On 9 October 2018, PensionsEurope answered to EIOPA consultation on the taxonomy of new pension data reporting requirements. In our answer, we thanked the ECB and EIOPA for a constructive dialogue during the last years on preparing their new pension data reporting requirements. At the ECB workshop on 10 October 2018 we continued that open dialogue with the ECB, EIOPA, NCBs/NCAs, Eurostat and OECD, and we provided further comments and clarifications to them.
PensionsEurope shares the aim of EIOPA and the ECB to have better, comparable and relevant information on occupational pensions in Europe, and we welcome that the ECB, EIOPA, Eurostat, and OECD are aligning their reporting standards for pension funds.
We support a principle to leave flexibility to the NCAs in collecting data and providing it to the ECB and EIOPA. A starting point should remain the so-called ‘one-stop-shop’-concept, and considering the amount of information already available, the NCAs should play a central role therein.
In our answer, we suggested several amendments to better accommodate the needs of pensions funds. They particularly refer to the time frame, the binding nature of the XBRL format and the costs related to its introduction including licence and implementation costs.
PensionsEurope published a report on drivers of equity investments by pension funds on 25 September 2018. It is based on a survey which PensionsEurope conducted amongst our Members in the summer 2018.
The survey report supplements our comments to the CMU Sub Expert Group on pension funds on the main drivers in cross-border investment by pension funds and our Pension Fund Statistics. We hope and believe our comments are relevant to the upcoming “study on the drivers of investments in equity by insurers and pension funds” which DG FISMA has commissioned to Deloitte and CEPS to carry out by the end of 2018.
PensionsEurope welcomes the European Commission public consultation on fitness check on supervisory reporting. We find it important that the Commission regularly conducts fitness checks on supervisory reporting to ensure that the ESAs work effectively, and supervisory activities remain proportionate in their scope.
In general, pension funds are embedded in national social and labour law and supervisory reporting should take into account specificities of pension funds, National Supervisory Authorities are responsible for supervising pension funds, supervisors should consider very carefully which information is really relevant and needed (as reporting and collecting information always result in cost), and supervisors and policymakers should not have a bank bias towards pension funds.
Please find PensionsEurope answer to the EC consultation here.
PensionsEurope published today a position paper on smoothing WHT procedures beyond Code of Conduct - EU tax register of recognised pension institutions. In our paper, we propose to the European Commission to establish an EU tax register of recognised pension institutions in order that Member States can reciprocally and automatically recognise pension institutions. Furthermore, in many countries pension institutions invest cross border via specialised investments funds and/or vehicles to increase the economies of scale, and it is important to ensure a tax-neutral treatment of these investment structures as well.
PensionsEurope today published a position paper with its views on the review of the mandate of the European Supervisory Authorities (ESAs).
In our paper, we highlight the fact that pension funds do not fall under a harmonised European framework. National supervisors are therefore best equipped to take into account the specificities of pension funds, which are embedded in domestic labour and social law. This means that there less scope for supervisory convergence for pension funds and the mandate of EIOPA should reflect this. As pension funds are not directly supervised by the ESAs, they also feel they should not contribute directly to their budgets through industry fees.
Moreover, the governance structure of EIOPA should ensure that decision-making is underpinned by sufficient expertise in the area of pensions. We feel that individual stress test results of IORPs should not be disclosed and the Board of Supervisors should remain the decision-making body for the stress tests.
Finally, we welcome a bigger focus on better regulation and a stronger role for the Stakeholder Groups.
The Commission held a public hearing on simpler withholding tax procedures for Europe today to present the Code of conduct on withholding tax (WHT) to stakeholders and have a lively exchange of views. In today’s hearing, Mr Matti Leppälä, Secretary General/CEO of PensionsEurope, participated in the first panel discussion on the current state of play, why the WHT procedures are costly and lengthy, and to what extent implementing the code would improve the situation. Please find some of his remarks in our press release.
PensionsEurope today published a position paper on the proposal of the European Commission to introduce a EU legislative framework on a Pan-European Personal Pension Product (PEPP).
PensionsEurope believes that a European framework for voluntary personal pensions is particularly needed and useful for those who don’t have access to workplace pensions, such as self-employed and workers in new forms of employment, or where personal pensions offered at the national level are not reliable or attractive. The PEPP could be especially useful for young European citizens who have more and more often a career in multiple Member States.
However, PensionsEurope considers that some amendments are needed to the proposal if the initiative is to be successful. In particular, it will be important to ensure that the proposal will not negatively affect already existing and well-functioning pension systems.
You can read the PensionsEurope press release here.
You can read the PensionsEurope position paper on the PEPP here.
PensionsEurope has responded to the European Commission consultation on investor duties relating to integrating sustainability factors in investment decision-making. In our submission, we argue that there are many best practices and approaches of how pension funds consider sustainability factors. While pension funds increasingly will need to address societal expectations on responsible investment, we believe that a prescriptive, mandatory approach would not be able to take account of this diversity of existing approaches. You can read our response here.