Member States were invited to update on cross-border activity for this one year period of June 2012 to June 2013, from the perspective of the home state.
The update asked for a report on new cross-border IORPs homed in their territory, including descriptive data such as benefit type (Defined Benefit or Defined Contribution) and the number of members and beneficiaries involved in the cross-border arrangement. Respondents also reported on any new host state activity of existing cross-border IORPs, since it is possible for an existing institution to expand its activity into another Member State.
The update also asked whether or not any established IORP had withdrawn from previously reported cross-border activity.
Following on from the three most recent reports, an additional question was asked as to whether any existing IORPs have never had any members in the host state in relation to the cross-border activity. This was designed to find out about dormant or inactive IORPs that had not formally withdrawn but were not operating as active IORPs.
As is now well documented, Member States have adopted different approaches as to how they identify and/or recognise a cross-border arrangement. In particular, it must not be assumed that notification of a cross-border arrangement by the home state is agreed with by the host state and has been followed by actual cross-border membership. Therefore some care must be taken in reaching conclusions relating to home and host state activity and making comparisons between states. Nevertheless, this report continues to facilitate the tracking of individual states’ cross-border activity over time and provides a view of the overall level of activity across the EEA.
Overall results
The results of the 2013 survey show that during the 12 month period from June 2012 to June 2013, two new cross-border IORPs have been reported.
The results also show the cessation of cross-border activity by three IORPs during the reporting period. Information on withdrawals is only presented where the Member State Competent Authority has been formally notified of a withdrawal, and the full procedures for withdrawal have been undertaken by the IORP in question. The requirements for this may vary from state to state.
In querying the responses from the Member States, it emerged that in one case, an IORP had previously been included as a new cross-border IORP when in fact it had only expanded its scope of operation into a new Member State. This has been corrected in the table.
Therefore, in total, we see that the picture is one of a decrease in the number of IORPs operating cross-border to 82, compared to the 84 in last year’s report.
For comparison, the 2012 report showed no change in the number of IORPS. The 2011 and 2010 reports showed increases of 8 per cent and 3 per cent respectively.
Next steps
This report will be made available to market participants via the EIOPA website. EIOPA intends to continue to seek an understanding of market developments in this area.
Full report
© EIOPA
Key
Hover over the blue highlighted
text to view the acronym meaning
Hover
over these icons for more information
Comments:
No Comments for this Article