSI, through risk-taking or direct investment, and the European Investment Project Pipeline) in order to increase finance for infrastructure projects. In view of using ELTIFs as vehicles to attract capital from different sources and channel it to longer-term infrastructure investments in innovative technologies in areas like energy, transport and ICT, some respondents proposed to use financing and risk-sharing possibilities of the EFSI/ EIB. The EIB should either be a (first-loss) guarantor to other investors in ELTIFs or invest in ELTIFs alongside other investors. EFSI support for ELTIFs should be clearly labelled and ELTIFs should make use of the upcoming European Investment Project Pipeline as a tool to identify potential projects for investment. 4.Many respondents expressed concerns about certain provisions in the ELTIF Regulation. A number of issues would need to be addressed in a review of the ELTIF Regulation to make ELTIFs more attractive for long-term investors. The following issues were raised by respondents: •Review the 10% cap for the aggregate portfolio of a retail investor as this excludes certain categories of retail investors (wealthy clients) that could significantly increase investment volumes into ELTIFs; •Provide more flexibility on redemption rights and lifetime of ELTIFs; any risks stemming from such flexibility could be mitigated by full and transparent disclosure of terms to investors; •Review the current 70/30 percent rule (obliging ELTIFs to invest at least 70% into eligible long-term assets) as this might be too restrictive; •Change the current limits of the UCITS Directive in order to allow UCITS to invest into ELTIFs up to 20% of their assets; •Facilitate the marketing and distribution of ELTIFs by simplifying ELTIFs' prospectus obligations (compliance with disclosure and monitoring requirements) which would make capital raising from investors more expensive than necessary; •Review investment definition and allow inclusion of real estate investments that can contribute to smart, sustainable and inclusive growth in the EU; current unclear wording would hamper the take-up of ELTIFs; •Widen the scope of eligible investments to include high-quality securitisation backed by appropriate assets (such as infrastructure projects' receivables); •Review limitation of ELTIFs to invest into other ELTIFs, EuVECAs or EuSEFs that have not invested themselves into ELTIFs more than 10% of their assets and limitation of ELTIFs to invest a maximum of 20% of their capital into other ELTIFs, EuVECAs or EuSEFs as those restrictions make it impossible to use ELTIFs as fund-of-funds vehicles. 5.Some respondents voiced concern about the possible limitations of ELTIFs' investment capacity, notably regarding loan finance. Although ELTIFs are entitled to make equity investments and provide loan finance, restrictions in some Member States may exclude loan finance provision by ELTIFs as the origination of loans is restricted to financial institutions with a banking licence. 6.A limited number of respondents stressed that avoidance of any fees charged on ELTIFs at national level will be important for the funds' take-up. The European Commission must ensure that Member States do not impose such fees on ELTIFs. Question 4 - Is any action by the EU needed to support the development of private placement markets other than supporting market-led efforts to agree common standards? A significant number of respondents underlined that there was a problem with regard to private placement in the EU, but favoured market-led solutions over a legislative initiative to create a European private placement regime. Many respondents suggested that the European Commission should first review and monitor the situation more closely before taking any action, the more so as market-led initiatives were fairly recent and their effects were yet to be known. Market-led solutions were preferred because each private placement deal was specific, and therefore it would be difficult to regulate the issue at EU level. Such regulation could result in an administrative burden which would decrease the benefits of harmonisation. At the same time, many respondents suggested either some targeted legislative action at EU level or non-legislative action, if only in the form of support or endorsement of the existing or any forthcoming market-led solutions. The main actions proposed by respondents, going beyond market-led efforts to agree common standards, were the following:

1.Guidance: Among the non-legislative measures suggested, there was often reference to guidance the European Commission could issue on the current regulatory treatment of private placement deals. 2.Credit rating, credit information and data on SMEs: As information about the creditworthiness of issuers is considered crucial, many respondents suggested improvements in this area. Some suggestions were general, e.g. requesting that the availability of credit and scoring information be improved, restrictions on the availability of credit data be removed, and information about SMEs be easily accessible and understandable in every Member State. Others were more concrete such as the creation of (i) a pan-European rating agency, (ii) a pan-EU private placement transaction database with respect to the lack of information on the creditworthiness of issuers, or (iii) central repositories with the information needed to monitor and control systemic risk. Some respondents saw benefit in the development of online platforms for distributing information on SME private placement on a cross-border basis. Ratings should, however, not become mandatory. There were also concerns about data privacy with respect to SMEs. 3.Funds and guarantees: Respondents suggested that the European Commission support private placement through dedicated funds for guarantee mechanisms. For example, a pan-European hybrid debt fund could provide medium to long-term financing to smaller SMEs or some form of guarantee / co-investment from the EIB or EIF to 'kick start' and 'boost' the broader EU investor pool for private placements. 4.Standardisation: There was no clear view as to whether this should be done through legislation or not. Issues suggested for standardisation include the requirements for private placement in the EU, the procedures for taking and enforcing security, or the loan documentation. 5.Legislative action to create a European private placement regime: This was proposed by some respondents, with suggestions ranging from a clear definition of private placement through well-calibrated and strict rules to a European passport for private placement. 6.Prospectus Directive: This Directive should be amended to increase the exemptions from the prospectus requirement in order to allow for private placement without a prospectus, as well as to clarify the definition of private placement which so far was only implicitly defined as 'non-public offer'. 7.Solvency II (delegated acts): These acts should be amended in order to review the current capital treatment of private placements and improve the calibrations by adapting the spread risk capital weightings for insurers. This would foster greater investment from insurers into non-listed SME credit. Respondents noted that insurance companies face near prohibitive regulatory restrictions on investing in debt securities that have no daily pricing. 8.Inspiration from the US: Respondents referred to the US as the model to follow, in particular with regard to the US NAIC credit scoring system and the safe harbour/no action regime. 9.Education: Respondents saw a need for a better financial education in general, as well as education of SMEs and other potential issuers and investors about private placement in particular. 10.Taxation: Some respondents referred to specific taxes, in particular an unfavourable withholding tax for investors in private placement. Others suggested a more favourable tax treatment for investors or tax harmonisation. Question 5 - What further measures could help to increase access to funding and channelling of funds to those who need them? Respondents did not identify new policy areas that support access to funding in addition to the ones identified in the Green Paper. 1.Most of the respondents mentioned the following measures to support access to funding by SME: a.Business angel associations called for a common accreditation system for business angels and for organising EU campaigns to promote, recruit and train business angels' syndicates in order to boost angel financing. b.Few respondents among which a central bank and some associations called for a single definition of SMEs. c.Some asset management associations, a central bank and a credit rating agency called for a harmonised framework for loan origination outside the banking sector. d.Setting up consortia engaged in equity financing of SMEs was supported by one central bank and several private banks. e.Several respondents from all categories of respondents called for education initiatives for SMEs. 2.Respondents, mostly those representing institutional investors, mentioned the following measures to support access to funding for infrastructure projects:

a.Most of the insurers, asset managers and their associations called for an amendment of Solvency II to give more incentives to insurers to invest into infrastructure projects. b.Institutional investors saw a need for creating a pipeline of infrastructure projects in order to be better informed about potential investment opportunities. 3.A few respondents mentioned measures to support access to funding through bank lending: a.One respondent proposed the creation of a new financial instrument – the European Secured Note - which would cover a funding segment located between covered bonds and high-quality securitisation. It would complement the long-term funding toolkit for European lenders financing SME loans and potentially other types of assets, such as infrastructure loans. b.One government called for the establishment of an optional simplified regulatory regime for small banks in order to support the local financing of very small businesses. 4.Asset management associations supported a more holistic approach to corporate reporting and advocated the delivery of a consolidated tape for equities. 5.Two governments and a bank considered it important to promote digital platforms in order to reduce administrative burden and minimise cost , for example for issuers and investors. 6.A few governments considered it necessary to further analyse barriers resulting from differences in tax, insolvency and company law. Some insurers and pension fund associations called for a harmonisation of insolvency law. Several banks, issuer associations, stock exchanges and fund industry associations considered it essential to address the debt-equity tax bias. The withholding tax on cross-border securities income was also seen as an issue, notably because procedures to reclaim excessive withholding tax are considered to be overly complex. Question 6 - Should measures be taken to promote greater liquidity in corporate bond markets, such as standardisation? If so, which measures are needed and can these be achieved by the market, or is regulatory action required? A majority of respondents considered that there is a liquidity issue in the secondary market for corporate bonds that would warrant measures. Only a few benchmark bonds enjoy real liquidity with large daily transactions. For other corporate bonds, reasonably active liquidity is limited to periods when they are issued, the weeks following issuance and when there is a new issuance by the same issuer. 1) Standardisation or not? Most respondents took the view that mandatory standardisation of issuance parameters of corporate bonds (such as maturity date or coupon payment dates) is not desirable. Four arguments were developed by those respondents. First, some respondents underlined that the benefits of standardisation are unproven: bond investors tend to follow a buy-and-hold strategy and would not need high liquidity for their bonds. Second, some respondents were concerned that mandatory standardisation of the issuance process could reduce the ability of companies to tailor capital market solutions to their funding needs. Some respondents also pointed out that standardisation of issuance conditions – such as covenants - would be inappropriate as contingencies vary greatly from issuer to issuer and from issue to issue. Third, respondents argued that any constraint on issuance practices could limit or exclude certain issuers – especially smaller firms - from accessing the market. Moreover, mandatory standardisation would impose clear costs to issuers who have clear preference for specific terms of the bonds (specific maturities, types of interests paid, issue size…). Four, standardisation of issuance dates, coupon payment dates and maturity dates would equate to having an entire quarter's worth of bond activity in one day. Such a concentration of maturity and/or coupon payment dates may create volatility or give rise to market manipulation. However, some respondents expressed the view that at least a limited standardisation of issuance parameters, on a voluntary basis, could help to reduce the overall number of new issues and thus concentrate liquidity in a smaller number of fixed income products. Indeed, some respondents explained that large issuances tend to be more liquid than smaller ones. A smaller number of larger bonds would also reduce the cost of borrowing for issuers over time. Moreover, any voluntary standardisation in corporate bonds would not deprive issuers of the flexibility they currently enjoy to issue bespoke bonds. Nevertheless, some respondents underlined that standardisation would only be relevant for large and frequent issuers. Standardisation of information and processes is distinct from standardisation of instruments, and many respondents would support a market-led initiative that seeks to promote standardisation of bond documentation. Some respondents explained that standardising elements of the information provided on fixed income securities and the processes for distribution and trading can broaden the investor base. Some of them were in favour of a standardised term sheet (containing information on the terms relating to the bond issuance such as amount, denomination, interest rate, nominal price, credit rating, yield to maturity, collateral clauses, voting rights…). According to them, a standardised term sheet that would be available to any investor would likely add liquidity and transparency to the corporate bond market. Respondents argued that standardisation of bond documentation could also decrease analytical costs for investors and attract them to the corporate bond market. A few respondents also supported standardised bond covenants. Nevertheless, some respondents highlighted that, whilst there may be benefits in standardising documentation around bond issuance, this would not by itself be a significant factor for the development of deeper corporate bond secondary markets. A respondent also suggested that a possible way forward would be to develop a 29th regime in order to harmonise commonly used terms and standardise some of the procedural issues of corporate bond issuances (e.g., cross-border voting, proxy advisors and joint representatives). 2) Other measures suggested The cumulative impact of different pieces of legislation on market-making activities Many respondents underscored that market-makers are critical in ensuring there is sufficient liquidity in corporate bond markets, insofar as secondary markets for corporate bonds are characterized by much larger and fewer trades than equity markets. This makes the role of market-makers more important. Therefore, these respondents recommended preserving banks' ability to hold inventories and perform market-making activities. Some respondents pointed out the dangers of some of the European regulatory frameworks and their negative cumulative impact on market-making activities. For instance, a certain number of respondents considered that pre- and post-trade transparency requirements of MiFID II should be developed so as to avoid reducing corporate bond market liquidity. In particular, the definition of what constitutes a "liquid bond" to which pre and post trade transparency requirements apply must be carefully calibrated. Some respondents warned that if this is not done properly, banks may be unwilling to make markets in these bonds which would lead to wider spreads with increased costs for investors. There was also a concern that if post-trade transparency deferral periods are not sufficiently long, potential investors would be unlikely to invest due to concerns about their ability to hedge risk before the market moves against them. Other respondents considered that research provisions on corporate debt should not be considered as inducement under MiFID II/MIFIR because there is no evidence that trading spreads will change as a result of separately paid research.

Some respondents underlined that the interplay of higher capital requirements being implemented through CRD IV/CRR for Basel III with new requirements like liquidity or leverage ratios is leading banks to massively reduce inventories on their trading books, resulting in lower liquidity in bond markets across all sectors. Some respondents argued that the mandatory buy-in rules, under the Central Securities Depositary Regulation (CSDR), would make it harder for market-makers to borrow corporate bonds through the repo markets. Consequently, market-makers could face difficulty to short bonds. For other respondents, a further regulatory obstacle could arise from the future EU framework on bank structural reform, as the separation of capital markets operations from retail banking is likely to increase pressure on bank balance sheets and hence reduce banks' propensity to make markets. Some respondents highlighted that the Financial Transaction Tax (FTT) could also reduce trading in financial markets which would make price discovery more difficult. Some respondents supported a "root-and-branch" study to be undertaken by the Commission in order to evaluate the EU's corporate bond markets and the impact of post-crisis regulatory reforms on them. The development of electronic bond platforms Many respondents supported the development of electronic platforms for corporate bond trading, as this would potentially increase the participation of a wider range of investors, including smaller investment funds, and have positive benefits in terms of liquidity. For instance, some respondents were in favour of the development of all-to-all platforms (i.e., platforms allowing buy-side firms to trade with both other buy-side and sell-side firms) or new trading protocols to complement RFQ (request for quote) or CLOB (Central Limit Order Book) protocols. Nevertheless, some respondents underlined that the use of electronic trading platforms would not generate more liquidity, but instead would foster easier access to already existing latent liquidity in the market. The Prospectus Directive Review Many respondents considered that the review of some provisions of the Prospectus Directive is likely to enhance liquidity in the secondary market for corporate bonds. For instance, some respondents argued that the prospectus review could facilitate the re-opening of old issuances by reducing the disclosure burden for such secondary issuances. Other respondents were in favour of removing the dual-standard for disclosure contained in the Prospectus Directive which requires more disclosure for issuers of bonds with a denomination per unit below €100.000 than for bonds above €100.000, arguing that this creates an incentive for issuers to issue bonds in denomination above €100.000 which could be a significant impediment to liquidity and should be eliminated. Some respondents underlined that the subscription of bonds by retail investors should be facilitated. Other respondents were in favour of the creation of an automated and searchable prospectus database at EU level. The advantage of such a database would be a significant improvement in the readability of bond prospectuses and enhancement of the comparability of instruments, which would in turn increase these instruments' visibility. Two respondents pointed out that the Prospectus Directive is interpreted in different ways by the National Competent Authorities and greater convergence should be promoted. Enhancing credit analysis Some respondents suggested that the Commission should favour a robust European credit analysis framework. A respondent underlined that the creation of a pan-European credit rating agency offering cheaper ratings should be encouraged by the Commission. Another respondent supported the creation of a single credit database, which would improve availability of information. A consolidated tape of transactions in the secondary market for corporate bonds Two respondents saw a mandatory reporting of secondary market transactions – similar to the TRACE system in the US – as a further element to enhance the functioning of the secondary market since this would lead ultimately to an increased transparency on pricing and turnover for all market participants. A respondent argued that the introduction of a consolidated tape considered as a public good and run on a not-for-profit model is far more important than standardisation to enhance bond market liquidity. One central bank underlined that, when reviewing MiFID II, the European Commission should consider whether a pan-European consolidated tape should be mandated. Question 7 - Is any action by the EU needed to facilitate the development of standardised, transparent and accountable ESG (Environment, Social and Governance) investment, including green bonds, other than supporting the development of guidelines by the market? The majority of respondents considered that the market-driven initiatives in the area of ESG investments are enough at this stage of market development. According to a great majority of views, the EU should adhere to global guidelines which already exist in the market (i.e., the Green Bond Principles developed by ICMA) and not develop alternative standards or regulation around these guidelines. A few respondents considered that any regulatory action in the area of ESG investments should attempt to be facilitative in nature, focus on optimising incentives for both investors and issuers, and avoid or mitigate any barriers to the development of these markets. Many respondents believed that the Commission can play an important role in several ways: 1.The Commission can contribute towards the development of clearer standards and procedures for ESG investments, building on existing industry work. Many respondents pointed out that the Commission should work in concert with global initiatives to develop standardised definitions for the investment classes comprised under the ESG umbrella. Many respondents believed that the ESG market could be prevented from further growing by the lack of a consistent definition of what constitutes an ESG investment.

2.Some respondents would also welcome the Commission's reflection on the launching of a common European label for investment funds and other investment products which meet the criteria for qualifying as socially responsible investments. In this context, a few respondents also stressed the importance of ensuring that such a label is not perceived as greenwashing. 3.Other respondents considered that the Commission should set up monitoring and enforcing mechanisms to ensure that ESG investment vehicles continuously deliver on their promises after an investment has been made, as a means to enhance the transparency of the ESG asset class. 4.A few respondents asked for EU-wide tax breaks for both issuers and investors participating in such products. 5.Very few respondents considered that financial institutions could be encouraged to hold more ESG-type products by permitting a less onerous capital treatment for this type of instrument. 6.Very few respondents considered that both the Commission and the EIB could play an important role in encouraging more ESG bond issues. This could be achieved by supporting a 'green premium' to encourage more ESG bond issues with higher levels of integrity and detailed reporting, or by encouraging the EIB to credit enhance ESG bonds with high level of transparency/reporting. 7.Very few respondents also suggested promoting ESG investments in the European Fund for Strategic Investments which is part of the Investment Plan for Europe. 8.Many respondents considered that it would be crucial to standardise and define a socially responsible investment when an instrument is issued and also post-issuance in order to develop the potential of the ESG market worldwide. This would ensure that funds are allocated in accordance with the scope of the instrument. In this respect, many respondents welcomed the Commission's proposal for a Directive on Non-financial Reporting by large corporations. Question 8 - Is there value in developing a common EU level accounting standard for small and medium-sized companies listed on MTFs? Should such a standard become a feature of SME Growth Markets? If so, under which conditions? 1) Common EU level accounting standard for SMEs listed on MTFs? Respondents distinguished between privately-held and listed companies. A large majority of respondents considered that it is preferable to maintain the current financial reporting rules for privately-held SMEs and for SMEs listed on regulated markets. At present, privately-held SMEs report according to national accounting standards, which are considered less burdensome and appropriate to the information needs of SMEs' owners, banks, tax authorities and other respondents. SMEs listed on regulated markets report their consolidated accounts according to the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS), as any company listed on those markets. As regards SMEs listed on MTFs, some respondents considered that the current state-of-play is appropriate and should not be changed. Currently, SMEs listed on most MTFs prepare their financial reports according to national accounting standards. This limits complexity and costs, ensures compliance with national tax rules and regulatory requirements (for instance, dividend distribution), and allows investors to analyse and compare these reports easily on a national basis. In addition, some MTFs allow SMEs to present consolidated accounts according to the IFRS. This provides flexibility for listed SMEs aiming at European and international investors while keeping the administrative burden limited. However, this option is not available to listed SMEs that are a single legal entity and do not prepare consolidated accounts (a rather important minority on some MTFs). Finally, there are already MTFs that require SMEs to apply the IFRS. Most respondents considered, however, that some kind of initiative or incentive, legislative or not, is needed to render SMEs listed on MTFs more attractive to European and international investors, through enhanced transparency and comparability of relevant financial information. These respondents argued that more work should be done on this at EU level, although many of them have not identified their preferred solution yet. Some respondents thought that there would be merit in developing a common accounting standard at EU level to be used by SMEs listed on MTFs. The arguments put forward included: European and international investors need more transparency and more useful and comparable financial information to support their SME investment decisions. This would reduce perceived risk in investing into SMEs, lower funding costs, optimise capital allocation across the EU, enhance investment into SMEs, and, ultimately, contribute effectively to the creation of jobs and a robust, long-term economic growth in the EU. An EU solution should be customised to the needs of EU SMEs and be more flexible and responsive to their evolution over time. 2) What solution? Many respondents were in favour of a solution for EU SMEs listed on MTFs based on the International Financial Reporting Standards. These respondents argued that attracting European and international investors is critical for the long-term success of an EU capital market for SMEs. Respondents explained that international investors tend to prefer, and are already familiar with the IFRS. These standards allow investors to assess and compare consistent and uniform financial information provided by large companies and SMEs across the EU and internationally. To be competitive, receive funds and obtain the best funding conditions, EU SMEs should be able to provide international investors with high-quality financial information that is based on international standards. However, a majority of these respondents also recognised that full application of the IFRS could in principle be costly and burdensome for EU SMEs listed on MTFs. A very few respondents argued in favour of the SME-specific financial reporting standard already developed by the IASB, IFRS for SMEs, which includes lighter rules customised to the needs of SMEs. However, this option was broadly argued against by many respondents who pointed out that IFRS for SMEs is not intended to meet the public accountability requirements of listed SMEs. Currently, the IASB does not allow listed SMEs to use the IFRS for SMEs standard.

A few respondents argued in favour of the application of the full IFRS by SMEs listed on MTFs. These respondents reminded that SMEs listed on regulated markets already comply with the IFRS for their consolidated accounts, and that a number of SMEs listed on MTFs already report under the IFRS, some of them on a voluntary basis. However, many other respondents argued against this option, on the basis that it could be burdensome and costly. Other respondents suggested that a pragmatic IFRS-based solution be found in order to deliver for SMEs listed on MTFs the advantages of a high quality, comparable, international set of accounting rules, while avoiding excessive administrative burden and costs. These respondents considered that meeting these two objectives is desirable, and should be achievable, to the benefit of SMEs and investors. One possible solution could be keeping the main requirements of the IFRS, in particular their recognition and measurement framework, while reducing significantly the disclosure requirements for SMEs listed on MTFs, in accordance with the principle of proportionality. Some respondents suggested that the Commission could work with the IASB towards this objective. In its contribution to the consultation, the IFRS Foundation stated that "the Foundation and the IASB stand ready to work with the European Commission […] in considering the financial reporting implications of the CMU". Question 9 - Are there barriers to the development of appropriately regulated crowdfunding or peer to peer platforms, including on a cross border basis? If so, how should they be addressed? 1) Barriers Some respondents saw no barriers to the development of crowdfunding in the EU and argued that it would be too early for regulation or other intervention. They called for following a market-driven approach and underlined that markets and projects were mainly local. Some mentioned that there are no apparent cross-border elements in the markets for the EU to intervene. A respondent stressed that it was rather for national competent authorities to remain vigilant for risks to unsophisticated investors. Most respondents however identified barriers and mentioned the following: 1.Regulatory barriers different national regulations (e.g., limits on investments, some rules barring institutional investors from lending, some disclosure requirements seen as too onerous for SMEs, peer-to-peer lending might not be available to borrowers that are physical persons) the range of applicable regulations compliance costs due diligence regulatory gaps cross-border jurisdictional inconsistencies lack of investor and consumer trust divergent national private placement rules different actions taken by Member States when an investment fails, resulting in a strong home bias with investors 2.Asymmetry of information poor availability and quality of information difficult to assess risks across borders due to different market conditions and legal status

3.Other barriers lack of secondary markets taxation (e.g., offsetting bad debt, paperwork to fill in tax return forms in each MS where one invests); language foreign exchange risks of cross-border investments 2) Addressing the barriers About half of the respondents called for some form of legal intervention at EU level, with the ideas ranging from a light touch intervention to calibrate existing requirements to a creation of a fully harmonised regime. Legal intervention was proposed either as a solution in itself or coupled with non-legislative actions. There were also some respondents who thought that soft measures, such as coordination or sharing of best practice, is the best way forward. Those calling for EU legislative intervention most often referred to the need to ensure investor protection as a reason for such intervention. A second, somewhat less often cited, reason was to facilitate crowdfunding and enable cross-border transactions at costs that would be lower than under the existing rules. Some respondents added that any EU legal intervention should take account of existing national regulatory frameworks. Opinions varied by a respondent group: Companies were in their vast majority in favour of the EU promoting crowdfunding, with many respondents supporting EU action, although some also cautioned against such action. Consumer representatives warned of the risks and reminded that any market opening should be accompanied by measures to ensure consumer protection. Banks reminded of the importance of keeping a level playing field among crowdfunding providers and banks, arguing that consumer protection is important in this new market. Public authorities' views were somewhat more divided as to whether the EU should regulate. Opinions ranged from advocating a market-driven approach, through monitoring the markets and intervening when the time is right, to underlining that regulatory action at EU level would add value. Several respondents highlighted the challenge of finding the right balance for an optimal legislative framework; others mentioned barriers that cannot be addressed by the Commission, such as language barriers, home bias of investors, and complexity of cross-border investments for retail investors (e.g., due to currency risks). Respondents also acknowledged challenges in harmonising contract law and mentioned the impact of tax incentives on the development of local crowdfunding markets. Question 10 - What policy measures could incentivise institutional investors to raise and invest larger amounts and in a broader range of assets, in particular long-term projects, SMEs and innovative and high growth start-ups? Four main areas for action were identified by the respondents: the regulatory framework, transparency, taxation and public support. 1) Regulatory framework The prudential regulation under which institutional investors operate influences their appetite to invest into specific asset classes, notably through the calibration of capital charges and qualitative and quantitative investment limits. Capital charges:

(I)The vast majority of the respondents were in favour of a more supportive capital requirement treatment for qualifying securitisation products and a sub-class of infrastructure assets. The need to develop the securitisation of corporate loans, in particular loans to SMEs and mid-sized companies, was highlighted by these respondents. To this end, they considered that criteria for identifying simple, transparent and standardised short-term securitisation instruments and adequate regulatory capital treatment under Solvency II and CRD IV/CRR should be developed. Respondents also supported a preferential calibration in Solvency II for investments in infrastructure meeting certain eligibility criteria. (II)The views of the respondents on whether the prudential regulation, in particular Solvency II, should be more supportive of investments into private equity and privately placed debt were more divided. The industry strongly supported a revision of Solvency II, arguing that the actual risks that insurers are exposed to when investing in such assets are currently not well reflected. Some however, were more cautious, highlighting the need to preserve financial stability and appropriate investor protection. (III)Some respondents also highlighted the need to review the exemption of banks' and insurers' exposures to EU sovereign bonds from capital requirements. In their opinion, this inappropriately incentivises investors to buy public debt rather than other investment assets. Several respondents underlined the need to remove national investment restrictions imposed on occupational pension funds that unduly restrict their investment decisions, in particular as regards investing into illiquid and long-term assets. Some respondents, mostly from the banking industry, also emphasised the impact of the mark-to-market (accounting) rules on asset allocation decisions (more short-term than long-term assets, more bonds than equities). The majority of the respondents underscored the need to support the development of the investment funds invested in long-term projects and SMEs, such as private equity and venture capital funds, ELTIFs, loan originating funds or securitisation vehicles, as well as alternative sources of funding such as crowdfunding. Some respondents highlighted the need for improving the availability of exit opportunities from investments which are illiquid or with limited liquidity, for example equity investments into high growth start-ups. A certain number of respondents questioned the compatibility of recent legislations or legislative proposals, such as FTT, MiFID II and EMIR, with the objectives of the CMU. 2) Transparency Access to information was mentioned as being crucial to support larger investments in a broader range of assets. Some respondents pointed out the need to establish a consistent and sizeable pipeline of European infrastructure projects in order to help investors find and choose suitable projects. These respondents welcomed the creation of the Investment Project Portal under the Investment Plan for Europe, but underlined that increased transparency should not be limited to projects eligible for financing by the European Fund for Strategic Investments. There was also support for the creation of the European Investment Advisory Hub as a vehicle to strengthen the support and technical advice for project structuring and funding across the EU. Furthermore, respondents underlined the need for investors to get standardised and comparable information on SMEs in order to adequately perform their creditworthiness analysis. 3) Taxation Many respondents identified taxation as a crucial factor for incentivising larger investments into long-term projects, SMEs, and innovative and high growth start-ups. The following two aspects were mentioned in particular: Respondents stressed the necessity to identify and remove unfair tax treatment of cross-border investments. The most frequently quoted problem related to the application of withholding taxes on a cross-border basis. As regards incentives for long-term investment, respondents underlined the importance of favourable tax policies such as tax credits for individual investors investing into retirement savings products, or tax reductions on capital gains and dividends generated from private equity or venture capital investments. 4) Public support A majority of respondents also favoured targeted public support for investments in certain asset classes such as for example SMEs' debt and equity financing. This support could be structured under the form of a co-financing or be provided through a guarantee. In this respect, they welcomed the creation of the European Fund for Strategic Investments. They however insisted on ensuring that public support is only directed towards projects where burden sharing between the public and private sectors is necessary in order to avoid crowding out investment for projects that could be fully financed by private sources. Most of the respondents also underlined the importance of a stable regulatory and political framework if institutional investors are to invest more in long-term projects. Question 11 - What steps could be taken to reduce the costs to fund managers of setting up and marketing funds across the EU? What barriers are there to funds benefiting from economies of scale? The following barriers were identified as crucial factors resulting in market fragmentation and thereby preventing European fund managers from realising economies of scale:

1. The majority of respondents pointed to taxation and highlighted: (i) the disparity among domestic withholding tax regimes across Member States and corresponding tax recovery procedures; (ii) preferential tax treatment for domestic funds; (iii) the application of double-tax treaty benefits, which turn out to be problematic for funds in certain jurisdictions; (iv) national tax reporting formats, which have to be provided by asset managers to investors, i.e. asset managers have to produce a tax reporting form for each Member State in which they are selling their funds. Respondents also called on the Commission to at least ensure that tax laws do not discriminate between fund domiciles. Some respondents proposed that the EU develop a harmonised tax treaty network for the benefit of all European funds. 2. Respondents viewed the varying national requirements applicable to the marketing of UCITS as a crucial barrier t