View more on these topics

What advisers need to know to keep pace with Mifid II

Regulators are fast pressing on with their plans, but not all stakeholders are doing enough to meet the demanding requirements

Magnifying-Glass-And-Text-Kindle-Contract-700x450.jpg

From 3 January, Mifid II product governance will call for a change in how fund distributors and their asset management partners communicate with each other. But while the deadline is looming, not all stakeholders are doing enough to meet the demanding requirements.

The regulators, on the other hand, are moving forward with their plans. Earlier this month, the European Securities and Markets Authority issued a Q&A detailing what is expected from firms. These guidelines seek to ensure common, uniform and consistent application of the Mifid II requirements across the EU.

Phil Young: 10 things you need to know about Mifid II

The regulation’s stated goals are the reduction of product misselling and the creation of a level playing field, thus facilitating greater, more efficient, cross-border activity.

Closer communication

In addition to increased transparency regarding investment target markets and costs and charges, product manufacturers will need to collect information from their distribution network confirming whether products have been sold to a suitable investor.

This will require closer communication between asset managers and platforms, wealth managers, advisers and so on.

In order to provide key sets of data to their distribution network, fund managers will need to act in consort, which means standardising the information they produce. Luckily, we have seen significant progress in this area, with the European Mifid Template issued by European trade associations in conjunction with industry firms.

Esma’s guidelines also clarified the fact portfolio management and reception/transmission of orders does fall under scope of activity requiring product governance. While this is not what discretionary portfolio managers wanted to hear, it was to be expected.

The rules do allow for an exemption on reporting of sales outside the positive target market where the sale relates to hedging or diversification but there are limitations to that.

Crossover with Priips

Then there is the issue of how Mifid II fits in with other regulations. Here, the regulator has tried to encourage crossover and commonality to come extent.

For example, in its Q&A, ESMA focused on the alignment between Mifid II and Priips, stating that where costs and charges are disclosed in a Priips Key Investor Document, this methodology can be used for Mifid II.

However, if a Priips is limited in its scope when compared to Mifid II and a KID is not available, distributors will need to liaise with their manufacturers.

Priips does provide a target market disclosure framework which could, at first glance, be used in Mifid II – but the problem here is that the method of disclosure differs from that recommended by industry working groups.

Priips’ target market is provided in text, while the EMT provides a coded target market that allows for automation of the process. The upshot of this is that both the Priips KID and Mifid EMT will have to be used by market participants.

Unintended consequence

One final issue (and one that is the most worrying) is the return of data up the sales chain, starting with the end adviser and going back to the original manufacturer.

Esma has clarified the obligation of distributors to provide sales reporting to manufacturers. This confirmation is to be welcomed, as distributors have been focusing on disclosure of costs and charges as their primary obligation to date.

That said, the clarification puts the spotlight on a worrisome difference in approach. On the manufacturer’s side there is a concerted effort through the European Fund and Asset Management Association to define standards for the required data exchange. However, on the distributor side, there is no equivalent to EFAMA coordinating the process, nor any structure advising how to provide sales reporting back to manufacturers.

As a result, there is a risk each jurisdiction may create its own methodology for the sales reporting process. This would not only be an unintended consequence for Mifid II but potentially a very problematic hurdle for advisers and managers further down the line.

John Dowdall is managing director of Silverfinch

Recommended

Big fund groups stall on Mifid II research cost plans

JP Morgan Asset Management and Aviva Investors are among the big fund management names still “reviewing their options” on how to pay for investment research once Mifid II comes into force. Mifid II, which is set to be implemented in less than six months, asks fund managers to decide whether to pay for research themselves […]

Brexit & the mid cap buying opportunities

By Mark Martin, Head of UK Equities at Neptune  Amid the market volatility in the lead-up to the Brexit referendum, there are buying opportunities for the prudent investor, explains Mark Martin. Click here for full article Important Information: Investment risks This fund may have a high volatility rating and past performance is not a guide […]

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

    Leave a comment