|
|
In a letter to the European Commission, however, it argues that Brussels should first conduct a “wider” survey that also considers improving the second pillar.
Last year, responding to a consultation by European supervisor EIOPA, the industry body said it had “many doubts about the umpteenth third-pillar product, which would only benefit the happy few”.
It now believes a European standard would be needed to achieve additional pensions saving and could contribute to investments in the European economy.
The Federation’s take on the European Commission’s proposal is far more supportive than that of the Dutch government, which described a European third-pillar pensions product as “superfluous”.
The industry group, however, emphasised that it would still be better to promote second-pillar pensions due to the benefits of scale and lower costs.
The Federation warned, however, that a personal pension must not undermine existing second-pillar systems and said it feared that an opened-up internal market could trigger a “cost-driven race to the bottom” for pensions.
It also highlighted the importance of rules for the benefits phase of a European third-pillar product.