为贷款来源基金建立欧洲法律框架

Sebastiaan Niels Hooghiemstra
{"title":"为贷款来源基金建立欧洲法律框架","authors":"Sebastiaan Niels Hooghiemstra","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3492968","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Over the last few years, the European AIF industry has witnessed a surge of interest in loan-originating funds. Both regulatory and economic aspects have been driving this trend. \n \nThe tighter regulation and increased capital requirements imposed by Basel III on traditional lending banks has reduced the capacity for banks to issue loans. In particular, this holds true for issuing loans to SMEs. Unlike large corporates, SMEs do not have the possibility of a wide range of financing options, such as bonds and listed debt instruments. Given the dependence of European SMEs on bank financing, this created a massive gap in the financing market. Furthermore, institutional investors have been looking to diversity their assets in the search for yield in a low-interest rate environment. This is where European loan-originating fund managers have successfully been stepping in. \n \nThe current main problem for loan-originating funds in the EEA is that Member States have implemented CRD IV in different ways that restricts loan-originating fund managers in granting loans to SMEs in various EEA Member States. Some Member States take a rather strict approach and consider the origination of loans as a pure banking activity (the so-called ‘banking monopoly’), whereas others also allow non-banking entities to grant loans in their domestic markets. This causes a fragmented landscape for loan-originating funds in which loan-originating fund managers are, in practice, forced to strategically focus themselves on a few (big) EEA domestic markets. As a response to loan-originating funds gaining traction with the EEA, a number of EEA Member States have opened up their ‘banking monopoly’ to boost lending to SMEs by loan-originating fund managers. Despite having the same objective, the regimes on the national level are not necessarily consistent and the current ‘goldplating’ of national AIFMD product laws makes the pan-EU origination of loans for loan-originating fund managers challenging. Furthermore, the regulatory strings attached to the ELTIFR, EuVECAR and EuSEFR have so far offered little help in remedying this fragmented landscape. \n \nIn an attempt to investigate the current landscape, ESMA conducted research into national loan- originating fund product regimes and issued an opinion related to that. Although the mood is reasonably optimistic, no harmonized EU proposal is yet in place. \n \nThis contribution seeks to contribute by developing pan-EU standards to facilitate the growth of lending to SMEs and soliciting capital from EEA investors by pan-European loan-originating funds. To that end, section 2 discusses the differences between 'loan funds', loan-originating funds' and 'loan-participating funds'. Section 3 focuses on the EU banking law restrictions, as implemented by Member States under their CRD IV national implementations, for loan-originating funds and section 4 on the differences between loan-originating funds versus banks in terms of investor versus deposit protection and systemic risk. Section 5 analyses the current fragmented European loan-originating fund framework. Section 6 proposes a coherent level-playing field European legal framework for loan-originating funds to create a viable EU market for such funds and section 7 concludes.","PeriodicalId":233958,"journal":{"name":"European Finance eJournal","volume":"163 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-06-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Towards a European Legal Framework for Loan-Originating Funds\",\"authors\":\"Sebastiaan Niels Hooghiemstra\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.3492968\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Over the last few years, the European AIF industry has witnessed a surge of interest in loan-originating funds. Both regulatory and economic aspects have been driving this trend. \\n \\nThe tighter regulation and increased capital requirements imposed by Basel III on traditional lending banks has reduced the capacity for banks to issue loans. In particular, this holds true for issuing loans to SMEs. Unlike large corporates, SMEs do not have the possibility of a wide range of financing options, such as bonds and listed debt instruments. Given the dependence of European SMEs on bank financing, this created a massive gap in the financing market. Furthermore, institutional investors have been looking to diversity their assets in the search for yield in a low-interest rate environment. This is where European loan-originating fund managers have successfully been stepping in. \\n \\nThe current main problem for loan-originating funds in the EEA is that Member States have implemented CRD IV in different ways that restricts loan-originating fund managers in granting loans to SMEs in various EEA Member States. Some Member States take a rather strict approach and consider the origination of loans as a pure banking activity (the so-called ‘banking monopoly’), whereas others also allow non-banking entities to grant loans in their domestic markets. This causes a fragmented landscape for loan-originating funds in which loan-originating fund managers are, in practice, forced to strategically focus themselves on a few (big) EEA domestic markets. As a response to loan-originating funds gaining traction with the EEA, a number of EEA Member States have opened up their ‘banking monopoly’ to boost lending to SMEs by loan-originating fund managers. Despite having the same objective, the regimes on the national level are not necessarily consistent and the current ‘goldplating’ of national AIFMD product laws makes the pan-EU origination of loans for loan-originating fund managers challenging. Furthermore, the regulatory strings attached to the ELTIFR, EuVECAR and EuSEFR have so far offered little help in remedying this fragmented landscape. \\n \\nIn an attempt to investigate the current landscape, ESMA conducted research into national loan- originating fund product regimes and issued an opinion related to that. Although the mood is reasonably optimistic, no harmonized EU proposal is yet in place. \\n \\nThis contribution seeks to contribute by developing pan-EU standards to facilitate the growth of lending to SMEs and soliciting capital from EEA investors by pan-European loan-originating funds. To that end, section 2 discusses the differences between 'loan funds', loan-originating funds' and 'loan-participating funds'. Section 3 focuses on the EU banking law restrictions, as implemented by Member States under their CRD IV national implementations, for loan-originating funds and section 4 on the differences between loan-originating funds versus banks in terms of investor versus deposit protection and systemic risk. Section 5 analyses the current fragmented European loan-originating fund framework. Section 6 proposes a coherent level-playing field European legal framework for loan-originating funds to create a viable EU market for such funds and section 7 concludes.\",\"PeriodicalId\":233958,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Finance eJournal\",\"volume\":\"163 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-06-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Finance eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3492968\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Finance eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3492968","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

在过去几年中,欧洲AIF行业见证了对贷款发起基金的兴趣激增。监管和经济方面都推动了这一趋势。《巴塞尔协议III》(Basel III)对传统贷款银行施加的更严格监管和更高的资本要求,降低了银行发放贷款的能力。中小企业贷款尤其如此。与大企业不同,中小企业没有广泛的融资选择,例如债券和上市债务工具。鉴于欧洲中小企业对银行融资的依赖,这造成了融资市场的巨大缺口。此外,机构投资者一直在寻求在低利率环境下实现资产多元化,以寻求收益。这正是欧洲贷款基金管理公司成功涉足的领域。欧洲经济区贷款发起基金目前的主要问题是,成员国以不同的方式实施了CRD IV,限制了贷款发起基金经理向各欧洲经济区成员国的中小企业提供贷款。一些成员国采取相当严格的做法,将贷款的发放视为纯粹的银行活动(所谓的“银行垄断”),而其他成员国也允许非银行实体在其国内市场发放贷款。这导致贷款发起基金的格局支离破碎,在这种情况下,贷款发起基金经理实际上被迫在战略上专注于几个(大的)欧洲经济区国内市场。作为对贷款发起基金在欧洲经济区获得牵引力的回应,一些欧洲经济区成员国已经开放了它们的“银行垄断”,以促进贷款发起基金管理公司向中小企业提供贷款。尽管具有相同的目标,但国家层面的制度并不一定一致,目前国家AIFMD产品法律的“镀金”使得泛欧盟贷款发起基金经理的贷款具有挑战性。此外,ELTIFR、EuVECAR和euusefr附加的监管条件迄今为止在弥补这种碎片化格局方面几乎没有帮助。为了调查目前的情况,ESMA对国家贷款发起基金产品制度进行了研究,并发表了相关意见。尽管人们的情绪相当乐观,但欧盟尚未出台统一的提案。这项贡献旨在通过制定泛欧盟标准来促进中小企业贷款的增长,并通过泛欧洲贷款发起基金向欧洲经济区投资者募集资金。为此,第2节讨论了“贷款基金”、“贷款发起基金”和“贷款参与基金”之间的区别。第3节侧重于欧盟银行法对贷款发起基金的限制,由成员国根据其CRD IV国家实施实施,第4节侧重于贷款发起基金与银行在投资者与存款保护和系统风险方面的差异。第5节分析了目前支离破碎的欧洲贷款来源基金框架。第6节为贷款发起基金提出了一个连贯的公平竞争环境的欧洲法律框架,为此类基金创造一个可行的欧盟市场,第7节得出结论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Towards a European Legal Framework for Loan-Originating Funds
Over the last few years, the European AIF industry has witnessed a surge of interest in loan-originating funds. Both regulatory and economic aspects have been driving this trend. The tighter regulation and increased capital requirements imposed by Basel III on traditional lending banks has reduced the capacity for banks to issue loans. In particular, this holds true for issuing loans to SMEs. Unlike large corporates, SMEs do not have the possibility of a wide range of financing options, such as bonds and listed debt instruments. Given the dependence of European SMEs on bank financing, this created a massive gap in the financing market. Furthermore, institutional investors have been looking to diversity their assets in the search for yield in a low-interest rate environment. This is where European loan-originating fund managers have successfully been stepping in. The current main problem for loan-originating funds in the EEA is that Member States have implemented CRD IV in different ways that restricts loan-originating fund managers in granting loans to SMEs in various EEA Member States. Some Member States take a rather strict approach and consider the origination of loans as a pure banking activity (the so-called ‘banking monopoly’), whereas others also allow non-banking entities to grant loans in their domestic markets. This causes a fragmented landscape for loan-originating funds in which loan-originating fund managers are, in practice, forced to strategically focus themselves on a few (big) EEA domestic markets. As a response to loan-originating funds gaining traction with the EEA, a number of EEA Member States have opened up their ‘banking monopoly’ to boost lending to SMEs by loan-originating fund managers. Despite having the same objective, the regimes on the national level are not necessarily consistent and the current ‘goldplating’ of national AIFMD product laws makes the pan-EU origination of loans for loan-originating fund managers challenging. Furthermore, the regulatory strings attached to the ELTIFR, EuVECAR and EuSEFR have so far offered little help in remedying this fragmented landscape. In an attempt to investigate the current landscape, ESMA conducted research into national loan- originating fund product regimes and issued an opinion related to that. Although the mood is reasonably optimistic, no harmonized EU proposal is yet in place. This contribution seeks to contribute by developing pan-EU standards to facilitate the growth of lending to SMEs and soliciting capital from EEA investors by pan-European loan-originating funds. To that end, section 2 discusses the differences between 'loan funds', loan-originating funds' and 'loan-participating funds'. Section 3 focuses on the EU banking law restrictions, as implemented by Member States under their CRD IV national implementations, for loan-originating funds and section 4 on the differences between loan-originating funds versus banks in terms of investor versus deposit protection and systemic risk. Section 5 analyses the current fragmented European loan-originating fund framework. Section 6 proposes a coherent level-playing field European legal framework for loan-originating funds to create a viable EU market for such funds and section 7 concludes.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Analysis of Option-Like Fund Performance Fees in Asset Management via Monte Carlo Actuarial Distortion Pricing Cultural values of parent bank board members and lending by foreign subsidiaries: The moderating role of personal traits Deleveraging CAPM: Asset Betas vs. Equity Betas The Dynamics of Financial Policies and Group Decisions in Private Firms Money Talks: Information and Seignorage
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1