Search results

This study aims to examine whether the methodology proposed by the European Supervisory Authorities (ESAs) within Delegated Regulation (European Union) 2017/653 for the calculation of market risk of certain packaged retail and insurance-based investment products (PRIIPs) is the most appropriate.

Risk models are put into effect to validate the appropriateness of the methodology announced by ESAs. ESAs have announced that the unit-linked (UL) products, labeled as Category II PRIIPs, will be subject to the Cornish–Fisher value-at-risk (CFVaR) methodology for their market risk assessment. We test CFVaR at 97.5% confidence level on 70 UL products, and we test Cornish–Fisher expected shortfall (CFES) at the same confidence level, which acts as a counter methodology for CFVaR.

The paper provides empirical insights about the Cornish-Fisher (CF) expansion being a method that incorporates the possibility of financial instability. When CFVaR by ESAs is calculated, it is shown that CF is in general a more robust risk model than the simpler historical ones. However, when CFES is applied, important points are derived. First, only in half of the occasions the CF expansion can be considered as a reliable method. Second, the CFES is a more coherent risk measure than CFVaR. We conclude that the CF expansion is unable to accurately estimate the market risk of UL products when excessive fat-tailed or non-symmetrical distributions are present. Hence, we suggest that a different methodology could also be considered by the regulatory bodies which will capture the excessive values of products in financial distress.

Literature, both theoretical and applied, regarding PRIIPs, is not extended. Although business and regulators research has begun to intensify in the last two years, to our knowledge this is one of the first studies that uses the CFES methodology for market risk assessment of Category II PRIIPs. In addition, we use a unique data set from a country in the headwinds of the recent financial crisis. This research contributes both to the academic and business community by enriching the existing literature and aiding risk managers in assessing the market risk of certain Category II PRIIPs. Considering the recent efforts of the regulatory authorities at the beginning of 2020 to implement certain amendments to the PRIIPs, we indicate relative risks related with the calculation of the market risk of the aforementioned products. Our findings could contribute to regulatory authorities’ persistent efforts in wrapping up this ongoing project.

Product intervention power is introduced under the markets in financial instruments regulation (MiFIR) and packaged retail and insurance-based investment products (PRIIPs) Regulation for all EU Member States and gives National Competent Authorities (NCAs), European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), and European Banking Authority (EBA) powers to monitor financial products (and services) under their supervision and to “temporarily” prohibit or restrict the marketing, distribution, or sale of certain financial instruments, or to intervene in relation to certain financial activities or practice. This extends the supervisory measures defined in MiFID II to any PRIIPs (including insurance-based investment products “IBI products”) that would not otherwise fall under the scope of MiFID II. Product intervention power is given to the NCAs, and in order to use power, it requires to take the specifics of the individual case into account and a series of conditions, criteria, and factors to fulfill. Moreover, ESMA and the EBA have a type of control function and ability to override national regulators on product. The aim of product intervention powers is to ensure strengthening of investor protection, but given the potential significant impact of this power, calls into question of possibility to delay innovation and slow down product developments on the capital market.

This paper provided an overview of supervisory measures on product intervention, that is, scope of the product intervention power, criteria, factors, and risks which have to be taken into consideration when using this regulator’s tool.

In the European Union, the Undertakings for Collective Investment in Transferable Securities Directive (UCITS IV) requires fund management companies to provide a Key Investor Information Document (UCITS KIID) for investors. This papers uses archival data from the Finnish mutual fund market to test how the regulation's information disclosure requirements concerning past performance, risk and fund fees are associated with mutual fund flows.

The study uses archival data on the mutual funds market in Finland to test how the regulation relating to retail investors' information requirements is associated with mutual fund flows.

Our findings suggest that the UCITS KIID predicts retail investors' fund flows. While past performance is associated with fund flows throughout the observation period, retail investors appear to have become more sensitive to fund fees and invest in less risky funds following the adoption of the UCITS IV period.

Information relating to fund fees and risk appears to be relevant to retail investors, which should be acknowledged in future iterations of short-form disclosure and in mutual fund marketing.

This paper is the first to assess the significance of KIID in actual market environment.

The purpose of this paper is to assess the impact of the markets in financial instruments directive II (MiFID II) on investment services in the Baltic states.

The authors take an exploratory, qualitative approach, based on data conducted from interviews with nine investment industry professionals using the laddering technique. The pool of experts was selected using the purposeful sampling method, and experts must have had a minimum of five years investment experience in the Baltics, working familiarity with MiFID II, and a university education in the fields of finance or economics.

The strict requirements of MiFID II reduce the range of available investment products and services for customers in the Baltics. Also, the profitability of Baltic investment companies decreased due to high compliance costs and bans on inducements. The results indicate that this may lead to increased barriers to entry and mergers and acquisitions for small investment companies.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first attempt to research the implications of MiFID II implementation in the Baltic states. The qualitative approach chosen offers a unique opportunity to highlight the critical effects of MiFID II on financial intermediates in smaller geographical markets.

This paper aims to identify the duty of care that applies to ‘professionally classified clients’ based on the recently implemented Markets in Financial Instruments Directive II (MiFID II) as well as the previous Markets in Financial Instruments Directive I (MiFID I). The authors place critical notes on the effectiveness of some MiFID provisions.

The authors have reviewed the Delegated Acts of MiFID I and II, as well as Q&A’s of the European Regulator, ESMA and jurisprudence. The authors aim to add value by facilitating a discussion on the effectiveness of applicable MiFID provisions.

This review of the legal provisions provides researchers and practitioners in the investment sectors with a clear overview of the legal provisions detailing how these provisions should be met and how improvements to the provisions can be achieved.

This paper specifies what the provisions for professional classified clients are and facilitates a discussion on the effectiveness of these provisions.

Addressing the legal provisions which are applicable to ‘professional classified clients’ that derive from MiFID I and II and includes a critical analysis which offers an original perspective.

The authors herein carry out a literature review of retirement planning and highlights that proper retirement planning starts by looking at the level of income an individual is likely to continue receiving at retirement if they were to take no action, then comparing this to what they would need to lead the lifestyle they desire. The authors review the traditional economic theories that many are accustomed to when interpreting financial matters (i.e., rational behavior) and compares this to the various studies and articles found in literature. The authors then dig into retirement planning in Malta and the behavioral obstacles to proper planning and how these are tackled in different European countries.

The authors evaluate the preferences of retail investors with regard to the investment in structured financial products. The purpose of the paper is an analysis of the relative importance of key product attributes namely the issuing bank, the product structure, the associated costs and the disclosed risk.

The authors conduct a choice-based conjoint analysis, based on an online experiment. Participants judge their preferences for products which are presented by shortened key information documents according to the requirements of EU regulation.

Investors consider the costs and the product structure to be most important, whereas the issuer and information on risk are of less interest. Their preferences depend on their (self-evaluated) expertise: while inexperienced retail investors concentrate on costs, experienced investors pay more attention to the product structure.

The study is limited to a subsegment of the market, the discount certificates. For these products, issuing banks gain insight into the attractiveness of their products. Furthermore, the study carries implications for regulators: since investors emphasize the costs in their decisions, an unbiased disclosure of costs should be enforced.

While the recent literature has studied preferences for the investment in mutual funds, this is the first paper which directly analyzes the drivers of an investment in structured retail products.

In the context of increasing private provision of social security and welfare, alongside what is argued to be the ‘financialisation’ of daily lives, individuals in many countries face an array of potentially difficult financial choices and decisions. Limitations in levels of knowledge and expertise may lead them to consider seeking financial advice. Yet, in the wake of the great financial crisis, trust in the financial services industry is low.

At the same time, in a number of countries the financial advice sector is facing its own challenges. These include regulatory issues concerning the definition, suitability and delivery of advice; the affordability of advice; and the challenges and opportunities facing the advice sector as a result of the increasing use of technology in the financial services sector.

This chapter examines the implications of these developments for the regulation and governance of financial advice in the context of Markets in Financial Instruments Directive II. In particular, it considers the example of the UK and issues this raises for the implementation of recent European regulatory reforms.

The purpose of this paper is to alert the European high-yield market to several regulatory developments relating to the adoption of markets in financial instruments directive (MiFID) II.

Reviews regulatory developments in connection with the MiFID II adoption and implementation, identifies several practical implications for the high-yield market professionals and suggests certain modifications in the banks’ internal protocols and practices that may be required as a result.

When the provisions of MiFID II are applied on January 3, 2018, they may have a dramatic impact on global financial markets, including a number of practical implications for the high-yield bond market. The burden of implementing MiFID II will be primarily on banks and brokers with minimal impact on the high-yield issuers.

Practical guidance from experienced high yield, securities and financial services lawyers.