Articles - First impressions of KIDS is a very mixed bag


The PRIIPs regulations came into force on 1 January 2018, requiring all providers of Packaged Retail and Insurance-based Investment Providers to have a Key Information Document (KID) available online from 3 January 2018. Reuters reported on 4 January 2018 that Hargreaves Lansdown have withdrawn or suspended in excess of 1000 ETFs and Investment Trusts for not complying with the PRIIPs regulations.

 Scott Eason FIA, Partner and Head of Insurance Consulting at Barnett Waddingham
  
 A large number of these were US based companies who have no intention to do so but almost 100 were UK-based investment trusts that are for now unavailable for investors on the market’s leading platform.
  
 Late in December 2017, the European Fund and Asset Management Association issued a very damning statement on KIDs, saying that the calculations are ‘fundamentally flawed’ and ‘will at best confuse investors and at worst mislead them’.
  
 This made us wonder whether insurers are complying and whether there is consistency between firms’ approaches to enable comparability.
  
 Our findings were quite startling
  
 On 5 January, we trawled the websites of 13 friendly societies (four Holloway providers and nine who provide, among other products, a Tax Exempt Savings Plan (TESP)). Our findings were as follows:
  
 Three had no KIDs on their website (although one website was currently under development)
  
 For the TESPs published:
 The Summary Risk Indicator ranged from two to four
 The moderate scenario average return at the Recommended Holding Period (RHP) ranged from 1.65% to 6.07% after costs.
 The Reduction in Yield due to costs ranged from a very low 0.14% to a very high 5.2%. We are not convinced costs have been calculated consistently
 One firm included a comprehension alert informing the reader that the product is not simple and may be difficult to understand. Other firms offering the same product did not include this alert.
 Three KIDs were dated well before 1 January 2018, with one as early as September 2017
 Two of the Holloway providers showed significantly negative average returns over the RHP under the moderate scenario due to very high levels of costs shown
 There were a variety of approaches taken to interpreting the requirement to split the regular premium of £1000 p.a. between an investment and an insurance premium. Many showed no split, some split the £1000, some showed an investment premium of £1000 plus an additional insurance premium and one showed an insurance premium of £1000 plus an additional investment premium
 A number of firms did not include the accumulated investment and insurance premium lines in the performance scenario table and, among those that did, some accumulated with interest and some didn’t
 Four of the firms showed no portfolio transaction costs. One firm showed no recurring costs, other than portfolio transaction costs
 Two firms did not show the costs breakdown to two decimal places as required. For several firms, the number of decimal places used varied across, or even within, tables
 One firm showed an insurance cost despite stating that the product does not charge any insurance costs
 One firm showed an entry cost of 100%
 Firms offering products which include insurance cover did not include biometric information explaining how the insurance scenario was calculated
  
 In summary, beware of inconsistency
 Clearly, those that currently have no KID on their website are running a compliance risk and risk IFAs not being able or willing to sell their products if this is not rectified.
  
 For those that have met the requirements to publish, it is clear that there are a lot of inconsistencies of interpretations of the regulations. We encourage firms to investigate such items. An inconsistent approach may lead to firms suffering from lower sales if they are showing worse numbers than others, or a compliance risk if numbers are not compliant and create a false expectation.  

Back to Index


Similar News to this Story

Uncertainty over PPF Compensation
On 6 September 2018, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) provided its ruling in Hampshire v The Board of the Pension Protection Fund (
Pension Scams the industrys biggest problem
The pensions landscape has changed a great deal in recent years. For instance, by the introduction of Pensions Freedom and Choice, whereby members wit
PwCs Insurance on IFRS 17 and Insurance Contract Revenue
PwC's Insurance Gail Tucker and Chris Hancorn discuss which amounts will be included in the presentation of insurance revenue under IFRS17? .

Site Search

Exact   Any  

Latest Actuarial Jobs

Actuarial Login

Email
Password
 Jobseeker    Client
Reminder Logon

APA Sponsors

Actuarial Jobs & News Feeds

Jobs RSS News RSS

WikiActuary

Be the first to contribute to our definitive actuarial reference forum. Built by actuaries for actuaries.