Responding to EIOPA’s consultation on the introduction of a standard, cross-border, third-pillar product, the industry organisations argued that demand for such plans would come only from the “happy few”, and fail to encourage workers to save more for pensions.
The Dutch Pensions Federation has criticised a proposal by the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA) for a pan-European personal pensions product (PEPP). Germany’s pension fund association (ABA) was also critical of EIOPA’s proposal, describing it as “unconvincing” and arguing that many questions “remained unanswered”.
According to the Dutch Pensions Federation, however, EIOPA’s plan would create an “uneven playing field” between EU-regulated providers and IORPs providing occupational pension schemes. It said the European Commission should focus instead on second-pillar pensions, which encourage “solidarity, risk-sharing and the participation of all participants in governance”. This, it said, has “clear advantages” over purely commercial products, which “place risk and the drive for accrual with the consumer”.
The aba agreed, arguing that “we need more funded pensions in Europe but with the focus on occupational pensions”, as this pillar offered “good value for money”. It said existing systems should be “further developed and enhanced” before new systems were set up.
The Dutch Pensions Federation expressed concerns that cross-border product providers would be unable to offer sufficient service locally. “It would be difficult for a Danish provider of a PEPP to advise a participant in Italy correctly about how to deal with his pension rights during a divorce, unless the provider has a local subsidiary,” it said.
Full article (IPE subscription required)
© IPE International Publishers Ltd.
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