Welcome to the 10th Fund Summit - Clearstream · Rule 2a-7 imposes various restrictions on the...

Welcome to the 10th Fund SummitThursday 6 June 2013Brussels, Belgium

Jeffrey TesslerChief Executive Officer, Clearstream International

Introduction

Noel FesseyGlobal Head of Fund Services, Schroder Investment Management

5

Chairman’s Opening Remarks

Deborah A. CunninghamChief Investment Officer, Federated Investors

7

The Future of the Money Market Industry

Stability Investment Solutions Diligence

The Future of the Money Market Industry

Presented by:

Deborah A. Cunningham, CFAExecutive Vice President and Senior Portfolio Manager

Federated Investors

1 0 t h C l e a r s t r e a m F u n d S u m m i t

6 June, 2013

13-49461 (6/13)

Timeline of Modified Rule 2a-7 Adoption

Rule 2a-7 is a rule under the Investment Company Act of 1940 which permits a money market fund to use amortized cost to stabilize the value of its shares at $1.00. Rule 2a-7 imposes various restrictions on the money market fund’s portfolio, including restrictions related to diversification, and credit quality and maturity of portfolio securities.

5/5/10 General rule effective date

5/28/10 Compliance required for quality, individual security maturity, liquidity and repo changes

6/30/10 Compliance required for weighted average maturity and weighted average life changes

10/7/10 Compliance required for monthly portfolio Web site disclosures

12/7/10 Compliance required for monthly reporting to SEC of mark-to-market NAV and other portfolio details (to be published by the SEC on a 60-day lag)

12/31/10 Compliance required for NRSRO disclosure – SEC “No-Action” Letter

10/31/11 Compliance required for processing transactions at other than $1 NAV

10th Clearstream Fund Summit, 6 June 2013

¡ 2a-7 2010 Amendments – Industry Goes Beyond

¡ Portfolio Reporting

¡ Daily Market-Based NAV Reporting

¡ Floating NAV

¡ Capital / buffer

¡ Gating

¡ IOSCO

¡ FSB

Regulatory Environment

Offshore

SEC & FSOC


FSOC Proposal Recommends SEC Make Changes to Money Market Fund Regulations

The FSOC’s current action does not change MMF regulations, nor does it require the SEC to change MMF regulations.

The request was issued under Section 120 of the Dodd-Frank Act, which permits the FSOC to make recommendations to a “primary financial regulatory agency,” in this

case, the SEC, to make changes in its own regulations governing nonbank financial institutions under its jurisdiction.

The FSOC asks for public comments on three specific recommendations that it may propose to the SEC. After the 60-day comment period ends, the FSOC will review comments and then may vote on whether to formally issue specific recommendations to the SEC. The FSOC may decide to change the recommendations, request further comment, or not issue the recommendations. If the FSOC makes recommendationsto the SEC, the SEC, within 90-days after receiving the recommendations, must decide either to propose the recommendations in its own rulemaking proceeding, or advise the FSOC in writing why it has determined not to follow its recommendations.


FSOC Proposal Recommends SEC Make Changes to Money Market Fund Regulations

If the SEC decides to propose the FSOC’s recommendations in its own rulemaking proceeding, the SEC will then draft a proposing release, vote on it in a public meeting (at which a majority of the SEC commissioners must approve it), publish a notice in the Federal Register, accept comments from the public during a specified comment period (generally 60-days), analyze the comments, conduct an economic analysis required by statute, and then decide, based on its analysis of the comments and other data, whether to adopt the proposal, reject it, or change it. A vote of a majority of the commissioners is required for the adoption of a rule.

If the SEC decides not to propose the changes recommended by the FSOC, it must submit a report to the FSOC explaining why. The FSOC then must file a report with Congress explaining the recommendation and why it was not adopted.According to the Treasury Secretary and other FSOC members, if the SEC independently issues a rule proposal that they believe is acceptable, then the FSOC would no longer pursue the proposed recommendations.


Summary of the FSOC Proposal

Floating Net Asset Value (NAV)This would require MMFs to distribute and redeem shares at a fluctuating share value, rather than the stable $1.00-per-share NAV that they have today using amortized cost accounting and/or penny rounding.



Stable NAV with NAV Buffer and “Minimum Balance at Risk”This would require MMFs to maintain a “buffer” or capital of up to 1% of assets based on their holdings. It also would require that 3% of a shareholder’s highest account value in excess of $100,000 during the prior 30-days be delayed for redemption for 30-days. If a MMF suffers a loss that exceedsthe 1% buffer, the losses would be borne first by the shareholders who most recently redeemed. These requirements would not apply to Treasury MMFs and the 3% minimum balance requirement would not apply to investors with account balances below $100,000.



Stable NAV Buffer and Other MeasuresThis would require each MMF to have a risk-based capital buffer of 3% to allow for absorption of any losses. It would be combined with other measures, such as more stringent diversification, liquidity and disclosure requirements, which also may reduce the required size of the buffer.


Recent Developments

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) By Ronald D. Orol – Securities andExchange Commission chairman Mary Jo White told a panel ofregulators that reform of the $2.7 trillion money-market fund industryis best handled by the agency and that it is important for thecommission to take steps to hike regulations for the industry.

Source: MarketWatch

White: Money-fund reform ‘best handled’ by SEC.


Recent Developments

Despite the fact that the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC)voted unanimously in November to advance proposed changes to moneymarket funds and seek public comment, White told lawmakers thatmoney market funds are “investment products and the SEC should takethe lead” in writing rules to reform them.

By Melanie Waddell Advisorone 4/30/13 - Reprints

Source: Melanie Waddell. Advisorone, April 30, 2013


Recent Developments

SEC’s Paredes at MMX: “WHAT ARE WE SOLVING FOR?”“It’s paramount that money-fund reform be decided within theCommission, “Paredes said. “If the Commission does what the FSOC(Financial Stability Oversight Council) wants us to do, we will haveeroded our independence as the prime regulator of money-market funds.”Avoiding reference to expected new proposals from his agency, Paredessaid that the “chances of breaking the buck now are quite remote preciselybecause of the changes we put in place in 2010,” and that “turning thesame dials” – that is, increasing credit quality and liquidity requirementsand perhaps further reducing maturities – is a “customized” and potentiallyproductive reform option that could avoid “significant harm to theproduct.” (Posted: 3/21/13 – 2013 iMoneyNet)

Source: ©2013 iMoneyNet 3/21/2013


Even More Confusing – Potential Offshore Money Market Fund Regulations:

IOSCO – Oct. 2012 –¡ 15 recommendations as debated within the G20 on shadow banking

Financial Stability Board – Nov. 2012 –¡ Endorsed IOSCO recommendations

European Systemic Risk Board – Dec. 2012 –¡ Further Money Market Fund recommendations

European Commissions Draft Proposal on Money Market Fund Reform –¡ Expected in June 2013


Do you think a stable NAV will remain in place for US Money Market Funds?

1 Yes

2 No

Do you think amortized cost pricing will remain in place for offshore Short-Term Money Market Funds?

1 Yes

2 No

Benjamin CollettePartner, Deloitte Luxembourg

Regulatory Update

Benjamin Collette, Partner

Brussels, June 2013

Clearstream Fund Summit 2013

Regulatory Update

© 2013 Deloitte Tax & Consulting25

The wave has fully started and it will impact the industry even if there is uncertainty on how this will “go live”


Implementation of PRIP regulation (2015*)

Implementation of CRD IV (Jan 2013)

Securities Law Directive proposal (Q3 2012)

PRIP proposal (Jul 2012)

Implementation of ESMA guidelines on suitability (Oct 2012)

Regulatory timeline: Ready for 2013?

2012 2014 20152013

* Estimated date

Implementation of Securities Law Directive (2015*)

Market Abuse Directive II

End of transition period for KIID (Jul 2012)

Implementation of AIFMD (Jul 2013)

Implementation of short-selling Regulation (Nov 2012)

Implementation of Solvency II for firms (Jan 2014)

FATCA effective(Jan 2013)

Financial Transaction Tax

Securities Law Directive

Solvency II

UCITS IV ManCo

PRIP

AIFMD

Short Selling & CDS

Dodd-Frank Act

UCITS IV

UCITS V

FATCA

MiFID II

EMIR

Venture capital regulation

Implementation of EMIR (2013*)

Deadline for entering into FFI agreements (Jun 2013)

Withholdable payments, including interest and dividends, from this date subject to FATCA withholding (Jan 2014)

Deadline for AIFM to seek authorisation (Jul 2014)

Withholding of gross proceeds from the sale of US securities & passthrupayments (Jan 2015)

UCITS V proposal (Jul 2012)

Implementation of MAD ll (end 2015*)

General implementation date for Volcker rule (conditional extensions) (Jul 2014)

Implementation of ESMA guidelines on ETFs (Feb 2013*)

Implementation of French financial transaction tax (Aug 2012)

UCITS V implementation (end 2014*)

ESMA guidelines

Risk Management for SIF

Implementation of ESMA guidelines on compliance (Q1 2013*)

Implementation of EU passport for European Venture Capital Funds (Jul 2013)

Implementation of MiFID II (2015*)

Implementation of SIF risk management

Deadline Lux ManCoCompliance (June2013)


Asset Management related Regulatory Landscape

*Additionally: Capital Requirements Directive IV and Data Protection Regulation

**Includes changes to consumer

protection as well

*** BIS, G20, Financial Stability Board, OECD

Lega

l and

regu

lato

ry b

odie

s fr

om:

Planned Ongoing interpretations

Switz

erla

ndEU

*U

SIn

ter-

natio

nal**

*

Kick-back waiver outlawed

Provision of client’s data (based on

Datenschutz-gesetz)

OECD Model Tax (OECD 26), double tax

treaties

Legal framework

EU alterna-tive investment fund managers

directive (AIFMD)

Collective investments

directive(UCITS IV)

Swiss“too big to fail”

package

Regulation of remuneration

schemes

Protection of deposits

Unfair competition act (UWG)

Amendment of the collective investment schemes

ordinance (KIID)

Abolition / reduction of stamp tax

Withholding tax in double tax

treaties

Memorandum to bilateral

agreements for better market

access

Basel III Revision of Lugano Treaty

Rome I Ordinance

MiFID I Saving tax directive

US Senate: Dodd Frank**

US Treasury: FATCA

Amendment of the Collective

Investment Schemes Act (CISA / KAG)

MiFID II

Market Abuse Directive II

EU Alterna-tive Investment Fund Managers

Directive (AIFMD), Level 2

Collective Investments Directive V

Area of influence: Protection of the financial system Consumer protection Tax Market efficiency Focus of today’s presentation

PRIPs

Discussion paper on

strategy for international tax

matters

Report on macroprudential

oversight in Switzerland

Pre draft Anti-Money

Laundering Act

Amendment of the Stock

Exchange Act

Market Abuse Directive I

ESA standards, guidance and

recommendations

Capital Requirements

Directive III

The global asset management related regulatory landscape can be described across the dimensions geographic origination, regulatory life cycle and areas of change. Currently there are/will be approximately 25 regulatory initiatives on management’s radar screen

EMIR

FINMA position paper on

distribution rules


Our discussion today

Overview of the AIFM Directive1

Overview of the MiFID2 content 2

© 2012 Deloitte Tax & Consulting

The AIFMD


Why the AIFMD?

Regulate an industry that operated under a very light regulatory framework up to now to bring closer to UCITS framework

Regulate1

Achieve a single EU market and common rules (authorization/supervision) for AIF’s and AIFM’s

Harmonize2

Increase transparency towards and protection of investors and stakeholders

Protect Investors3

Increase Responsibility

4 Ensure regulators have proper tools and means to control the systemic risks and increase the responsibility and accountability of AIFM holding or controlling stakes in companies (e.g. Private Equity)

Source : AIFMD; Deloitte Analysis


AIFMD: bringing all alternative asset classes under a regulatory framework

Objectives

• Regulate an industry that operated under a very light regulatory framework up to now to bring closer to UCITS framework

• Regulate1

• Achieve a single EU market and common rules (authorization/supervision) for AIF’s and AIFM’s

• Harmonize2

• Increase transparency towards and protection of investors and stakeholders

• Protect Investors3

• Increase Responsibility

4 • Ensure regulators have proper tools and means to control the systemic risks and increase the responsibility and accountability of AIFM holding or controlling stakes in companies (e.g. Private Equity)

• All the asset classes will be impacted • Most of our large client types will be impacted

Source : AIFMD; Deloitte Analysis

Scope

Actors

Asset services

Asset Managers

Wealth Managers/

Private Bankers

Insurers 3rd party services

Admin.T&CS

Depo. banks

Prod

ucts

Hedge Funds

Private Equity

Real Estate

Vanilla (?)


AIFMD – where do we stand ?

July 2013

July 2014 2015 2018

Level 2Regulation

End of 2012

AIFM performing activities before July 2013 must submit

application for authorization Extension of

passport to non-EU

AIFM/Non-EU AIF (if positive

opinion of ESMA)

Ending of NPPR* (max. timeframe)

t

July 2011

AIFM Directive enacted

Today

*: National Private Placement Regime

Deadline for national

transposition- Applications start

forNew AIFM activities

ESMA Guidelines on remuneration, draft regulatory technical standards and third

country requirements

Commission issues implementing regulation:- Member State of

Reference for non EU AIFMs

- sub threshold AIFMs and UCITS management companies to opt in to the AIFMD regime

Grandfathering Period


The key AIFMD provisions can be structured in 6 pillars

AIFMD Directive

Authorization

• Scope – determination of whether in scope of out of scope

• Upgrade from current structure• Authorization requirements• Capital requirements

Marketing

• EU AIFM vs. non-EU AIFM:• EU AIF• Non-EU AIF• EU passport

• Use of private placement

Specific provisions

• Leverage• Major holdings and control

Functions and service providers

• Depository function• Eligible entities• Depository obligations• Depository liability

• Delegation and sub-delegation• Valuation requirements• Risk and liquidity management

Transparency

• Reporting to the authorities/regulators• Disclosure to investors and potential

investors• Publications in the annual report• Greater investor protection

Conduct of business

• Remuneration guidelines-policy, procedure and committee

• Rules of conduct• Conflict of interests• Professional Indemnity


• Depositary liability and functions• Third country & marketing• Capital requirements / additional

own funds• Independence of RM function• Valuation• Reporting and new disclosures• Remuneration• Internal leverage limits• Liquidity arrangements

AIFMD L2MiFID

Industry Practice

UCITS

Key Compliance Gaps

What are the “key” compliance areas?Level 2


Are target Investment Funds subject to the “Obligation of Restitution” (aka: the strict liability regime)

Yes1

No2

Not always3


Financial instruments vs. Non-financial instrument Depository Liability for Investment Funds

Financial instruments Safekeeping Non-financial instruments Supervision

Main responsibilities Main responsibilities

• Return assets upon demand• Safekeeping of assets• Ensure segregation of assets

• Monitoring duties of non-financial assets and generally, assets that cannot be safekept (e.g. collectible assets, PE/RE, Boats)

• Verifying the ownership of the assets

• “Actual” safekeeping of assets and strict liability regime

• Obligation of results

• “Oversight” of assets

• Obligation of means

Source : Deloitte analysis, ALFI market practices, Circular 08/372


Financial instruments vs. Non-financial instrument Depository Liability for Investment Funds

Source : Deloitte analysis, ALFI market practices, Circular 08/372

AIFMD L2 Regulation, Art 88.2:

“Financial instruments which, in accordance with applicable national law, are only directly registered in the name of the AIF with the issuer itself or its agent, such as a registrar or a transfer agent, shall not be held in custody.”

• Do not take that risk• Apply strict Due Diligence reviews• Select and monitor the target

funds you allow and their service providers carefully

• Look for professional solutions along the execution, settlement and custody chain

© 2012 Deloitte Tax & Consulting

MiFID2

39 © 2013 Deloitte Tax & Consulting

Inducements

Scope of MiFID II

Client categorization

Investment research

Information to clientsand marketing

Client agreements

Suitability and appropriateness

Reporting to clients

Best ExecutionOrder handling

Transaction reporting

Pre- / post-tradetransparency

Record keeping: clientorders & transactions

Client assets

Complaints handling

Personal account dealing

Business continuity

Senior managementresponsibilities

Employees & agentsprocedures

Compliance functions

Internal audit

Risk control

Outsourcing

Organization

Admission

Third-country access

OTF

Systematic internalizers Structured deposits

Commodities

OTC derivatives

Unbundling

MiFID I topics (New) MiFID II topicsChanges of MiFID I topics by MiFID II

MTF

MiFID II scope

Source: Deloitte analysis

Comparison of MiFID I and II in-scope areas

Independent investment advice

Independent portfolio management

New investment products

§Address consequences of MiFID I

§Respond to crisis

§ Increase investor protection

§ Improve transparency for complex products

§ Improve organisation of investment banks

§ Improve access to the European market by non-European countries

MiFID II objectives

Inducements


Prohibiting Inducements

Inducements banned for independent investment advice

Inducements banned for portfolio management

MiFID• Obligation to inform clients of any remuneration paid to the service provider by a third party • Ensure that this remuneration helps enhance the quality of the service provided to clients and is not

detrimental to clients’ interests

MiFID II • Prohibits any remuneration/monetary benefit or “inducement” from a third party, or from a person

acting on behalf of a third party, in the context of the provision of independent advice or in relation to portfolio management.

1

2


In Practice

The inducement is NOT allowed

• Independent advice •Discretionnary portfolio management

The inducement is allowed IF following conditions are met

•Conditions must be satisfied:–The existence, nature and amount of the fee, commission or benefit must be clearly disclosed to the client, in a manner that is comprehensive, accurate and understandable, prior to the provision of the relevant investment or ancillary service

–The fee must be designed to enhance the quality of the relevant service to the client and not impair compliance with the firm’s duty to act in the best interests of the client

The “inducement” is allowed without any conditions

•Proper fees which enable or are necessary for the provision of investment services, such as custody costs, settlement and exchange fees, regulatory levies or legal fees, and which, by their nature, cannot give rise to conflicts with the firm’s duties to act honestly, fairly and professionally in accordance with the best interests of its clients

• !! Proper fees are not consideredinducements

SIMPLIFIED


Trailer fees represent a significant amount of revenues which pays for retail distribution2010

Total funds valueEUR 1,237 billions*

Bonds

Equities and mixed

Money Market

Value *EUR billions

Trailer feesBasis points

20-30

50-70

5-10

Total : 1,237

364

556

317

HIGH LEVEL ESTIMATESLUXEMBOURG ONLY

* Taking only into account cross border sub-funds above 500 M EUR AUMSources: Deloitte analysis; Fitzrovia

Trailer feesEUR millions

4,482

909

3,336

237

• Despite MiFID I, distribution fees are still not presented in a transparent manner

• European investors are accustomed to buying investment funds having the impression of receiving free advice from the distributor ?!?


UK

Advisors and Distributors of

UCIs


UCIs


UCIs

Sweden

Netherlands

Switzerland

Recent Court investigation into the receipt and payment of retrocession fees resulting in significant penalty

RDR = came into effect on 31 December 2012 in the UK and applies to all advisers

Independent Advisers can only be paid for advice and related services through “advisers charging”

Ban on “inducements”for complex products in the Netherlands implementedas of 1st January, 2013

Regulator considering gold plating the MiFID II rules.

Looking at developments in UK and Netherlands with interest Latest trends

• Some distributors of UCIs are applying best practices across multiple jurisdictions by selling the UK RDR share classes

• Germany are also looking into IFA remuneration

National initiatives following the mifid II spirit: Non harmonised rules


Different types of distribution models will be impacted by MiFID II

Direct to Consumers û

Proprietary distribution ?

IFA !

Platforms !

Third party institutional distributors !


MiFID2 – where do we stand ?

October 26 2012 2015 20162013

Possible implementation

EU Level

t

October2011

EC proposalTrialogues between

European Commission, European Council and

the European Parliament

Today

Level 2 proposal ?

Timetable is not clear yetDue by 2015/16?

Level 2 adoptedVote EU parliament

2014

Level 1 adopted?


THREE POTENTIAL ANSWERS TO DEAL WITH MIFID II IMPACTS

New distribution models

Product differentiation

Incentives for distributors

1

2

3

Sources: Deloitte analysis

• Independent?• Limit/reduce the number of «pure» asset managers• Distributors consolidation• Platforms with new services and charging structures• Insurance Wrappers• D2C

• Performance products• Low/No load funds• Quality increase of advice

• Funds with simplified transaction processes

• Funds of funds• Entry fees• Share classes• «Marketing support»


And if we were to be bold…

Define an industry “Trailer Fees Schedule” by asset class and publicize it

1

Create Low-Load share classes/funds and advertise them across Europe in a B2C approach. Use the retained fees as marketing and education budget

2

That does not make sense…3


Q&A Thank you!

Benjamin [email protected]: +352 451 452 809Mobile: +352 621 283 574

mailto:[email protected]

The Future of the Asset Management Industry

An Interview with Dr Joachim FaberChairman of the Deutsche Börse AG Supervisory Board

with Jean-Baptiste de Franssu, Founder and Chairman, INCIPIT

Moderator Richard Glen, Vice President, Clearstream

Richard W. Boyd, Managing Director, Federated InvestorsVincent Dessard, Regulatory Policy Advisor, EFAMAJacques Bofferding, Head of Market & Financing Services UK, BNP Paribas Securities Services

Funds as Collateral

Is your firm already using money market funds, mutual funds or other fund units as collateral?1 Yes, I'm already actively using fund units as collateral to support a variety of

different transactions

2 Yes, I'm am using fund units as collateral to a limited extent and am interested in learning more about where I can use this asset class more effectively

3 No, I'm not using fund units as collateral but am interesting in finding out what opportunities exist

4 No, I'm not using fund units as collateral and I'm not really interested in this.

5 What are funds? What time is lunch?

Should EMIR treat money market funds as a liquid, eligible asset class when discussing appropriate collateral for CCPs?

1 Yes, they are accepted as collateral for IM in the US and should also be accepted for IM coverage in Europe

2 No, I understand why EMIR treats them differently to Dodd-Frank

3 I wasn't aware the EMIR didn't allow CCPs to accept money market funds to be accepted as collateral

If the regulator changes the way that constant NAV funds are treated both from regulatory and liquidity standpoint, how will this change your view on money market funds in general?

1 No change

2 Increased appetite for money market funds, in particular variable NAV funds

3 Decreased appetite for money market funds in general

Moderator Claude Kremer, Partner, Head of investment management, Arendt & Medernach

William Gilson, Managing Director, Aviva InvestorsSheenagh Gordon-Hart, Executive Director, J.P. Morgan EuropeWilliam Jones, Managing Director, ManagementPlusKen Barry, Vice President, State Street Ireland

AIFMD

- The manager issues

- The service providers: depositary issues

- Distribution/passport issues

- What’s next: future of the AIF-brand?

For Alternative Managers: What is the impact of AIFMD on your business model?

1. No real impact on our business model; this is just a compliance exercise resulting in additional cost

2. No real impact on our business model but it does significantly impact our operational, legal and/or governance model set-up

3. Real impact on our business model, in terms of fund raising and/or investment focus

What will be the impact of new rules on depositaries:

1. The increase of costs for depositaries will be significant and will not be outweighted by the advantages conferred by the AIFMD

2. The increase of costs for depositaries will be significant but will be outweighted by the advantages conferred by the AIFMD

3. The increase of costs for depositaries will be marginal and will be outweighted by the advantages conferred by the AIFMD

Going forward, do you expect AIFs to be marketed with or without the EU passport?

1. With the EU passport, because private placement regimes at national levels will be too restrictive

2. Without the EU passport, because national private placement rules will fit the purpose

3. Using both models until 2018 when private placement rules may be abandoned

Do you expect AIF to become another European brand next to UCITS?

1. Yes

2. No

3. Maybe

4. Too early to say at this stage

Moderator Alan Chalmers, Publisher, Funds Europe Magazine

Joost van Leenders, Investment Specialist Allocation & Strategy,BNP Paribas Investment PartnersSteen Grøndahl, Head of Research, Nordea MarketsBruno Colmant, Partner, Roland Berger Strategy Consultants

Just Imagine…

What if: The questions to consider :

Looking at the some of the worst and best scenarios that could face the Funds Industry what do you think? What is the likelihood of the following events?

Scenario 1 The economic collapse of China eg banking collapse, housing bubble bursts, negative real growth. What do you think are the chances?

1 Very Unlikely2 Unlikely3 50/50 chance4 Likely5 Very Likely

Scenario 2 The economic collapse of the US eg political stalemate, increased budget deficit, no growth and currency devaluation. What do you think are the chances ?1 Very Unlikely

2 Unlikely

3 50/50 chance

4 Likely

5 Very Likely

Scenario 3 Quantitative easing has been used to generate liquidity and as a stimulus for growth. What do you think should happen now?

1 It should be stopped now immediately

2 The tap should slowly be turned off

3 Maintain it for the time being

4 The Global economies need further stimulus

5 Even Germany needs to start doing it

Scenario 4 Southern Europe has been the sick man of Europe. In 10 years time could Southern Europe be the powerhouse of Europe?

1 Very Unlikely

2 Unlikely

3 50/50 chance

4 Likely

5 Very Likely

Chairman’s Concluding Remarks

THANK YOU!

Welcome to the 10th Fund Summit - Clearstream · Rule 2a-7 imposes various restrictions on the...

Documents

Transcript of Welcome to the 10th Fund Summit - Clearstream · Rule 2a-7 imposes various restrictions on the...