|
|
However, despite parts of the industry welcoming revisions of the proposed universal benefit statement, concerns remain that the passed amendments contradict the European Commission’s stated aim of improving transparency.
Sophie In’t Veld, a shadow rapporteur on the revised Directive, welcomed the removal of “unnecessary obstacles” for cross-border activity but said her parliamentary group of liberal MEPs wanted to go further, allowing for “innovative” arrangements.
The Commission’s initial proposal suggested that environmental risks be assessed as part of the proposed wider evaluation of a pension fund’s risk profile each time a “significant” change occurred.
Ahead of the vote, Better Finance’s Guillaume Prache impressed upon Hayes the need for the PBS to be as transparent as measures in place in the US.
In a letter from Better Finance to Hayes and ECON chair Roberto Gualtieri, Prache strongly protested against any amendments that could be “a very significant step back in the protection of EU pension savers”.
The letter also said the amendments risked “a severe watering down of the information that IORP participants would receive”.
It said any action to undermine transparency could contradict the Commission’s recent work around the Capital Markets Union.
“The recent Capital Markets Union Action Plan expressly asks the European Supervisory Authorities to promote the transparency of long-term retail and pension products and an analysis of the actual net performance and fees,” Prache said.
The approved draft will function as the parliament’s negotiating position as the trialogue negotiations get underway between member states, MEPs and the Commission.
Full article (IPE subscription required)