FINLAND Law and Practice Contributed by: Olli Kiuru, Jere Lehtimäki and Essi Hietaoja, Waselius
prospect must be limited to the products or services specifically requested by the prospect/client (ie, the content of the information provided must stay within the reverse-solicitation continuum). The marketing and offering of new services/products to existing clients would not be regarded as genuine reverse solicitation. 3. Robo-Advisers 3.1 Requirement for Different Business Models There is no national regulation that applies specifi - cally to robo-advisers in Finland. Instead of asset classes, what is more critical from a regulatory stand - point is the type of service being offered. For instance, robo-advisers offering investment services fall within the scope of the general requirements applicable to investment firms set forth in MiFID II and the provi - sions thereof that have been implemented nationally. Article 5 (1) of MiFID II requires the provision of invest - ment services to be subject to prior authorisation. The requirements regarding the authorisation of invest - ment services have been implemented nationally into the ISA, pursuant to which the investment firm authorisation shall be granted by the FIN-FSA for the provision of investment services or for the practice of engaging in investment activities. The “provision of investment services” means that it is not the invest - ment firm that needs to be authorised, but rather the investment services offered. Therefore, since new services require authorisation, robo-advisers require authorisation. In other words, the ISA enables invest - ment firms to use robo-advisers for the provision of investment services (ie, investment advice and port - folio management), subject to having received prior authorisation. Moreover, as MiFID II is technology-neutral by not prescribing how such investment services are to be offered, the FIN-FSA cannot reject authorisation solely on the basis that the investment services are being offered via a robo-adviser.
The same principles apply when offering crypto-asset services under MiCAR, such as providing advice or portfolio management on crypto-assets (where the assets do not qualify as financial instruments) via a robo-adviser. 3.2 Legacy Players’ Implementation of Solutions Introduced by Robo-Advisers Considering the fact that investment services in Fin - land have been digitalised for a while, robo-advisers are not as established in Finland as one might expect. There are currently three robo-advisers implemented by legacy players in Finland: • with regard to legacy players, Nordea has imple - mented Nora, which is a robo-adviser providing investment advice upon the completion of a ques - tionnaire; • OP Financial Group has also implemented a robo- adviser, OP Investment Partner, which is a digital investment adviser on OP-mobile and, accordingly, invests in responsible companies by only including companies that are among the best in their sector in terms of ESG-related issues; and • independent robo-advisory firm Evervest Ltd was first acquired by Taaleri Group and thereafter by Aktia Bank, which is now running the digital ser - vices. 3.3 Issues Relating to Best Execution of Customer Trades With regard to the robo-advisers specified in 3.2 Leg- acy Players’ Implementation of Solutions Introduced by Robo-Advisers , there are no issues in relation to the best execution of customer trades, since they do not execute orders per se. Instead, the requirements applicable to investment firms briefly mentioned in 3.1 Requirement for Different Business Models apply. Nevertheless, issues regarding the best execution of customer trades will arise for robo-advisers engaging in, for example, payment transmission and the execu - tion of payment orders, for which the requirements applicable to investment firms (or CASPs, where applicable) apply.
274 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook