View more on these topics

FCA delays Mifid II policy statement

EU-Euro-Europe-Eurozone-700x450.jpg

The FCA has delayed the release of its policy statement on Mifid II until 2017.

The regulator had previously planned to publish a policy statement on the first stage of consultation on Mifid II in the first half of 2016, but says that it will now publish one single policy statement next year.

The initial consultation paper was released at the end of 2015.

In the second consultation on the UK’s implementation of Mifid II, released today, the FCA says: “We previously indicated that we hoped to publish a policy statement on the matters covered by CP15/43 in the first half of 2016. It is now likely we will publish a single policy statement covering all aspects of our implementation in 2017.”

The implementation of Mifid II has been delayed to 3 January 2018 from 3 July 2017, to give firms and regulators more time to make the required changes.

As a result, the FCA says it is “now working to this revised timetable for implementation”. Under the previous timetable, the UK was required to change its laws and regulations by 3 July 2016 to accommodate Mifid II.

In the consultation paper released today, the FCA has also ruled out extending the Mifid II rules on remuneration to a wider group of the industry. It had previously consulted on applying Mifid II’s remuneration rules for sales staff and advisers to non-Mifid II firms.

However, following responses to the initial consultation the regulator has determined that the pay rules will only apply to common platform firms, including Mifid investment firms and dormant account fund operators, but not to collective portfolio management investment firms.

The rules will also apply to article 3 firms and branches of third-country firms.

A statement from the FCA says: “We have not extended the Mifid II remuneration requirements more broadly at this stage, as there are several European initiatives under development that will, or are expected to, specifically address remuneration for particular markets, financial products and types of firms… In particular, the EBA has consulted on guidelines on the remuneration of sales staff that may impact on Mifid and non- Mifid firms.”

“We consider that introducing a broader set of sales staff remuneration provisions at this point would be premature, as it would risk conflicting with other guidance being developed at the European level.”

Recommended

FCA interior logo 620x430
3

Ex-FSA director: We should park FAMR and Mifid II

The referendum has produced a knife-edge result showing a starkly divided UK. The vote Leave means not just Brexit but also a real risk of the UK breaking up, with pressure for another vote on Scottish independence so that Scotland can remain in the EU. This is a double whammy of uncertainty. But it could […]

Gareth James: Could Lifetime Isa exit charge fall foul of Mifid II?

The introduction of the Lifetime Isa, as announced in the Budget, has received a reasonably warm welcome. A suspicion remains it is just a Trojan horse for a pension Isa and some still fear it may negatively impact on automatic enrolment. However, taken at face value, the combination of a savings vehicle targeted at younger […]

The ageing workforce: a cost explosion?

The likely impacts of an ageing population have been under discussion in the UK for a number of years. However, while it has always been recognised that this will affect many employers in some way, what has been less clear is the potential extent of the cost impacts of an ageing workforce.

When it comes to the specifics of health-related employee benefit provision, there has at times been an understandable temptation to see the changes most employers made in the wake of removal of the default retirement age and the exemption the healthcare and risk industry secured in 2011, as the end of the story. However, the reality is that it is probably just the beginning. 

In this Insight Bulletin, Buck Consultants explores how many employers providing such health-related employee benefits are now revisiting their approach in order to ensure future proofing from a legislative perspective where possible, and also to keep some sort of control on the overall costs emanating from an ageing workforce.

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Leave a comment