Stuart Fiertz

Want to read the full stories underpinning these comments? Subscribe at www.GrahamBishop.com.   Highlights of my week:  The legislative flow from the #EuropeanParliament has now halted but the #Council still had to finalise the legislation on the reform of fiscal rules. The #ESAs and #FSB issued warnings about the risks flowing from high valuations – especially as non-bank financial intermediaries (#NBFI) are now much bigger than the banking system. The think tanks are continuing to ruminate on the implications of the #Letta report and President #Macron’s major #Sorbonne speech is also giving food for thought. The #EBA is struggling to keep up with technology-driven payment fraudsters and the #FSB introduced a new standard for #CCP resolution – just a decade and a half after their problems came to the fore in the Great Financial Crash. #AFME called for more #CMU. Concrete steps to create it may proliferate but #PensionsEurope published a sobering paper on the implications of the evolving demographic structure of #Europe. Mature pension funds will not be the engine of a boom in equity investment. Rather they will sell their equities and buy bonds to match remaining lifetimes as the funds move to a “#DC” model! The wonderful benefits of #Brexit continue to materialise: The #FCA has published hundreds of pages on new `British’ #securitisation while it also grapples with the awkward problem that most funds sold to British retail investors are listed in the #EU. This month also marks the start of new, enhanced border checks on high risk/perishable goods entering the UK. Citizens are bracing for long queues at #Dover, empty shelves and higher prices! #FBPE #Banks

Want to read the stories underlying these brief comments? Subscribe at www.grahambishop.com Highlights of my week: At the very last moment, #EuropeanParliament has agreed the new #Commissioners so “#UvL2” should be able to take office on 1 December. But that start will have as its backdrop the #ECB’s chilling assessment about the potential revival of the euro area debt crisis contained in its new Financial Stability Review #FSR. The #G20 meeting triggered calls from both #FSB and the Basel Committee (#BCBS) to implement fully the agreed reforms, especially on links to #NBFIs. #CEPS suggested that the #EU should not compare itself precisely to #US financial markets, given its very different characteristics and the #ECB seems split about publishing its report showing big #EU banks would have lower capital requirement than #US banks. #Council finally agreed #EMIR3 and #ESMA promptly began asking about the Active Account Requirement (#AAR). A#FME published the next edition of its #CMU Performance Indicators – with bleak comparisons for the #EU. I#CMA concluded that one-size-fits-all regulation is not appropriate for the #NBFI sector. #COP29 ends tomorrow and the institutional investors’ group – #IIGCC- summarised the first week for investors. #IFRS provided a guide for companies to identify their risks (and opportunities). The #ESAs examined the risks of the transition to #Fitfor55 climate standards and concluded that the transition alone would not pose risks to financial stability. Chancellor #Reeves delivered her #MansionHouse speech and the #FCA came out with a statement about the #UK being a world leader in several fields and the #CityofLondon pointed out that the #UK raised as much new equity as #Paris and #Frankfurt together – but still ranked fifth in the world!

Preqin Launches New Benchmarks to Assess Private Markets ESG Funds - Alternative investment data and insights provider Preqin announced today the launch of new ESG performance benchmarks aimed at enabling users to assess performance of private markets ESG funds, as well as SFDR, impact and climate funds. According to Preqin, the new benchmarks address the lack of standardized and comparable ESG fund performance data, which has contributed to an increase in anti-ESG sentiment and criticism in recent years, with the new tools enabling investors, fund managers and advisors to make informed decisions when it comes to ESG and impact investing in the “famously opaque” alternative markets. Jaclyn Bouchard, EVP, Head of ESG Solutions & Corporate Responsibility at Preqin, said: “At Preqin, we look to empower anyone who invests in, allocates to or advises on ESG in Alternatives. Through our benchmark offering, we aim to unleash the power of data to increase transparency around the performance of ESG funds to enable more opportunities for capital to flow to sustainable investments”. Preqin’s ESG benchmarks cover ESG integration, Impact, Climate, SFDR Article 8, SFDR Article 9, Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) and Sharia Compliant, and provide information into over 200 ESG fund performance benchmarks, covering more than 1,000 ESG funds, including SFDR funds, and encompassing ESG fund labels across the main private market asset classes, including private equity, venture capital, real estate, private debt, natural resources and infrastructure. Fabien Chen, SVP, Head of Benchmarks, at Preqin, said: “With this latest launch, we hope to give practitioners another tool to help them to understand whether ESG funds outperform the market or their non-ESG peers. As we expand and innovate on our benchmark offerings, we will bring further transparency and objectivity to enhance decision making and accountability in the private markets”.  Alternative investment data and insights provider Preqin announced today the launch of new ESG performance benchmarks aimed at enabling users to assess performance of private markets ESG funds, as well as SFDR, impact and climate funds. According to Preqin, the new benchmarks address the lack of standardized and comparable ESG fund performance data, which has contributed to an increase in... https://lnkd.in/eE5tCsUF

Consultation results reveal investors and industry networks undecided on whether to leave Articles 8 and 9 behind.   The European Commission has published a summary report outlining feedback to its consultation on the future of its flagship sustainable finance disclosure regime, having found no clear consensus on how to improve the framework.  The Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR) first came into effect in March 2021, introducing disclosure requirements for fund managers to report at the entity- and product-level on how and to what extent their funds align with Article 8 and 9 fund categories.  In the three years since, compliance with SFDR has been fraught with challenges, prompting the commission to run a three-month consultation last year proposing changes to existing disclosure requirements and questioning whether the regulation was still relevant.  With the results now visible, it appears that while most respondents agreed that SFDR’s purpose remains valid, they question its current effectiveness, with 62% noting that SFDR has not sufficiently strengthened protection for end investors and 52% claiming it has not successfully directed capital towards sustainable and transition investments. In addition, 84% of respondents said SFDR disclosures were not useful to investors.  Meanwhile, seventy-seven percent of respondents highlighted additional limitations within the framework, such as a lack of legal clarity on key concepts, limited relevance of certain disclosure requirements, and ongoing issues with data availability.   A large majority of respondents called for disclosure requirements such as adverse sustainability impacts to be simplified and streamlined across the EU’s sustainable finance framework.  “Support for SFDR remains strong, demonstrating its positive effect on improving the transparency of sustainable investments,” Pierre Garrault, Senior Policy Adviser at pan-European sustainable investment organisation Eurosif, told ESG Investor. “But many respondents – including Eurosif – find it insufficiently clear in defining key terms and acknowledge it is used as a de facto labelling regime.”  The commission also noted “no clear preference” for either of its two proposed approaches to a potential EU fund labelling system.   One of these options would involve designing and implementing new criteria that would more closely align with the UK’s Sustainability Disclosure Requirements (SDR), whereas the other would formalise Article 8 and 9 as product categories.  More than half of respondents, however, did indicate their preference for a new system moving away from the Article 8 and 9 classifications, while the other third wanted to keep these existing categories.  Many respondents nonetheless stressed the importance of any categories used for sustainability-labelled funds being “easily understandable” by retail investors and for underlying criteria to be “asset-neutral”.   Seven

Consultation results reveal investors and industry networks undecided on whether to leave Articles 8 and 9 behind.   The European Commission has published a summary report outlining feedback to its consultation on the future of its flagship sustainable finance disclosure regime, having found no clear consensus on how to improve the framework.  The Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR) first came into effect in March 2021, introducing disclosure requirements for fund managers to report at the entity- and product-level on how and to what extent their funds align with Article 8 and 9 fund categories.  In the three years since, compliance with SFDR has been fraught with challenges, prompting the commission to run a three-month consultation last year proposing changes to existing disclosure requirements and questioning whether the regulation was still relevant.  With the results now visible, it appears that while most respondents agreed that SFDR’s purpose remains valid, they question its current effectiveness, with 62% noting that SFDR has not sufficiently strengthened protection for end investors and 52% claiming it has not successfully directed capital towards sustainable and transition investments. In addition, 84% of respondents said SFDR disclosures were not useful to investors.  Meanwhile, seventy-seven percent of respondents highlighted additional limitations within the framework, such as a lack of legal clarity on key concepts, limited relevance of certain disclosure requirements, and ongoing issues with data availability.   A large majority of respondents called for disclosure requirements such as adverse sustainability impacts to be simplified and streamlined across the EU’s sustainable finance framework.  “Support for SFDR remains strong, demonstrating its positive effect on improving the transparency of sustainable investments,” Pierre Garrault, Senior Policy Adviser at pan-European sustainable investment organisation Eurosif, told ESG Investor. “But many respondents – including Eurosif – find it insufficiently clear in defining key terms and acknowledge it is used as a de facto labelling regime.”  The commission also noted “no clear preference” for either of its two proposed approaches to a potential EU fund labelling system.   One of these options would involve designing and implementing new criteria that would more closely align with the UK’s Sustainability Disclosure Requirements (SDR), whereas the other would formalise Article 8 and 9 as product categories.  More than half of respondents, however, did indicate their preference for a new system moving away from the Article 8 and 9 classifications, while the other third wanted to keep these existing categories.  Many respondents nonetheless stressed the importance of any categories used for sustainability-labelled funds being “easily understandable” by retail investors and for underlying criteria to be “asset-neutral”.   Seven

Consultation results reveal investors and industry networks undecided on whether to leave Articles 8 and 9 behind.   The European Commission has published a summary report outlining feedback to its consultation on the future of its flagship sustainable finance disclosure regime, having found no clear consensus on how to improve the framework.  The Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR) first came into effect in March 2021, introducing disclosure requirements for fund managers to report at the entity- and product-level on how and to what extent their funds align with Article 8 and 9 fund categories.  In the three years since, compliance with SFDR has been fraught with challenges, prompting the commission to run a three-month consultation last year proposing changes to existing disclosure requirements and questioning whether the regulation was still relevant.  With the results now visible, it appears that while most respondents agreed that SFDR’s purpose remains valid, they question its current effectiveness, with 62% noting that SFDR has not sufficiently strengthened protection for end investors and 52% claiming it has not successfully directed capital towards sustainable and transition investments. In addition, 84% of respondents said SFDR disclosures were not useful to investors.  Meanwhile, seventy-seven percent of respondents highlighted additional limitations within the framework, such as a lack of legal clarity on key concepts, limited relevance of certain disclosure requirements, and ongoing issues with data availability.   A large majority of respondents called for disclosure requirements such as adverse sustainability impacts to be simplified and streamlined across the EU’s sustainable finance framework.  “Support for SFDR remains strong, demonstrating its positive effect on improving the transparency of sustainable investments,” Pierre Garrault, Senior Policy Adviser at pan-European sustainable investment organisation Eurosif, told ESG Investor. “But many respondents – including Eurosif – find it insufficiently clear in defining key terms and acknowledge it is used as a de facto labelling regime.”  The commission also noted “no clear preference” for either of its two proposed approaches to a potential EU fund labelling system.   One of these options would involve designing and implementing new criteria that would more closely align with the UK’s Sustainability Disclosure Requirements (SDR), whereas the other would formalise Article 8 and 9 as product categories.  More than half of respondents, however, did indicate their preference for a new system moving away from the Article 8 and 9 classifications, while the other third wanted to keep these existing categories.  Many respondents nonetheless stressed the importance of any categories used for sustainability-labelled funds being “easily understandable” by retail investors and for underlying criteria to be “asset-neutral”.   Seven

Consultation results reveal investors and industry networks undecided on whether to leave Articles 8 and 9 behind.   The European Commission has published a summary report outlining feedback to its consultation on the future of its flagship sustainable finance disclosure regime, having found no clear consensus on how to improve the framework.  The Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR) first came into effect in March 2021, introducing disclosure requirements for fund managers to report at the entity- and product-level on how and to what extent their funds align with Article 8 and 9 fund categories.  In the three years since, compliance with SFDR has been fraught with challenges, prompting the commission to run a three-month consultation last year proposing changes to existing disclosure requirements and questioning whether the regulation was still relevant.  With the results now visible, it appears that while most respondents agreed that SFDR’s purpose remains valid, they question its current effectiveness, with 62% noting that SFDR has not sufficiently strengthened protection for end investors and 52% claiming it has not successfully directed capital towards sustainable and transition investments. In addition, 84% of respondents said SFDR disclosures were not useful to investors.  Meanwhile, seventy-seven percent of respondents highlighted additional limitations within the framework, such as a lack of legal clarity on key concepts, limited relevance of certain disclosure requirements, and ongoing issues with data availability.   A large majority of respondents called for disclosure requirements such as adverse sustainability impacts to be simplified and streamlined across the EU’s sustainable finance framework.  “Support for SFDR remains strong, demonstrating its positive effect on improving the transparency of sustainable investments,” Pierre Garrault, Senior Policy Adviser at pan-European sustainable investment organisation Eurosif, told ESG Investor. “But many respondents – including Eurosif – find it insufficiently clear in defining key terms and acknowledge it is used as a de facto labelling regime.”  The commission also noted “no clear preference” for either of its two proposed approaches to a potential EU fund labelling system.   One of these options would involve designing and implementing new criteria that would more closely align with the UK’s Sustainability Disclosure Requirements (SDR), whereas the other would formalise Article 8 and 9 as product categories.  More than half of respondents, however, did indicate their preference for a new system moving away from the Article 8 and 9 classifications, while the other third wanted to keep these existing categories.  Many respondents nonetheless stressed the importance of any categories used for sustainability-labelled funds being “easily understandable” by retail investors and for underlying criteria to be “asset-neutral”.   Seven

Consultation results reveal investors and industry networks undecided on whether to leave Articles 8 and 9 behind.   The European Commission has published a summary report outlining feedback to its consultation on the future of its flagship sustainable finance disclosure regime, having found no clear consensus on how to improve the framework.  The Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR) first came into effect in March 2021, introducing disclosure requirements for fund managers to report at the entity- and product-level on how and to what extent their funds align with Article 8 and 9 fund categories.  In the three years since, compliance with SFDR has been fraught with challenges, prompting the commission to run a three-month consultation last year proposing changes to existing disclosure requirements and questioning whether the regulation was still relevant.  With the results now visible, it appears that while most respondents agreed that SFDR’s purpose remains valid, they question its current effectiveness, with 62% noting that SFDR has not sufficiently strengthened protection for end investors and 52% claiming it has not successfully directed capital towards sustainable and transition investments. In addition, 84% of respondents said SFDR disclosures were not useful to investors.  Meanwhile, seventy-seven percent of respondents highlighted additional limitations within the framework, such as a lack of legal clarity on key concepts, limited relevance of certain disclosure requirements, and ongoing issues with data availability.   A large majority of respondents called for disclosure requirements such as adverse sustainability impacts to be simplified and streamlined across the EU’s sustainable finance framework.  “Support for SFDR remains strong, demonstrating its positive effect on improving the transparency of sustainable investments,” Pierre Garrault, Senior Policy Adviser at pan-European sustainable investment organisation Eurosif, told ESG Investor. “But many respondents – including Eurosif – find it insufficiently clear in defining key terms and acknowledge it is used as a de facto labelling regime.”  The commission also noted “no clear preference” for either of its two proposed approaches to a potential EU fund labelling system.   One of these options would involve designing and implementing new criteria that would more closely align with the UK’s Sustainability Disclosure Requirements (SDR), whereas the other would formalise Article 8 and 9 as product categories.  More than half of respondents, however, did indicate their preference for a new system moving away from the Article 8 and 9 classifications, while the other third wanted to keep these existing categories.  Many respondents nonetheless stressed the importance of any categories used for sustainability-labelled funds being “easily understandable” by retail investors and for underlying criteria to be “asset-neutral”.   Seven

Consultation results reveal investors and industry networks undecided on whether to leave Articles 8 and 9 behind.   The European Commission has published a summary report outlining feedback to its consultation on the future of its flagship sustainable finance disclosure regime, having found no clear consensus on how to improve the framework.  The Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR) first came into effect in March 2021, introducing disclosure requirements for fund managers to report at the entity- and product-level on how and to what extent their funds align with Article 8 and 9 fund categories.  In the three years since, compliance with SFDR has been fraught with challenges, prompting the commission to run a three-month consultation last year proposing changes to existing disclosure requirements and questioning whether the regulation was still relevant.  With the results now visible, it appears that while most respondents agreed that SFDR’s purpose remains valid, they question its current effectiveness, with 62% noting that SFDR has not sufficiently strengthened protection for end investors and 52% claiming it has not successfully directed capital towards sustainable and transition investments. In addition, 84% of respondents said SFDR disclosures were not useful to investors.  Meanwhile, seventy-seven percent of respondents highlighted additional limitations within the framework, such as a lack of legal clarity on key concepts, limited relevance of certain disclosure requirements, and ongoing issues with data availability.   A large majority of respondents called for disclosure requirements such as adverse sustainability impacts to be simplified and streamlined across the EU’s sustainable finance framework.  “Support for SFDR remains strong, demonstrating its positive effect on improving the transparency of sustainable investments,” Pierre Garrault, Senior Policy Adviser at pan-European sustainable investment organisation Eurosif, told ESG Investor. “But many respondents – including Eurosif – find it insufficiently clear in defining key terms and acknowledge it is used as a de facto labelling regime.”  The commission also noted “no clear preference” for either of its two proposed approaches to a potential EU fund labelling system.   One of these options would involve designing and implementing new criteria that would more closely align with the UK’s Sustainability Disclosure Requirements (SDR), whereas the other would formalise Article 8 and 9 as product categories.  More than half of respondents, however, did indicate their preference for a new system moving away from the Article 8 and 9 classifications, while the other third wanted to keep these existing categories.  Many respondents nonetheless stressed the importance of any categories used for sustainability-labelled funds being “easily understandable” by retail investors and for underlying criteria to be “asset-neutral”.   Seven

Consultation results reveal investors and industry networks undecided on whether to leave Articles 8 and 9 behind.   The European Commission has published a summary report outlining feedback to its consultation on the future of its flagship sustainable finance disclosure regime, having found no clear consensus on how to improve the framework.  The Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR) first came into effect in March 2021, introducing disclosure requirements for fund managers to report at the entity- and product-level on how and to what extent their funds align with Article 8 and 9 fund categories.  In the three years since, compliance with SFDR has been fraught with challenges, prompting the commission to run a three-month consultation last year proposing changes to existing disclosure requirements and questioning whether the regulation was still relevant.  With the results now visible, it appears that while most respondents agreed that SFDR’s purpose remains valid, they question its current effectiveness, with 62% noting that SFDR has not sufficiently strengthened protection for end investors and 52% claiming it has not successfully directed capital towards sustainable and transition investments. In addition, 84% of respondents said SFDR disclosures were not useful to investors.  Meanwhile, seventy-seven percent of respondents highlighted additional limitations within the framework, such as a lack of legal clarity on key concepts, limited relevance of certain disclosure requirements, and ongoing issues with data availability.   A large majority of respondents called for disclosure requirements such as adverse sustainability impacts to be simplified and streamlined across the EU’s sustainable finance framework.  “Support for SFDR remains strong, demonstrating its positive effect on improving the transparency of sustainable investments,” Pierre Garrault, Senior Policy Adviser at pan-European sustainable investment organisation Eurosif, told ESG Investor. “But many respondents – including Eurosif – find it insufficiently clear in defining key terms and acknowledge it is used as a de facto labelling regime.”  The commission also noted “no clear preference” for either of its two proposed approaches to a potential EU fund labelling system.   One of these options would involve designing and implementing new criteria that would more closely align with the UK’s Sustainability Disclosure Requirements (SDR), whereas the other would formalise Article 8 and 9 as product categories.  More than half of respondents, however, did indicate their preference for a new system moving away from the Article 8 and 9 classifications, while the other third wanted to keep these existing categories.  Many respondents nonetheless stressed the importance of any categories used for sustainability-labelled funds being “easily understandable” by retail investors and for underlying criteria to be “asset-neutral”.   Seven

Consultation results reveal investors and industry networks undecided on whether to leave Articles 8 and 9 behind.   The European Commission has published a summary report outlining feedback to its consultation on the future of its flagship sustainable finance disclosure regime, having found no clear consensus on how to improve the framework.  The Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR) first came into effect in March 2021, introducing disclosure requirements for fund managers to report at the entity- and product-level on how and to what extent their funds align with Article 8 and 9 fund categories.  In the three years since, compliance with SFDR has been fraught with challenges, prompting the commission to run a three-month consultation last year proposing changes to existing disclosure requirements and questioning whether the regulation was still relevant.  With the results now visible, it appears that while most respondents agreed that SFDR’s purpose remains valid, they question its current effectiveness, with 62% noting that SFDR has not sufficiently strengthened protection for end investors and 52% claiming it has not successfully directed capital towards sustainable and transition investments. In addition, 84% of respondents said SFDR disclosures were not useful to investors.  Meanwhile, seventy-seven percent of respondents highlighted additional limitations within the framework, such as a lack of legal clarity on key concepts, limited relevance of certain disclosure requirements, and ongoing issues with data availability.   A large majority of respondents called for disclosure requirements such as adverse sustainability impacts to be simplified and streamlined across the EU’s sustainable finance framework.  “Support for SFDR remains strong, demonstrating its positive effect on improving the transparency of sustainable investments,” Pierre Garrault, Senior Policy Adviser at pan-European sustainable investment organisation Eurosif, told ESG Investor. “But many respondents – including Eurosif – find it insufficiently clear in defining key terms and acknowledge it is used as a de facto labelling regime.”  The commission also noted “no clear preference” for either of its two proposed approaches to a potential EU fund labelling system.   One of these options would involve designing and implementing new criteria that would more closely align with the UK’s Sustainability Disclosure Requirements (SDR), whereas the other would formalise Article 8 and 9 as product categories.  More than half of respondents, however, did indicate their preference for a new system moving away from the Article 8 and 9 classifications, while the other third wanted to keep these existing categories.  Many respondents nonetheless stressed the importance of any categories used for sustainability-labelled funds being “easily understandable” by retail investors and for underlying criteria to be “asset-neutral”.   Seven