Pan European Pension Product

Currently, there is a dynamic and ongoing improvement in life expectancies that is not accounted for in pension systems designed to provide financial security in retirement.All over Europe, there are currently employment-based (2nd pillar) pension funds and first pillar pay-as-you-go (PAYG) state pensions systems that are facing huge funding deficits as a result of that. Recently both the EU parliament and the EU Council took their stance on the introduction of an European legal framework for Pan-European Personal Pensions (“PEPP”) an “European 401(k) account” that may prospectively be provided by, amongst others, banks, fund managers, and insurance companies. The introduction of the PEPP could potentially be a solution to mitigate the growing challenge of this so-called “pension gap”, i.e. the gap in savings most people have to ensure they have a good standard of living in retirement.Over the next months the EU parliament and EU Council will be exchanging on how to combine their perspectives in view of a final vote for the introduction of a Pan-European Pension Product Regulation (“PEPPR”).In anticipating a final vote, this contribution discusses the huge opportunity that the introduction of a PEPPR offers to the Luxembourg fund industry. For that purpose, this contribution first provides an overview of the PEPP as a “wrapper (Fund) product”.This article then discusses the PEPP (product) passport and the PEPPR governance provisions (intermediary, product and sales regulation) applicable to PEPP providers, distributors and depositaries. It continues by discussing the opportunities for the Luxembourg fund industry and then concludes.

In June 2017, the European Commission proposed a framework for a pan-European pension product (PEPP) designed to give EU citizens a new option for good value and safe voluntary supplementary pension saving. This could support pension adequacy and at the same time provide another source of long-term investment funds and so help to meet the objectives of the capital markets union (CMU). Together with a proposal for a regulation for a pan-European personal pension product, the Commission also presented a recommendation to encourage Member States to grant the same tax treatment to PEPPs as they grant to similar existing national personal pension products. On 11 January 2018, the Conference of Presidents of the European Parliament authorised its Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON) to draft a legislative own-initiative report on the 'Tax treatment of pension products, including the pan-European personal pension product 2018/2002(INL)', to be prepared by the rapporteur Sophia in 't Veld (ALDE, the Netherlands) – see the proposal for a motion for a resolution in Annex 1. All legislative own-initiative reports are automatically accompanied by a European added value assessment (EAVA). The purpose of an EAVA is to support a European Parliament legislative initiative by providing an assessment of the potential added value of taking action at EU level. Two European Parliament draft reports have been prepared as part of the process leading to a decision regarding the European Commission PEPP proposal and PEPP recommendation. The first draft report covers the PEPP proposal and the second the PEPP recommendation. This EAVA analyses both the PEPP proposal and the recommendation and provides information in support of the committee’s draft report on the Commission's PEPP recommendation. There exists clear evidence for the European added value to be achieved through the PEPP. As the PEPP facilitates cross-border mobility by providing a simpler pension product for people who have worked or who plan to work in several Member States, it would contribute to the free movement of people. An economic dimension derives from the fact that supranational operations deliver greater benefits to Members States (increased voluntary pension savings), savers (better and cheaper products, larger variety of products) and service providers (larger customer base, simplified legislation, fewer cross-border transaction costs).

Regulation 2019/1238 concerning a pan-European personal pension product has entered into force on 14 August 2019. As a result, it becomes much easier for EU citizens to contribute to a personal pension product on a voluntary basis. It is expected that as from 2021, financial institutions are able to offer a pan-European personal pension product (PEPP) to EU citizens. The tax treatment of the PEPP is not included in the Regulation. However, ECJ case law on tax treatment of private pension products is applicable. In this article, the tax treatment of the PEPP is analysed. The focus of this article is on tax related aspects in case of contributions to a PEPP in one Member State, while receiving PEPP retirement benefits in another Member State. The article among other discusses granting tax incentives to the PEPP by Member States, taxation of PEPP retirement benefits in case a tax treaty is applicable and taxation in case the accumulated capital of a PEPP or the saver moves to another Member State.

In July 2012, the European Commission asked the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority ('EIOPA'), in the broader context of efforts to develop private funded pensions, to advise on a legal framework for a Single Market for PPPs. Following a Discussion Paper, a Preliminary Report, a draft advice and a Final Report published by EIOPA, Regulation (EU) 2019/1238 ('PEPPR') was adopted on 20 June 2019. The PEPPR establishes a 2nd regime (also known as the 29th regime) that serves as an alternative uniform European system to different national regimes allowing private parties (providers and PPP holders) to choose whether the European or a national regime governs their legal relationship.The PEPPR, that introduced a European (product) passport for Pan-European Pension Products ('PEPPs'), is in line with the advice in the 2011 White Paper on Pensions that addresses enhancement of the development of private retirement savings in realizing efficiency gains through diversification, innovation and scales of economies on the side of pension providers. Apart from that, the introduction of the European product passport for PPPs might help to overcome the 'financing gap' for small and medium-sized enterprises ('SMEs').Developing complementary personal retirement savings is seen as a regulatory tool to develop third-pillar pension systems in EEA Member States where occupational pensions are not well-developed. The PEPPR seeks to create a regulatory framework for personal pensions that could play a role in securing pensions, reducing the burden on public pension schemes and increasing pension income. It serves as an answer to overcome the pressure being put by the low interest rates on funded schemes. Furthermore, the PEPPR has as an additional objective to diminish the obstacles to labour mobility and adapt to the general shift from defined benefit ('DB') to defined contribution ('DC') schemes. The PEPPR, thus, plays a major role in overcoming the 'pensions gap'. This contribution discusses PEPPs as a 'wrapper product'. Furthermore, this contribution explains the common regulatory framework for PEPPs in harmonizing regulation applying to PEPP providers/distributors, depositaries/custodians, the position of PEPP customers, the standardization of PEPP 'product regulation' and sales regulation. It concludes by explaining that the PEPPR establishes a 'wrapper product' investment triangle that is, depending upon the PEPP contract employed, based upon the underlying investment triangle under Directive 2011/61/EU ('AIFMD'), Directive 2009/65/EC ('UCITSD') or the (optional) investment triangle under Directive (EU) 2016/2341 ('IORPD II').

EIOPA has recently proposed to introduce standardized pan European personal pension products (PEPPs) that would be available in the accumulation phase, jointly with national personal pension plans. This paper analyzes the PEPPs from the perspective of the academic literature and proposes to use the PPR concept of Bovenberg and Nijman (2015) to categorize product characteristics, both in the accumulation phase as in the decumulation phase. The PPR concept can also be used to incorporate design features of the decumulation phase in the PEPP itself. A first important lesson to be learned from the academic literature is that the aim of stable income provision requires a framework where future asset returns are hedged rather than the asset only approach underlying the PEPPs. Whereas EIOPA proposes to allow switching between PEPPs only infrequently, the literature suggests that liquidity concerns are not a very convincing reason to restrict switching. Switching costs could be linked to the degree of liquidity of the portfolio. A better motivation for restriction on switching seems to be that investors might well put too much focus on recent investment performance as a predictor of future performance. As far as information disclosure is concerned more attention is recommended to the impact of biometric risks. More attention is also recommended for tax issues, because current tax provisions for national PPPs seem to be rooted in characteristics of the decumulation phase that can be avoided in the second regime. The paper concludes with a discussion of the potential impact of the PEPP proposal on PPP provision in four European countries.

Faced with ageing populations, most EU Member States have taken measures to reform their public pension systems with a view to preserving the sustainability of their public finances. Although considerable progress has been made, many Member States will need to do more still given the long-term trends they are facing. In simple terms, the choice boils down to accepting either a further increase in retirement ages or reduced levels of public pension schemes’ provision. In the latter case, voluntary private pension products can play a central role in helping pensioners to maintain an adequate level of income. However, too many Europeans are still channelling their savings into bank deposits rather than supplementary pension schemes, despite lower returns. This situation, which leads to an under-supply of long-term capital for investing in productive activities necessary to support sustainable economic growth, results from a number of supply and demand-side constraints that could be addressed through the creation of an effective European internal market for voluntary private pension products. This would both help pensioners to maximise their savings, while also supporting the long-term growth of the economy.

This article discusses the effectiveness of the pan-European Personal Pension Product (PEPP) Tax Recommendation and the accompanying PEPP "portability service''. It provides an overview of certain anticipated problems in relation to the future taxation of PEPPs in Europe that led to this initiative, followed by an analysis of the effectiveness of the Recommendation and PEPP ''portability service'' in eradicating such problems. Finally, it reviews options for an alternative EU-wide PEPP tax regime.

A few years ago, this magazine addressed some pension issues. It seems time for an update on these matters. What is anno 2018 the state of affairs in the EU regarding pensions? In this article, we will explore the European pension landscape further and highlight developments that in our view form the basics of what we refer to an 'EU Pension Union'. We will also discuss the 'Pan European Pension Product' (PEPP), the latest of the European developments of the internal pension market, which could be an improvement for undertakings and individuals, who are faced with many different pension schemes and pension funds in several jurisdictions.

This edited volume takes a closer look at various European pension-plan models and the recent challenges, trends and predictions related to the design of such schemes. The contributors analyse new ideas, both from national governments and European institutions, and consider current debates on topics such as the Capital Markets Union (CMU) and the so-called ‘European Pillar of Social Rights’ – calling for a new approach to social policy at the European level in response to common challenges, such as ageing and the digital revolution.This interdisciplinary work embraces economic, financial and legal perspectives, while focusing on previously selected coherence aspects in order to ensure that the analyses are comprehensive and globally consistent.