ESMA/2013/641 ESMA and crowdfunding Crowdfunding: Untapping its potential, reducing the risks Workshop, 3 June 2013 Laurent Degabriel Head of Investment and Reporting Division

ESMA initial work on crowdfunding December 2012: 1st survey on crowdfunding; two objectives: Understand the developments of crowdfunding in Europe. Examine how each jurisdiction is dealing with it at national level. February 2013: setting up of a specific task force together with some market participants to answer two questions: Is the perceived lack of consumer s’ regulatory framework in Europe leading to investor detriment? Is this perceived lack creating obstacles to the growth of crowdfunding in Europe? Last May: initial discussion at the latest Board of Supervisors

Main results of the survey: site of the phenomenon Difficult to get robust and consistent data across the various Member States: Early days; Not all platforms are registered; Differences between crowdfunding business models. Some sample sizes as of December 2012 (based on information collected through the survey): France: around 68 platforms operating; Italy: 16 platforms active; 13 million € volume; 2,500 projects completed; Netherlands: 1 platform authorised; 2.5 million € volume (including other active platforms); UK: 1 crowdfunding platform authorised (2 applications for authorisation under consideration).

Main results of the survey: different regulatory approaches Current regulatory framework may apply differently depending on the model used: - Banking regulation; Prospectus directive; MiFID. Exempted activities can be treated differently at national level - Article 3 of MiFID; article 1.2 and article 3.2 of the Prospectus directive. Regulation and controls  Belgium CF initiatives often involve the provision of: Banking services Collective management Investment services Public offerings of securities. July 2012: the FSMA published a communication to clarify the regulatory framework. France CF is regulated for those making a public offering and/or provide investment services. May 2013: joint statement published by AMF and ACP to clarify the regulatory framework. Germany The framework regulates services provided they fall within the scope of German Security Legislation: German Prospectus Legislation. MiFID Directive. September 2012: statement published by Bafin to provide greater clarity as to the regulatory framework of CF. Netherlands AFM is undertaking joint work with the Central Bank and the Ministry of Finance to determine when the Dutch Financial Supervisory Act is applicable: Banking services. Investment services. Prospectus directive. Directive 2010/73/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 (the “Amending Prospectus Directive”), which introduces several amendments to the Prospectus Directive (Directive 2003/71/EC

Key issues for regulators Diversity of crowdfunding platforms and offerings Innovation that cuts across different regulatory sectors Strong appetite from investors/lenders but potential risks exists No consistent pan-European regulation of crowdfunding

Way forward for ESMA? Further analysis needed to better understand crowdfunding business models in Europe Improve the exchange of information on the topic of crowdfunding across Member States Identify similarities and differences in the regulatory treatment of crowdfunding across Europe with the aim of possibly publishing on best practices Continue to follow global regulatory developments Maintain a strong dialogue with the EC to determine how best ESMA may contribute

Questions? laurent.degabriel@esma.europa.eu