Packaged Retail and Insurance-based Investment Products (Retail Disclosure) (Amendment) Regulations 2024

Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted Excerpts

Wednesday 13th November 2024 Grand Committee

In closing, these SIs will empower regulators to ensure that our financial services industry is subject to a rulebook that is fit for purpose, more proportionate and tailored to UK markets. I hope that noble Lords will join me in supporting these regulations and their objectives. I beg to move.

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)]

My Lords, I shall speak mainly to the instruments on listed investment companies. I first raised this issue in the House on 6 June last year, attempting to make an amendment during the passage of the Financial Services and Markets Bill. Perhaps history is now catching up with me. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Livermore, then on the Labour Front Bench, for grasping the economic importance of the matter, which he will appreciate even more as Financial Secretary, given the perhaps as much as £40 billion of lost investment in infrastructure, green energy and social buildings.

On one hand, I am pleased with the PRIIPs statutory instrument that was introduced in September, removing investment trusts from PRIIPs, and the cost disclosures part of the MiFID Org regulation and the accompanying FCA forbearance statements. Before I go further, I must flag that this was never about not reporting costs or not providing investors with a full suite of information on fees or all other corporate costs and charges. Investment trusts are listed companies and as such must provide all the transparency for investors that listing requires, including publishing full information in annual reports.

Unfortunately, after the September actions by the Government and FCA, the competitor industry to investment trusts, the open-ended funds and their organisation—the Investment Association—held a members’ meeting and agreed not to do what HMT expected, which has just been iterated by the Minister. They agreed that they would not accept that, at the share level—the investor-holding level—of investment trusts there are zero deductions from investment value.

Convening the meeting, and seeking member agreement, was confirmed by the CEO of the IA, Chris Cummings, at the Lords Financial Services Regulation Committee last Wednesday. Today, Ashley Alder, chair of the FCA, confirmed to the committee that there was no deduction to make from share value —I hope that everyone listened keenly. Chris Cummings further said last week that they did not want any changes to the current practice—the practice that has caused all the problems—until the FCA has completed its consultation and done all the new rules. They do not want any of the interim provisions. In another slide presented to the members’ meeting, it was shown that this could take until 2027. That is plenty of time for the misinformation to continue and to destroy the sector with which they compete.

There are other players assisting them in this anti-competitive effort, including the majority of large retail investment platforms, with the laudable exception of ii, although there may be others. Hargreaves Lansdown, which is the largest and also a member of the Investment Association as it is also a fund manager, spoke at the IA members’ meeting to explain how they—meaning itself and other platforms—would block retail investors from purchasing the shares of investment trusts that put “zero” in the costs to be deducted field of the European MiFID template, or EMT, which also generates the deduction from investment illustrations on platforms. After the meeting, Hargreaves Lansdown, Fidelity, and possibly others that I have not seen, sent out emails to fund managers and investment trust boards and commenced blocking operations for those investment trusts that dared to enter “zero”. Not surprisingly, many investment trust boards capitulated out of fear of being disconnected from the marketplace.

What happens as a result is a continuation of the bogus practice of telling investors they will lose large amounts off the share value of their investment—and guess what? They might buy an open-ended fund instead. For example, if, on the Hargreaves Lansdown site, you click on “How much will it cost?”, there are computations showing—wrongly—that on, say, a £5,000 investment over five years there will be management fee deductions, in some instances of well over £1,000, and even some causing losses. But that is not the case, because those costs are already reflected in the share price. It is very nice to force your competitors into a corner and keep them there until 2027 or longer, if you can continue to use your might, being 45 times larger than the competing sector you are colluding against.

That brings me on to the second pair of the SIs which, regrettably, have done nothing to address the shenanigans that have gone on for the last few years, or to prevent this vast open-ended fund sector using its size and might to continue to gaslight and bully investors—and even regulators—about the role that market share price plays in absorbing and reflecting the internal company costs, just as does the share price of any listed company. You buy the share; you sell the share—there are no deductions from your share price by the company. In fact, I would like to know what mechanism people think that could be done by.

The second SI continues to classify investment trusts as consumer collective investments, despite market-wide concerns expressed in consultation responses by some 340 respondents. The Treasury says that there will be special treatment, but it is not in the statutory instrument. All it has done is amend the old definition of a CCI in an admission that previously, investment trusts were not properly within the definition—all part of the old misinterpretation of “value”.

There has been no clarification of the circumstances in the market. It needs to be clear that investment trusts are financial instruments, like other shares. They should not be confused with savings products, and they are not covered by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme. They must be given all the recognition that derives from being a listed company, with market-set share price which is the value. Is that in the SI? No. Can you guarantee that the FCA will get it right? No. The CEO has made incorrect statements that investment trusts are savings products and muddled that costs are not zero, clearly referencing net asset value, which is not what you hold.

I am sorry to say that this SI is a poor example of what we expected when the future financial framework was proposed and consulted upon. We were promised policy guidance in the statutory instruments, and it is not here, even when there have been the direst circumstances that require it and a massive consultation response in favour of it. All that has been set aside, with nothing to show in the legislation. The only policy is saying they are still a CCI, which, after all that has gone before, is not adequate policy guidance. If you want to know what the right kind of guidance might look like, I suggest referring to my own Private Member’s Bill, which we will be discussing on Friday. I am afraid that the job is not yet done.

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I too would like to address the statutory instruments relating to the PRIIPs and to the consumer composite investments. I am very grateful to the Government for laying these statutory instruments. I would also like to thank the Treasury and the Financial Conduct Authority for the statements they issued in September, and the FCA for its first set of forbearance and its subsequent additional emergency forbearance.

However, like the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, it appears to me that, despite the clear intentions of the Government and the Financial Conduct Authority, as expressed particularly in the PRIIPs statutory instrument, some parts of the industry are not willing to accept what the Government believe and the FCA have clearly indicated is the right position. That is a particular concern to me.

The Minister rightly pointed out that the aim is to improve transparency and enable comparison between products for investors. The whole point of cost disclosures has always been to help consumers and investors—whether they are retailers, small institutions or others—understand what they are going to be paying for any investment product they buy. We know that, in the past, many of these costs were hidden. As the Minister said, investors need to better understand what they are paying for the product they buy. It needs to be accurately reflected to them, so they know the actual cost of the investments they are considering making or that they are holding.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)]

I recognise that the Minister is saying that, ideally, the Government and the regulator have done what they could and industry should follow. Of the two, the Government have been clearer, but we now have a standoff where the regulator says that it is industry’s business and industry says that it is the regulator’s business. Therefore, the starvation of funds from worthy causes is set to continue for at least another year. These are tens of billions of pounds going into just the kinds of things that the Government want: green energy, social housing and infrastructure.

We are talking about tens of billions of pounds—potentially more than you get from an investment summit—so it is strange that the Government are not giving a little more oomph. I imagine the Minister cannot say this straight off, but can the Government strengthen their message and say that these things should be implemented now, or at least when the statutory instrument passes at the latest? There will be no certainty for the future of the investment trust sector if all this is delayed, not actively but passively, for another year.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I hear the passion in the noble Baroness’s voice—I think we all can—and I appreciate the frustrations expressed. But, as set out and agreed by this Parliament, it is for the regulator to set detailed rules in consultation with the industry. That is the position we are in.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness. I will write to her to lay out the answers to the questions that she raises. I refer her back to the comments I made about costs earlier in answering.

To expand slightly on where we were before, this is an important moment for everyone. It is appropriate as we move away from EU language to reflect the significant reform of the new regime, which will be tailored to UK firms and markets. We should make sure that we recognise where we are in that process. In practice, the definition of consumer composite investments is closely aligned with the EU PRIIPs. The regime will continue to apply to products where the amount repayable to the investor is subject to fluctuations because of exposure to reference values or the performance of assets not directly purchased by the investor.

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)]

That is the whole problem. If you purchase investment trust shares, the price is set by the market. Obviously, the underlying investments in some way reflect up into it, but the big difference is that the market decides the value all in, just as it does for any other company.

Let us take two examples. You could buy shares in Tritax Big Box, which is an investment trust that owns property of the sort that Amazon and data centres use. It manages those properties and that comes off what the company earns. It does not go knocking on the doors of investors saying, “We have just repainted—hand over some money”, but, effectively, that is what any investor in Tritax Big Box is being told: when you buy those shares, the management costs are going to be deducted from the value of what you own. That is shown in illustrations on platforms. It is completely misleading, so it frightens investors away and we have the scenario we have. It competes against SEGRO, which is listed as an ordinary company. It owns the same kind of buildings and does the same kind of maintenance. When you go to buy SEGRO shares nobody says, “By the way, you are going to have to have deductions”, but the structures are the same. They are both listed companies. The only difference is that one lists under a different part of the listing rules than the other, but the way the costs work and what is internal to the company is exactly the same.

The definition of CCI as the amount repayable cannot be on the basis of the underlying assets. You can sell your shares only on the market. The amendment has been slightly tailored to say “shares or” to cover the point. I know it is difficult when one first comes across these things, but small semantic things make a huge difference to whether something for good is invested in or is not.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I refer to the answer that I gave earlier about costs, but I recognise the detail within the noble Baroness’s question. I commit to write to her on the detail that she raises.

On confidence, in line with the FSMA model of regulation, it is for the expert regulators to set out firm-facing rules. I absolutely agree with that. The new CCI regime will be tailored to the UK, with rules that are more proportionate to ensure that consumers have sufficient information to make informed investment decisions. The regulators remain fully accountable to Parliament and the Government for their actions. In terms of the model of regulation, the House agreed this under FSMA 2023.

Moving on, the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, spoke about the costs presented in the European MiFID Template. The EMT is an industry-led initiative to support the sharing of key disclosure metrics across the distribution chain. It is not required by legislation. Although I recognise that there may be some frustrations in the sector, the adaptation of the EMT feed to reflect changes to disclosure requirements is a matter for the industry.

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)]

I am sorry to interrupt again. I can accept that the EMT is an industry standard; strangely, the open-ended funds sector organisation designed it. However, if the result of something that the industry does is systematically misinforming the market, surely that is a matter for the regulator to act on, rather than just saying, “Oh, it’s the industry”. The Minister just said that the regulator is accountable to the Government. If the regulator allows such misinformation to continue despite its consumer duty, is that not the point at which the Government must intervene, if the regulator is accountable to them?

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

At this stage in this debate, let me say that I will write to the noble Baroness to lay out the detail on her points.

Looking forward, the important thing is that all Members with an interest engage actively with the upcoming consultation—I feel as though I do not need to say this. Of course, the detail around these rules will be absolutely critical. This goes across the retail disclosure on the FCA consultation. We look forward to the detailed rules that will be published later this year. I think we all know that, last year, the previous Government consulted on the approach, receiving widespread support as a result of that consultation.

That leaves me to thank noble Lords for this informative debate. I know that further discussions on this matter in the Chamber are coming up on Friday. I look forward to seeing the content of the debate as we move forward but I hope that, at this stage, noble Lords will join me in supporting these regulations.