Does “as appropriate” in Point 7 of Annex III mean that the wording of the elements A-J can be amended? Or should the manufacturer remove an entire text element if it is not suitable for a specific PR
- Regulation
- PRIIPs
- Answered
- 2017-08-18
- Answer provided by
- ESAs (EBA, ESMA, EIOPA)
Joint Committee Q&As are published in consolidated PDF documents without explicit question/answer delimiters. Section boundaries below are identified automatically and may occasionally be imprecise.
Question
Answer
This Q&A is published by ESA Joint Committee (EBA, ESMA, EIOPA) and is non-binding. It does not constitute legal advice. Updated weekly from official ESA sources.
Similar Q&As
According to point 16 (a) of Annex IV, the assessment of the appropriateness of a benchmark or proxy depends, inter alia, on the risk-return profile where the benchmark or proxy and the PRIIP fall int
Answered 2025-12-05
Could you clarify for which intermediate holding periods should we show performance scenarios during the lifetime of a product? (E.g.: 1.1 years product, with remaining lifetime of 9 months). We belie
Answered 2022-11-14
The new wording in Article 2(2a)(b) of the ‘What is this product?’ section appears to duplicate the requirement already included in the RTS Article 6 (in the “How long should I hold it and can I take
Answered 2024-03-15
Key information document (KID), Packaged retail and insurance-based investment products (PRIIPs)
Answered 2025-12-02
Please clarify the requirement in Point 38 of Annex II, part II: where a credit assessment is not available under both (a) and (b), i.e. there is not both a credit assessment assigned to the PRIIP and
Answered 2017-07-04
📋 Track EU financial regulation continuously
Forseti monitors EU financial regulation and delivers personalised alerts anchored to verified official sources.
14-day free trial. No credit card required.