Regulators to decide over UCITS split

European regulators will decide early this year whether UCITS funds should be reclassified as “complex” and “non-complex” products in order to improve transparency of information about investment strategies.

Under proposed changes to the Market in Financial Instruments Directive (Mifid II), distributors must assess the buyer’s knowledge before selling so-called “complex” UCITS funds” to retail investors. Under current Mifid rules, all UCITS funds are considered as “non-complex” products, meaning the buyer’s knowledge of financial products does not have to be assessed.

Under proposed changes to the Market in Financial Instruments Directive (Mifid II), distributors must assess the buyer’s knowledge before selling so-called “complex” UCITS funds” to retail investors. Under current Mifid rules, all UCITS funds are considered as “non-complex” products, meaning the buyer’s knowledge of financial products does not have to be assessed.

This was a hot topic at the ALFI Spring Conference, which took place in Luxembourg on March 13-14, 2012.

Complex funds are permitted to adopt more elaborate investment strategies than traditional UCITS funds and, says the European Commission, may therefore be difficult for investors to understand. Distributors with “execution-only” sales teams would be particularly affected by the change.

The Mifid II proposal raises questions over the direction of the global UCITS brand, which is marketed to retail investors as a single shell for simple funds. Total assets of UCITS funds stood at E5,425bn in November 2011, according to the latest available figures from the European Fund Asset Management Association (EFAMA).

Some supporters of the change believe it will bolster expansion into Asia, which wants to emulate the UCITS model with its own version. In November 2011, the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation forum (APEC) said it welcomed “further development work to help explore the establishment of a pilot Asia Region Funds Passport (ARFP)”.

Asia will be a key market for UCITS fund distribution in the year ahead and more than 5,000 UCITS funds are already being sold there. The region’s growth story is attractive to fund managers reaching out for new revenues as Western economies struggle with government deficits and the possibility of recession in the Eurozone. In response to the increased flow of money, Hong Kong and Singapore have imposed restrictions on alternative fund managers.

Separate labelling of UCITS funds may also help protect investors and manage expectations, it is claimed. Under the new rules, “complex” UCITS funds would require asset managers to vet potential customers and ensure that clients and funds are more appropriately matched and less chance of risk-adverse investors experiencing unexpected losses. The so-called “non-complex” UCITS would remain a trusted source for savers and investors seeking a core portfolio of low-risk investment vehicles.

But those against the Mifid II proposal are concerned that labelling UCITS funds along their investment policies goes against the principle under which they were created in 1985 – a uniform highly-regulated product which offers investors a high level of protection while simultaneously restricting investment policies which are more difficult to understand. For example, the use of hedging techniques is allowed only to a limited extent.

The argument over whether some types of UCITS funds should be reclassified will intensify as regulators finalise their plans. Introducing a “complex” classification for structured funds may help the UCITS product to expand into Asia at a time when a possible rival regime is planned there, say supporters. It would also gold-plate investor protection by ensuring fund managers match their products with appropriate investors. Conversely, such a split may create confusion among investors who understand and trust the UCITS brand as a single umbrella for lower-risk investment vehicles. Whatever happens, UCITS funds may no longer remain as straightforward as they were intended to be.

Martin Bock
Senior Manager, Fund Markets
Products & Client Segments

© 2012 RBC Investor Services Limited. RBC Investor Services Limited is a holding company that provides strategic direction and management oversight to its affiliates, including RBC Investor Services Trust, which operates in the U.K. through a branch authorised and regulated by the Financial Services Authority and in the DIFC through a branch authorised and regulated by the Dubai Financial Services Authority. In Australia, RBC Investor Services Trust is authorised to carry on financial services business by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission under the AFSL (Australian Financial Services Licence) number 295018. All are licensed users of the RBC trademark (a registered trademark of Royal Bank of Canada) and Dexia trademark, and conduct their global custody and investment administration business under the RBC Investor Services brand name.

These materials are provided by RBC Investor Services for general information purposes only. RBC Investor Services makes no representation or warranties and accepts no responsibility or liability of any kind for their accuracy, reliability or completeness or for any action taken, or results obtained, from the use of the materials. Readers should be aware that the content of these materials should not be regarded as legal, accounting, investment, financial, or other professional advice, nor is it intended for such use. Trademark of RBC Investor Services Limited.

The views contained in the materials are those that expressed by the respondents to the poll and therefore are not those of RBC Investor Services. ™

0 Comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.