MiFID II vis a vis IDD, liknande reglering? - En analys om den överlappande regleringen i MiFID II & IDD.
(2019) LAGF03 20191Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- År 2014 antogs direktiv 2014/65EU, även kallat MiFID II. Direktivet reglerar bland annat hur finansiella institut ska organisera sin verksamhet för att skydda kundernas intresse i de fall kunderna handlar med finansiella instrument. Direktivet är skrivet med ett starkt kundskydd och harmoniserad inre marknad som mål. Två år senare, 2016, antogs direktiv 2016/97, även kallat IDD. IDD är motsvarande MiFID II, men reglerar försäkringsmarknaden. IDD omfattar även försäkringsbaserade investeringsprodukter som på många sätt fungerar som finansiella instrument.
Regelverken har liknande regler på flera områden. Även om reglerna påminner om varandra är de inte identiska. MiFID II erbjuder på flera ställen ett starkare kundskydd än vad IDD gör.... (More) - År 2014 antogs direktiv 2014/65EU, även kallat MiFID II. Direktivet reglerar bland annat hur finansiella institut ska organisera sin verksamhet för att skydda kundernas intresse i de fall kunderna handlar med finansiella instrument. Direktivet är skrivet med ett starkt kundskydd och harmoniserad inre marknad som mål. Två år senare, 2016, antogs direktiv 2016/97, även kallat IDD. IDD är motsvarande MiFID II, men reglerar försäkringsmarknaden. IDD omfattar även försäkringsbaserade investeringsprodukter som på många sätt fungerar som finansiella instrument.
Regelverken har liknande regler på flera områden. Även om reglerna påminner om varandra är de inte identiska. MiFID II erbjuder på flera ställen ett starkare kundskydd än vad IDD gör. Regleringen i MiFID II är mer långtgående gällande inskränkningar i medlemsstaters möjligheter att införa striktare reglering än vad som följer av direktivet.
Det är problematiskt när två regelverk som reglerar närstående produkter inte har en enhetlig reglering. Det får konsekvenser för kunder, eftersom de erbjuds olika kundskydd beroende på vilken produkt de väljer. Kunder kan omedvetet välja en produkt som har ett svagare kundskydd. Även företag drabbas när produkter som på många sätt liknar varandra inte får saluföras och hanteras på samma sätt.
Flertalet av konsekvenserna som kommer av närliggande regelverk hade kunnat undvikas genom att utvidga det ena regelverket till att omfatta de närliggande delarna i det andra. Man skulle kunna utvidga MiFID II för att även omfatta försäkringsbaserade investeringsprodukter. Det hade varit fullt möjligt att göra det, och samtidigt leva upp till de mål och ambitioner som var bakgrunden till regelverkens tillkomst. En enhetlig lagstiftning skulle också undvika eventuella problem med olika tolkningar av liknande regleringar i de olika regelverken. (Less) - Abstract
- The financial crisis 2008 revealed several weaknesses in the regulation on the financial markets. It was evident that a new, stricter, regulation was needed to be created. Directive 2014/65EU, MiFID II and directive 2016/97, IDD, is a part of the new financial regulation. MiFID II regulates how financial institutes can interact with investors, when investors seek to buy or sell financial instruments. One product, insurance-based investments, which function a lot like the instruments regulated in MiFID II, is exempted from the regulation. These types of products are instead regulated in the somewhat similar IDD.
The new directives share, to a degree, a couple of goals. They were both created in order to ensure a high standard of... (More) - The financial crisis 2008 revealed several weaknesses in the regulation on the financial markets. It was evident that a new, stricter, regulation was needed to be created. Directive 2014/65EU, MiFID II and directive 2016/97, IDD, is a part of the new financial regulation. MiFID II regulates how financial institutes can interact with investors, when investors seek to buy or sell financial instruments. One product, insurance-based investments, which function a lot like the instruments regulated in MiFID II, is exempted from the regulation. These types of products are instead regulated in the somewhat similar IDD.
The new directives share, to a degree, a couple of goals. They were both created in order to ensure a high standard of investor protection, and to try to harmonize the internal European financial market.
Having two separate regulations dealing with closely related products can create some problems. Even though the regulations are similar, they aren’t identical. MiFID II for instance, offers a higher degree of investor protection than IDD does. An example of this is the stricter rules regarding conflicts of interest created by third party provisions. There are few cases where financial institutes acting under MiFID II are allowed to receive provisions from a third party, most instances are however forbidden, as it would almost always result in an unwanted conflict of interest. IDD on the other hand offers a larger amount of freedom regarding provisions from a third party. Another problem caused by separate regulation is the interpretation differences it may create. Similar rules can be interpreted differently in the regulations, making it unnecessarily hard for an institution to act on two markets under different regulation.
These problems could have been avoided if all financial instruments were regulated in the same way. Instead of regulating insurance-based
2
investments in IDD, it could have been integrated in the closely related MiFID II. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/8977114
@misc{8977114,
abstract = {{The financial crisis 2008 revealed several weaknesses in the regulation on the financial markets. It was evident that a new, stricter, regulation was needed to be created. Directive 2014/65EU, MiFID II and directive 2016/97, IDD, is a part of the new financial regulation. MiFID II regulates how financial institutes can interact with investors, when investors seek to buy or sell financial instruments. One product, insurance-based investments, which function a lot like the instruments regulated in MiFID II, is exempted from the regulation. These types of products are instead regulated in the somewhat similar IDD.
The new directives share, to a degree, a couple of goals. They were both created in order to ensure a high standard of investor protection, and to try to harmonize the internal European financial market.
Having two separate regulations dealing with closely related products can create some problems. Even though the regulations are similar, they aren’t identical. MiFID II for instance, offers a higher degree of investor protection than IDD does. An example of this is the stricter rules regarding conflicts of interest created by third party provisions. There are few cases where financial institutes acting under MiFID II are allowed to receive provisions from a third party, most instances are however forbidden, as it would almost always result in an unwanted conflict of interest. IDD on the other hand offers a larger amount of freedom regarding provisions from a third party. Another problem caused by separate regulation is the interpretation differences it may create. Similar rules can be interpreted differently in the regulations, making it unnecessarily hard for an institution to act on two markets under different regulation.
These problems could have been avoided if all financial instruments were regulated in the same way. Instead of regulating insurance-based
2
investments in IDD, it could have been integrated in the closely related MiFID II.}},
author = {{Andersson, Fredrik}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{MiFID II vis a vis IDD, liknande reglering? - En analys om den överlappande regleringen i MiFID II & IDD.}},
year = {{2019}},
}