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.