European Policymakers Lock Horns Once More on PRIIPs

July 27, 2020

In the face of its greatest social and economic challenge, last week the EU managed to agree on a historic spending package worth €750 billion to curb the catastrophic economic impacts of the coronavirus pandemic. After almost five days of grueling and intense negotiation, consensus eventually was reached across EU member states on a recovery deal. However, such solidarity and consensus building unfortunately is not always possible across the whole of the EU policy-making spectrum, as the latest flare-up over the packaged retail investment and insurance-based products (PRIIPs) regime testifies. PRIIPS has long been a thorn in the side of European regulatory bodies.   

Last week, the European regulators and the European Commission (the commission) locked horns once more as the controversial rules jumped to the forefront of the financial regulation agenda. The European Supervisory Authorities (ESAs) are a triumvirate of EU regulators who oversee the entire EU capital markets. They are composed of:

  1. European Banking Authority (EBA)
  2. European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA)
  3. European Insurance and Occupational Pension Authority (EIOPA)


Here’s what happened: last week, the ESAs co-signed a letter to the European Commission (the EU’s political Executive branch) on PRIIPs informing them that they had collectively failed to reach an agreement on a compromise solution aimed at rectifying long standing problems with PRIIPs. The EBA and ESMA had managed to achieve qualified majority support (though not without dissent) but EIOPA didn’t approve the standards at all. Therefore, they were “not in a position to formally submit” a final proposal to the Commission.

Unique Situation

With the entire PRIIPs regime in limbo, the question whether a full rewrite of the rules is needed - rather than tinkering at the edges – once more rises to the fore. This is the first time the ESAs have failed to endorse their own suggested technical standards and it puts the PRIIPs ball well and truly back in the Commission’s court. Throughout the PRIIPs review process, and in the face of vocal industry feedback regarding performance disclosures, the Commission has to date staunchly defended the regulations and resisted calls for a more comprehensive overhaul. These circular arguments, however, cannot continue indefinitely, and with PRIIPs due to be applied to UCITS funds across Europe, the issue must be concluded at some point whether through Level 1 amendments (a total legislative overhaul of PRIIPs) or through targeted concessions by the Commission. The stalemate must be broken by one of these means. 

The outstanding bones of contention are not new: issues relating to currently prescribed forward-looking projections  as opposed to historic performance disclosure at the center of the disagreement. The current and proposed rules require fund providers to publish projections of future performance in different market conditions. Opponents claim the projections are unreliable and suggest excessively optimistic outcomes. As a result, there is a strong preference to also use historic performance disclosures, since the formula used for the future projections have created much uncertainty and anxiety already across industry and with investors. 

There remains a cohort of ESA Board members who have stated that they would prefer the past performance graph currently utilized within UCITS key investor information documents (KIID) to be included in the PRIIPs Key Investor Document (KID), rather than in a separate publication. The ESA letter strongly reiterates the historical performance point. This remains the primary stumbling block preventing a PRIIPs consensus. A previous ESA proposal to allow funds to publish historical scenarios based on past performance data was already rejected by the European Commission who felt such a move was fundamentally opposed to the original objective of the PRIIPs legislation.

Consensus, Stalemate, or Start Again?

This is where I would normally suggest what the next steps are, or the most likely outcome. As alluded to above, however, this is PRIIPs - the real problem child of EU regulation - and it’s difficult to ascertain what comes next. The commission must now consider the letter carefully before discussing once more with the ESAs. The options at their disposal appear to be threefold (with one not really an option at all):

  1. Row back on the Commission’s prior position on historic performance disclosures and bring the PRIIPs saga to an end;
  2. Concede that consensus is not possible through revision of existing technical standards and request a full legislative overhaul of PRIIPs through Level 1 legal revisions.
  3. Request the ESAs once more reconsider the Regulatory Technical Standards – which leaves PRIIPs in limbo.


The only thing that appears certain about PRIIPs is that I will at some point be doing another blog on this seemingly never-ending regulatory saga.

Brown Brothers Harriman & Co. (“BBH”) may be used as a generic term to reference the company as a whole and/or its various subsidiaries generally. This material and any products or services may be issued or provided in multiple jurisdictions by duly authorized and regulated subsidiaries.This material is for general information and reference purposes only and does not constitute legal, tax or investment advice and is not intended as an offer to sell, or a solicitation to buy securities, services or investment products. Any reference to tax matters is not intended to be used, and may not be used, for purposes of avoiding penalties under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code, or other applicable tax regimes, or for promotion, marketing or recommendation to third parties. All information has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but accuracy is not guaranteed, and reliance should not be placed on the information presented. This material may not be reproduced, copied or transmitted, or any of the content disclosed to third parties, without the permission of BBH. All trademarks and service marks included are the property of BBH or their respective owners.© Brown Brothers Harriman & Co. 2020. All rights reserved.

This browser is not fully supported by our public website and may not display or function as expected for this reason. Please note, the Infuse Portal and BBH client applications fully support the IE 11 browser.

Important Information for Non-U.S. Residents

You are required to read the following important information, which, in conjunction with the Terms and Conditions, governs your use of this website. Your use of this website and its contents constitute your acceptance of this information and those Terms and Conditions. If you do not agree with this information and the Terms and Conditions, you should immediately cease use of this website. The contents of this website have not been prepared for the benefit of investors outside of the United States. This website is not intended as a solicitation of the purchase or sale of any security or other financial instrument or any investment management services for any investor who resides in a jurisdiction other than the United States1. As a general matter, Brown Brothers Harriman & Co. and its subsidiaries (“BBH”) is not licensed or registered to solicit prospective investors and offer investment advisory services in jurisdictions outside of the United States. The information on this website is not intended to be distributed to, directed at or used by any person or entity in any jurisdiction or country where such distribution or use would be contrary to law or regulation. Persons in respect of whom such prohibitions apply must not access the website.  Under certain circumstances, BBH may provide services to investors located outside of the United States in accordance with applicable law. The conditions under which such services may be provided will be analyzed on a case-by-case basis by BBH. BBH will only accept investors from such jurisdictions or countries where it has made a determination that such an arrangement or relationship is permissible under the laws of that jurisdiction or country. The existence of this website is not intended to be a substitute for the type of analysis described above and is not intended as a solicitation of or recommendation to any prospective investor, including those located outside of the United States. Certain BBH products or services may not be available in certain jurisdictions. By choosing to access this website from any location other than the United States, you accept full responsibility for compliance with all local laws. The website contains content that has been obtained from sources that BBH believes to be reliable as of the date presented; however, BBH cannot guarantee the accuracy of such content, assure its completeness, or warrant that such information will not be changed. The content contained herein is current as of the date of issuance and is subject to change without notice. The website’s content does not constitute investment advice and should not be used as the basis for any investment decision. There is no guarantee that any investment objectives, expectations, targets described in this website or the  performance or profitability of any investment will be achieved. You understand that investing in securities and other financial instruments involves risks that may affect the value of the securities and may result in losses, including the potential loss of the principal invested, and you assume and are able to bear all such risks.  In no event shall BBH or any other affiliated party be liable for any direct, incidental, special, consequential, indirect, lost profits, loss of business or data, or punitive damages arising out of your use of this website. By clicking accept, you confirm that you accept  to the above Important Information along with Terms and Conditions.

 
1BBH sponsors UCITS Funds registered in Luxembourg, in certain jurisdictions. For information on those funds, please see bbhluxembourgfunds.com


captcha image

Type in the word seen on the picture

I am a current investor in another jurisdiction