At the time of the MiFID II implementation deadline, at the onset of 2018, there was a very sharp focus on meeting regulatory requirements, primarily MiFID data in the form of the EMT. At the time, most issuers had a clear understanding that they would need to provide distributors with data that would allow for the sale of their products and in most cases managed to create the EMT and to make it available. 
 
However, in terms of the EPT there was a much lesser focus on the part of the product issuers. One could logically attribute this to the notion that the EPT was not regulatory in nature and therefore was not a requirement. Naturally, this observation was technically speaking correct, but there were a significant number of business related challenges that arose because of the lack of focus on the EPT.
 
The most challenging situations in this case, were UCITS funds that had not seen that the EPT was necessary from a pure regulatory perspective and had therefore not produced the EPT. Certain asset managers were not fully cognizant of the business needs of PRIIPs that had wrapped their funds or included them in a MOP product, as there were clear scenarios where the PRIIP could not utilize Article 14.2, which allows them to link to the UCITS KIID. In such cases, the manufacturer of these PRIIPs would certainly need to receive the EPT, and in some cases, in a variety of languages.
 
There have also been a great number of Fund of Funds who have needed to gain access to the EPT, in order to calculate their charges. In the end, although their main preference had been to receive the EPT, many have opted to use the EMT for this purpose, as it was more readily available. 
 
In both of the above cases, there has also been a large void in data from non-European funds, which the PRIIPs or fund of funds had invested in. This has caused some serious challenges and has had a significant business impact. 
 
 
Find out more about PRIIPsHub here: www.priipshub.com