The PEPP is a new type of product that can be provided by pension funds, insurers, asset managers and banks. PensionsEurope said that in certain countries, the reporting requirements set out in the proposed templates were very different from current national requirements, “thus leading to additional reporting requirements and information flows for pension funds”.It also said “a proper assessment is missing from the analysis” with regard to the potential impacts on the market uptake of PEPPs.“Certain providers might have much higher costs than others and would therefore not enter the market because of the high costs implied by the adaptation of overlapping reporting obligations among PEPP and local products through which providers may develop PEPPs,” it said.For its part, InsuranceEurope called on EIOPA to further clarify and streamline the quantity of information that would need to be reported. It said insurers were concerned that EIOPA’s outlined approach could turn out to be burdensome, costly and disproportionate, despite EIOPA indicating it had opted for “reduced” reporting rather than “detailed” reporting.Cost cap a bigger issueHaving closed last month after a four-week extension due to the coronavirus pandemic, the consultation in question is EIOPA’s second public consultation on the PEPP since the regulation introducing the product was adopted in April last year.Although the subject matter it covers is important, other issues, such as that of the fee cap on the basic PEPP, loom larger. ICI Global, the international arm of US asset management trade association the Investment Company Institute, has previously described the cap as the biggest impediment to the introduction of PEPP and said that EIOPA must exclude certain costs from it if the PEPP were to have any chance of success.According to Simone Miotto, senior policy adviser at PensionsEurope and a member of EIOPA’s PEPP experts panel, EIOPA is due to publish its technical advice on the PEPP to the Commission by mid-August and most likely its final decision will consist having an all-inclusive approach on the fee cap, with the cost of the guarantees as only exemption.He told IPE: “If so, this would be a major challenge for any kind of provider, as the PEPP regulation requires to provide personalised advice before concluding the contract and in some other occasions during the life-cycle of the product. Good quality advice comes with a cost.”To read the digital edition of IPE’s latest magazine click here. EIOPA’s proposal for the information to be provided to supervisors by potential pan-European personal pension product (PEPP) providers does not reflect sufficient analysis of the reporting standards’ potential impact on providers or market uptake, according to PensionsEurope.The industry association was commenting on EIOPA’s consultation paper on draft technical rules about the format of information submissions from PEPP providers to national supervisors and about the cooperation and exchange of information between national supervisors.The consultation paper set out templates for reporting information such as costs, benefit payments, switching requests, and assets. EIOPA’s stakeholder groups have said the templates EIOPA has suggested “require an extensive level of details to be provided”.Commenting on the consultation paper and annexed impact assessment, PensionsEurope said that “all in all, we believe [they] do not analyse and detail enough the impacts that these new reporting standards would have on the different eligible PEPP-providers”.