ESMA LIBRARY
The ESMA Library contains all ESMA documents. Please use the search and filter options to find specific documents.
222
REFINE YOUR SEARCH
Sections
- (-) Remove MiFID - Secondary Markets filter MiFID - Secondary Markets
- (-) Remove MiFID - Investor Protection filter MiFID - Investor Protection
- (-) Remove Short Selling filter Short Selling
- (-) Remove Market Integrity filter Market Integrity
- (-) Remove Post Trading filter Post Trading
- (-) Remove Fund Management filter Fund Management
- Supervisory convergence (12) Apply Supervisory convergence filter
- COVID-19 (11) Apply COVID-19 filter
- Corporate Disclosure (8) Apply Corporate Disclosure filter
- Market Abuse (8) Apply Market Abuse filter
- CESR Archive (7) Apply CESR Archive filter
- Brexit (6) Apply Brexit filter
- Prospectus (5) Apply Prospectus filter
- Innovation and Products (4) Apply Innovation and Products filter
- Benchmarks (3) Apply Benchmarks filter
- Corporate Information (3) Apply Corporate Information filter
- Joint Committee (3) Apply Joint Committee filter
- Securitisation (3) Apply Securitisation filter
- Corporate Finance (2) Apply Corporate Finance filter
- Credit Rating Agencies (2) Apply Credit Rating Agencies filter
- Securities and Markets Stakeholder Group (2) Apply Securities and Markets Stakeholder Group filter
- Corporate Governance (1) Apply Corporate Governance filter
- Guidelines and Technical standards (1) Apply Guidelines and Technical standards filter
- IFRS Supervisory Convergence (1) Apply IFRS Supervisory Convergence filter
- Securities Financing Transactions (1) Apply Securities Financing Transactions filter
- Trade Repositories (1) Apply Trade Repositories filter
- Transparency (1) Apply Transparency filter
- Warnings and publications for investors (1) Apply Warnings and publications for investors filter
Type of document
- (-) Remove Opinion filter Opinion
- (-) Remove Q&A filter Q&A
- Reference (248) Apply Reference filter
- Guidelines & Recommendations (226) Apply Guidelines & Recommendations filter
- Consultation Paper (142) Apply Consultation Paper filter
- Press Release (130) Apply Press Release filter
- Final Report (93) Apply Final Report filter
- Letter (89) Apply Letter filter
- Statement (66) Apply Statement filter
- Report (49) Apply Report filter
- Speech (47) Apply Speech filter
- Compliance table (31) Apply Compliance table filter
- Decision (30) Apply Decision filter
- Technical Advice (28) Apply Technical Advice filter
- Investor Warning (26) Apply Investor Warning filter
- Technical Standards (21) Apply Technical Standards filter
- Annual Report (6) Apply Annual Report filter
- Vacancy (2) Apply Vacancy filter
Your filters
MiFID - Investor Protection X MiFID - Secondary Markets X Audit X Post Trading X Board of Appeal X Market Integrity X Short Selling X Fund Management X Q&A X Opinion X
Reset all filters| Date | Ref. | Title | Section | Type | Download | Info | Summary | Related Documents | Translated versions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 13/10/2011 | 2011/342 | Opinion- Practical arrangements for the late transposition of the UCITS IV Directive | Fund Management | Opinion | PDF 41.33 KB |
||||
| 21/02/2012 | 2012/113 | Questions and Answers- A Common Definition of European Money Market Funds- updated February 2012 | Fund Management | Q&A | PDF 83.79 KB |
The purpose of this document is to promote common supervisory approaches and practices in the application of the guidelines on a Common Definition of European Money Market Funds developed by CESR by providing responses to questions posed by the general public and competent authorities. The content of this document is aimed at competent authorities to ensure that in their supervisory activities their actions are converging along the lines of the responses adopted by ESMA. However, the answers are also intended to help management companies by providing clarity as to the content of CESR’s guidelines on a Common Definition of European Money Market Funds, rather than creating an extra layer of requirements. | |||
| 22/06/2012 | 2012/382 | MiFID Q&A in the area of investor protection and intermediaries | MiFID - Investor Protection | Q&A | PDF 319.78 KB |
||||
| 01/11/2012 | 2012/715 | ESMA Opinion on emergency measure by Spanish CNMV under Section 1 of Chapter V of Regulation No. 236/2012 on short selling and certain aspects of credit default swaps | Short Selling | Opinion | PDF 79.2 KB |
ESMA Opinion ESMA is adopting the following opinion on the notified measure, on the basis of Article 27(2) of Regulation 236/2012 on Short selling and certain aspects of credit default swaps: On the adverse events or developmentsESMA considers that there are adverse developments which constitute a serious threat to financial stability and to market confidence in Spain. On the appropriateness and proportionality of the measure ESMA considers that the measure is appropriate and proportionate to address the above-mentioned threats that persist in Spain. On the duration of the measureESMA considers that the duration of the measure is justified and appreciates the CNMV’s statement in its notification of intent whereby the measure may be lifted during the period of enforcement of the measure, if considered necessary. | |||
| 01/11/2012 | 2012/717 | ESMA Opinion on emergency measure by the Greek HCMC under Section 1 of Chapter V of Regulation No. 236/2012 on short selling and certain aspects of credit default swaps | Short Selling | Opinion | PDF 95.45 KB |
ESMA Opinion ESMA is adopting the following opinion on the notified measure, on the basis of Article 27(2) of Regulation 236/2012 on Short selling and certain aspects of credit default swaps: On the adverse events or developmentsESMA considers that there are adverse developments which constitute a serious threat to financial stability and to market confidence in Greece. On the appropriateness and proportionality of the measure ESMA considers that the measure is appropriate and proportionate to address the above-mentioned threats that persist in Greece. On the duration of the measureESMA considers that the duration of the measure is justified and appreciates the HCMC’s statement in its notification of intent whereby the measure may be lifted during the period of enforcement of the measure, if considered necessary. | |||
| 20/11/2012 | 2012/721 | Opinion on Article 50(2)(a) of the UCITS Directive | Fund Management | Opinion | PDF 81.31 KB |
||||
| 29/01/2013 | 2013/149 | Emergency measure by the Greek HCMC under Section 1 of Chapter V of Regulation No 236/2012 on short selling and certain aspects of credit default swaps | Short Selling | Opinion | PDF 96.52 KB |
||||
| 30/01/2013 | 2013/159 | Q&A on Implementation of the Regulation on short selling and certain aspects of credit default swaps (2nd update) | Short Selling | Q&A | PDF 873.32 KB |
||||
| 15/03/2013 | 2013/312 | Regulatory technical standards on colleges for central counterparties supplementing Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 | Post Trading | Opinion | PDF 151.67 KB |
||||
| 30/04/2013 | 2013/542 | Emergency measure by the Greek HCMC under Section 1 of Chapter V of Regulation No 236/2012 on short selling and certain aspects of credit default swaps | Short Selling, Market Integrity | Opinion | PDF 96.41 KB |
||||
| 01/08/2013 | 2013/1072 | Practical arrangements for the late transposition of the AIFMD | Fund Management | Opinion | PDF 93.1 KB |
The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) has published an Opinion on arrangements for the late imposition of the AIFMD. The scope of the opinion is confined to the provision of collective portfolio management services. Arrangements before implementation of the Directive in all Member States Notification of marketing of EU AIFs when the host MS of the AIFM has not transposed the Directive (Articles 31 and 32 of the Directive) ESMA believes that, if the Directive has been transposed in the home MS of the AIFM, the competent authority of the host MS of the AIFM (Article 32) or home MS of the AIFM (Article 31) may not refuse a valid notification under the Directive on the ground that the Directive has not yet been transposed in the host MS. This applies irrespective of whether the marketing is done using the freedom to provide services or by means of a branch. Management passport (Article 33 of the Directive) ESMA believes that AIFMs established in a MS that has transposed the Directive should be able to manage an EU AIF via the management passport, both using the freedom to provide services or by means of a branch, in a MS where the Directive has not been transposed, irrespective of the provisions currently in place in such jurisdiction since the relevant provisions of the Directive are of a self-executing nature, and provided the AIFM is authorised to manage that type of AIF in accordance with Article 33(1) of the AIFMD. Any local restrictions on AIFMs that are not in accordance with the AIFMD will need to be disapplied. | |||
| 01/10/2013 | 2013/1340 | Collection of information for the effective monitoring of systemic risk under Article 24(5), first sub-paragraph, of the AIFMD | Fund Management | Opinion | PDF 70.75 KB |
||||
| 07/02/2014 | 2014/146 | MiFID practices for firms selling complex products | MiFID - Investor Protection, Warnings and publications for investors | Opinion | PDF 122.37 KB |
||||
| 27/03/2014 | 2014/332 | Structured Retail Products- Good practices for product governance arrangements | MiFID - Investor Protection, Innovation and Products | Opinion | PDF 203.1 KB |
Legal basis 1. Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 (ESMA Regulation) sets out the European Securities and Markets Authority’s (ESMA) scope of action, tasks and powers which include “enhancing customer protection”, and “foster[ing] investor protection”. 2. In order to continue delivering on this investor protection statutory objective, ESMA is issuing this opinion on certain aspects linked to the manufacturing and distribution of structured retail products (SRP). This opinion takes into account relevant work done in this field both at European and interna-tional level. 3. This opinion is without prejudice to the requirements for the provision of investment services and activities established in the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID) and its implementing measures (notably, Directive 2006/73/EC), the regulatory developments arising from the MiFID review or existing product rules that may apply to SRPs. 4. ESMA’s competence to deliver an opinion is based on Article 29(1) (a) of the ESMA Regulation. In accordance with Article 44(1) of the ESMA Regulation, the Board of Supervisors has adopted this opinion. Background 5. In its July 2013 report on ‘Retailisation in the EU’ , ESMA highlighted that, from a consumer protec-tion perspective, retail investors may face difficulties in understanding the drivers of risks and returns of structured products. If retail investors do not properly understand the risk and reward profile of structured products, and if the products are not properly assessed against the risk appetite of retail investors, retail investors might be exposed to unexpected losses and this might lead to complaints, reputational risks for manufacturers and distributors, and a loss of confidence in the regulatory framework and, more broadly, in financial markets. 6. In 2013, ESMA mapped the measures adopted in the EU Member States in relation to complex products in order to identify issues and to better understand the rationale behind national initiatives (by looking at similarities and differences in the various approaches, and reviewing how complexity has been treated in the different EU Members States). 7. As a result, ESMA has developed a broad set of non-exhaustive examples of good practices, attached as Annex 1 hereto, illustrating arrangements that firms - taking into account the nature, scale and complexity of their business - could put in place to improve their ability to deliver on investor protection regarding, in particular, (i) the complexity of the SRPs they manufacture or distribute, (ii) the nature and range of the investment services and activities undertaken in the course of that business, and (iii) the type of investors they target. These good practices should also be a helpful tool for competent authorities in carrying out their supervisory action. Opinion 8. ESMA considers that sound product governance arrangements are fundamental for investor protec-tion purposes, and can reduce the need for product intervention actions by competent authorities. 9. ESMA considers that, when supervising firms manufacturing or distributing an SRP, competent authorities should promote, in their supervisory approaches, the examples of good practices for firms set out in Annex 1 hereto. 10. Although the good practices set out in Annex 1 hereto focus on structured products sold to retail investors, ESMA considers that they may also be a relevant reference for other types of financial in-struments (such as asset-backed securities, or contingent convertible bonds), as well as when financial instruments are being sold to professional clients. 11. The exposure to risk is an intrinsic feature of investment products. The good practices set out in Annex 1 refer to product governance arrangements and do not (and cannot) aim at removing investment risk from products. | |||
| 28/05/2014 | 2014/576 | Voting Procedures for CCP colleges under EMIR | Post Trading | Opinion | PDF 94.15 KB |
||||
| 27/10/2014 | 2014/1312 | ESMA opinion on emergency measure by the Italian CONSOB under the short-selling regulation | Short Selling | Opinion | PDF 137.35 KB |
||||
| 11/11/2014 | 2014/1355 | ESMA opinion on the renewal of short positions ban in Italy | Short Selling | Opinion | PDF 114.46 KB |
||||
| 29/01/2015 | 2015/223 | Opinion on draft RTS on the Clearing Obligation | Post Trading | Opinion | PDF 601.97 KB |
Legal Basis According to Article 5(2) of Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on OTC derivatives, central counterparties and trade repositories (EMIR), the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) shall develop draft regulatory technical standards specifying the class of OTC derivatives that should be subject to the clearing obligation, the date or dates from which the clearing obligation takes effect, including any phase in and the categories of counterparties to which the obligation applies, and the minimum remaining maturity of the OTC derivative contracts referred to in Article 4(1)(b)(ii) of EMIR. Background and Procedure On 1 October 2014, ESMA submitted a draft regulatory technical standard (RTS) on the clearing obligation to the European Commission pursuant to Article 10(1) of Regulation No (EU) 1095/2010 (the ESMA Regulation) and Article 5(2) of EMIR. This draft RTS covered Interest Rate Swaps. On 18 December 2014, the Commission informed ESMA of its intention to endorse with amendments this draft RTS and submitted to ESMA a modified version of the RTS (the “modified RTS”) introducing, among others, (1) amendments to the date on which the frontloading obligation starts to apply and (2) a new provision on the treatment of non-EU intragroup transactions. Pursuant to Article 10(1) of the ESMA Regulation, this notification from the Commission opens a period of six weeks during which ESMA may amend its draft RTS on the clearing obligation on the basis of the Commission’s proposed amendments and resubmit it to the Commission in the form of a formal opinion. ESMA has to send a copy of its formal opinion to the European Parliament and to the Council. In accordance with Article 44(1) of the ESMA Regulation the Board of Supervisors has to adopt a formal opinion. Executive Summary ESMA agrees with the ultimate objectives of the modifications that the European Commission intends to introduce. However, ESMA considers that the tool proposed by the Commission for the matter related to the non-EU intra group transactions is not appropriate from a legal perspective and, in the case that the Commission intention is to define a later application date for those transactions, ESMA stands ready to explore, in coordination with the Commission, a different manner to incorporate that provision. ESMA backs the modifications on the frontloading section, though has a few observations and improvements with respect to several recitals. ESMA proposes to incorporate the suggestion of the Commission to deal with the application of the 8 billion threshold to investment funds for the definitions of types of counterparties as a specific provision in the text of the RTS. |
|||
| 09/03/2015 | 2015/511 | Revised opinion on draft RTS on the clearing obligation on interest rate swaps | Post Trading | Opinion | PDF 336.52 KB |
||||
| 21/05/2015 | 2015/838 | ESMA's opinion on the composition of CCP colleges under EMIR | Post Trading | Opinion | PDF 131.98 KB |