EU RIS View - September 2025

After the summer break, RIS trilogues are re-commencing on Tuesday 23 September. Ahead of this, the Danish Presidency (PCY) published papers on their position on Value for Money (VfM), Inducements, Client Categorisation, Client Journey and Conditions and procedures for authorisation, organisation and registration. The Commission have also published their drafting proposals on Value for Money (VfM) and Inducements. These documents are the drafting representations of the views in the Commission’s non-papers published last May. Here's what these documents tell us.

Value for Money (VfM)

Status: No agreement yet.

The PCY propose limiting the scope of VfM requirements to what is possible based on existing data availability. The PCY does not support the development of mandatory national supervisory benchmarks by NCAs, but does support the use of benchmarks as supervisory tools only. The PCY propose that peer grouping is limited to UCITS funds only.

The Commission’s drafting proposals also move away from supervisory benchmarks in favour of the peer group methodology. The Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts to specify the peer grouping methodology. ESMA is empowered by the Commission to adopt implementing technical standards for how firms comply with the VfM framework. This could add complexity and increase the regulatory compliance burden for firms.

Inducements

Status: No agreement yet.

The PCY proposes moving the existing Level 2 requirements around inducements up to Level 1, expanding and simplifying the criteria where relevant and harmonising them across MiFID and IDD. The PCY proposes that the new inducements requirements should only be introduced if it is likely to significantly increase investor protection.

The Commission proposes that inducements are based on a clear and transparent calculation method, instead of being based on qualitative criteria, shifting focus from compliance to transparency. The Commission propose that inducements must provide “a tangible benefit to the client”, instead of being “designed to enhance the quality of the service to the client”. The Commission propose that inducements must be proportionate to instrument value and client service level and must not contain variable or contingent thresholds or “value accelerators” unlocked by sales volume/value targets. The proposals are more closely aligned with the IDD position.

Previously, the Council has also expressed its preference for Member States to be able to gold-plate the inducements rules - to fully or partially ban inducements on a national level.

Client Categorisation

Status: No agreement yet.

The PCY supports the combination of using both transaction frequency and transaction size in the elective professional opt up test and proposes new drafting to this effect. The PCY suggests clarifying the notion of ‘significant size’ in the Level 1 text via a new recital. The PCY proposes that managers and directors of credit institutions, insurance companies, pension funds, investment firms and collective investment schemes should be regarded as professional where they are directly involved in the firm’s investment activity.

Client journey

Status: No agreement yet.

The PCY proposes to delete the suggested best interest test. The PCY proposes to keep the explicit requirement that portfolio diversification is a mandatory part of the suitability assessment in both MiFID and IDD. The PCY wants to see if Member States have suggestions on how to potentially simplify the light suitability test. The PCY proposes to maintain the appropriateness test in its current form with no changes. The PCY does not support the proposal of developing a standard risk warning for investors prior to client assessments.

What's Next?

The trilogue is taking place on 23 September 2025. The earliest we could see Level 1 text published is Q4 2025 (with rules potentially applying in 2027) – but much will depend on how far apart the Council’s Member States are on their simplification views. Before the Council will be in a position to properly negotiate on the Parliament and Commission RIS positions, it will first have to negotiate within its own membership to reach an internal consensus.

For earlier background, you may want to read our earlier RIS Views which can be found on our RIS Hub Page.

We'll keep you updated as we hear more.