|
|
In a letter to the Dutch Parliament and EIOPA, it argued that a PEPP would serve only third-pillar pension systems and questioned whether the vehicle would “add anything” to existing arrangements. It also claimed EIOPA had failed to determine exactly which problem the PEPP would solve, or what its scope would be. “Second-pillar products in the Netherlands,” it pointed out, “are, like in many other European countries, the domain of the social partners, which conclude the pensions contract after negotiations on labour conditions.”
Last month, the Dutch Pensions Federation questioned the added value of a PEPP, and warned of the difficulty of achieving a level playing field for pension funds, insurers and banks due to differences in regulatory regimes.
Full article (IPE subscription required)