eifr crowdfunding seminar · esma regular use esma’s approach to crowdfunding • a balanced...
TRANSCRIPT
ESMA REGULAR USE
EIFR Crowdfunding SeminarESMA’s work on investment-based crowdfunding
28 September 2015, Paris
Anne Choné, Paris
ESMA REGULAR USE
ESMA’s approach to crowdfunding
• A balanced approach
• Collaborative work with EBA, ESMA focusing on investment-based
(equity and debt) crowdfunding, while EBA focuses on loan-based
crowdfunding
Economic benefits by facilitating
access to finance by project
owners
Specific risks to investors (mostly
retail) and projects owners
Support the development of a pan-
European market as far as possible
Provide for a safe environment for
both investors and project owners
ESMA REGULAR USE
Key achievements
• Contribution to EC’s consultation (Dec 2013)
• Opinion and Advice to National Competent Authorities (NCAs) and
EU institutions (Dec 2014) (https://www.esma.europa.eu/content/Opinion-Investment-based-crowdfunding)
(https://www.esma.europa.eu/content/Advice-Investment-based-crowdfunding)
• Response to EC’s Green Paper on Capital Market Union (May 2015)(https://www.esma.europa.eu/news/Press-Release-ESMA-publishes-response-Capital-Markets-Union-Green-Paper)
• Survey to NCAs (May 2015)(https://www.esma.europa.eu/system/files/esma-2015-856_ann_1_esma_response_to_ec_green_paper_on_cmu_-_crowdfunding_survey.pdf)
• Q&A on anti-money laundering (July 2015) (https://www.esma.europa.eu/news/ESMA-issues-QA-anti-money-laundering-and-investment-based-crowdfunding-platforms)
• Supervisory Forum with NCAs (2015-2016)
Assist NCAs and market participants
Contribute to regulatory and supervisory convergence
ESMA REGULAR USE
Where does crowdfunding stand?
• Still relatively new phenomenon, modest volumes but
growing quickly
• Involving mostly retail investors
• Different and evolving business models
• EU regulation not designed with crowdfunding in mind
• Lack of awareness/clarity about the regulation likely to apply
• (Perceived?) incentives for platforms to structure their
business models so as to fall outside of the regulation
• Potential that some risks may be left unaddressed
• Increasingly individual initiatives by some Member States to
regulate crowdfunding (FR, IT, PT, SP)
ESMA REGULAR USE
A step-wise response
• Analysis of the different business models and how they may evolve
• Assessment of risks – Threefold perspective: Project owners, investors, platforms
• Assessment of the likely components of an appropriate regulatory regime
• Detailed analysis of how the typical business models map to the existing EU legislation
• Identification of potential gaps and issues
5
ESMA REGULAR USE
Specific risks to consider
• Risks related to investment in smaller companies– Significant potential of capital loss (high failure rate)
– Risk of dilution through further capital raising
– Lack of exit options (unlisted instruments, lack of secondary market)
– Limited information available on which to base an investment decision
• Risks related to the platforms’ business model– Potential for conflicts of interest
– Impact of platform failure (especially if hold/administer client assets)
– Risk for investors to over-estimate the due diligence carried out
• Opportunity costs (if unduly constrained)– Lack of funding for the real economy
– Loss of investment opportunities for investors
ESMA REGULAR USE
Appropriate regulatory regime – Likely components
• Proportionate capital requirements or similar mechanisms
for safeguarding operational continuity
• Mechanism to ensure that investment opportunities reach
investors for whom they are appropriate
• Means of ensuring that investors are aware of the risks
• Means of ensuring appropriate safeguarding/segregation of
client assets
• Proportionate regulation of the platform’s organisational
arrangements and conduct of business
• Certainty and clarity about the nature and extent of the
platform’s responsibilities towards clients
ESMA REGULAR USE
Applicable EU regulation - Prospectus Directive
The Prospectus Directive (PD) requires publication of a prospectus before the offer of securities to the public or the admission
to trading of such securities on a regulated market, unless certain exclusions or exemptions apply. The prospectus cannot be
published until it has been approved by the NCA.
• Applicable to crowdfunding offers provided that:– Instruments involved are transferable securities as defined in MiFID
– Size of offer triggers the application of the PD• Offers with a total ‘annual’ consideration below €5m are outside the scope of the Directive
Offers with a total ‘annual’ consideration below €100k are excluded from the obligation to
publish a prospectus; however, Member States have discretion to apply national
requirements to offers between €100k and €5m and practices in this regard vary widely
– Exemption if the offer is only addressed to ‘qualified investors’
– Exemption if the offer is addressed to fewer than 150 persons per Member
State other than ‘qualified investors’
• In practice, platforms seem to structure their business to
avoid the PD requirements
ESMA REGULAR USE
Applicable EU regulation - MiFID
Where applicable, MiFID would impose duties on the crowdfunding platform in its capacity as investment intermediary. To be
within MiFID scope, a firm needs to be carrying on MiFID services/activities in relation to MiFID financial instruments, and not
exempt. The benefit to a platform of being within the scope of MiFID is that it has a passport to carry on the services/activities for
which it is authorised throughout the EU without any additional authorization being required, in accordance with a single set of
rules. This is at the ‘cost’ of complying with capital and other requirements.
• Key questions– Which financial instruments?
• Many Member States have had experience of crowdfunding using forms of participation which
are not ‘financial instruments’ and therefore fall outside of MiFID
– Which MiFID services/activities?• Case by case assessment needed as business models vary and the definitions were not
designed with these models in mind
• Requirements, notably capital requirements, vary depending on the type of services/activities
• Most likely in ESMA’s view is ‘Reception and Transmission of Orders’ (RTO), meaning that
capital requirement applicable under MiFID would be €50,000
– Are there relevant exemptions?• Exemption under article 3 only applicable in the case of ‘RTO’ and ‘investment advice’
• Reduced requirements but loss of the EU passport
• May frame business models in an unintended way
28. September 2015 | Location,City
ESMA REGULAR USE
AIFMD
The Directive on Alternative Investment Fund Managers (AIFMD) lays down the rules for the authorisation, ongoing operation
and transparency of the managers of alternative investment funds (AIFMs) which manage and/or market alternative investment
funds (AIFs) in the Union […] AIFs means collective investment undertakings, including investment compartments thereof, which
(i) raise capital from a number of investors, with a view to investing it in accordance with a defined investment policy for the
benefit of those investors and (ii) do not require authorisation pursuant to Article 5 of Directive 2009/65/EC [UCITS].’
• Technically applicable to platforms which operate models
based on indirect investments which qualify as AIFs
• Limited experience but likely to become more widespread
• Key questions– Existence of a ‘defined investment policy’? (in order to qualify as AIF)
• Most likely answer would be yes in ESMA’s view
– Are there relevant exemptions? (e.g., SPV, holding companies)• Some SPVs established by platforms could in theory qualify for the exemption in ESMA’s view
– Possible interactions with MiFID?
– Was AIFMD intended to capture all these types of structures? Relevance of
EuVECA and EUSEF?
ESMA REGULAR USE
Other potentially applicable regulations
• Directive on investor-compensation schemes (in MiFID scope) [97/9/EC]
• Market Abuse Directive (not where unlisted securities) [2003/6/EC]
• Distance Marketing of Financial Services Directive [2002/65/EC]
• Third Anti-Money Laundering Directive [2005/60/EC]
• Payment Services Directive [2007/64/EC]
• Unfair Commercial Practices Directive: [2005/29/EC]
• Misleading and Comparative Advertising Directive [2006/114/EC]
• Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Directive [93/13/EEC]
• Consumer Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Directive [2013/11/EU]
• Consumer Credit Directive and Mortgage Credit Directive (unlikely)
[2014/17/EU]
• E-commerce directive [2000/31/EC]
ESMA REGULAR USE
Gaps and issues in current EU framework
• Use of instruments outside MiFID scope
• Structuring offers to avoid Prospectus Directive requirements
• MiFID Article 3 exemption: lower capital but other costs
• AIFMD: single company vehicles in but SPVs out?
• Capital requirements where multiple legislation applies?
• Risks to users are increased
• Industry less scalable (e.g., loss
of the passport)
• Unnecessary barriers?
• Level playing field?
Can incentives to operate outside
regulation be reduced?
Will the legislative framework need
to evolve?
Consider an EU framework especially for platforms operating outside MiFID
ESMA REGULAR USE
Survey to NCAs
• Services/activities carried out vary greatly
• Implications in terms of capital requirements + ability to hold client money
ESMA REGULAR USE
Survey to NCAs
• Mostly but not exclusively direct investments
• Predominantly equity
• Different remuneration models– Remuneration by project owners only: most frequent, on average 4 to 6% of amount raised
– Remuneration by both project owner and investor: 4 to 6% of amount raised + 2.5 to 5% of amount
invested and/or 5 to 20% of profit made at exit
– Remuneration by investor only: relatively unusual
– Incentive for platforms to market projects aggressively and be less selective on projects?
– Little visibility on future profitability? Potential viability issues?
ESMA REGULAR USE
Q&A anti-money laundering
• Clarifies the extent of terrorist financing and money laundering risks in
relation to investment-based crowdfunding activities– Increased risk where there is limited or no due diligence on project owners or their projects
– Increased risk where platforms collect funds for later onward transmission
• Considers the risk profile of the platforms depending on their regulatory
status
• Considers how investment-based crowdfunding should be treated under
AML3D– Platforms operating within MiFID are automatically subject to AML3D
– Platforms outside of MiFID but carrying payment services within the meaning of the PSD will be
subject to AML3D; the same holds true for participation in securities issues and the provision of
services related to such issues, and safekeeping and administration of securities
– The requirements likely to apply to other platforms will depend on the scope of national law
ESMA REGULAR USE
Supervisory Forum with NCAs
• Forum for informal discussion of challenges faced in the authorisation
and/or supervision of investment-based crowdfunding
• With a view to promoting effective and convergent supervision
• Established for an initial period of 18 months