EFAMA has responded to the Commission call for Evidence on Investor Compensation Schemes. Its members:  

  • support inclusion of MTFs within the ICD but only where the MTFs provide services to retail clients;  
  • do not think the ICD should cover firms that cannot hold clients’ assets;  
  • must take into account the UCITS review before deciding whether to amend the ICD in respect of third party defaults;  
  • support a level playing field for compensation between the banking and investment sectors;  
  • think the Commission should look at how national, differently funded, schemes have performed before making any decisions on funding; and  
  • strongly disagree that money market fund investors should get compensation for loss in market value.