Importantly, regulatory consultants suggest Ucits funds will be able to ignore this requirement, even when obliged to provide their charges to those who are bound by Priips. The FCA did not seek to override this provision in its final report - not yet, at least.
For now, it has opted for more study: of how best to disclose these costs to retail investors, and how to standardise disclosures for institutional investors.
Plenty of other proposals also require further work, such as the idea to introduce independent directors to fund boards, and ideas for improving benchmark disclosure. Of these potential reforms, the most significant change of tone is on trail commission.
Investment Adviser noted last November, at the time of the interim report, that the regulator may be reconsidering its stance on the subject. Asset manager lobbying appears to have paid off in this regard. Several providers do have large books of business paying trail, but we have seen before how scrapping this can allow fund firms to cut costs for both investors and themselves by removing the commissions paid to advisers. The FCA has acknowledged that reopening the debate “could have a significant impact”. It has done so nonetheless.