ESMA LIBRARY

The ESMA Library contains all ESMA documents. Please use the search and filter options to find specific documents.
119
DOCUMENTS

REFINE YOUR SEARCH

Sections

Type of document

Your filters
MiFID - Investor Protection X IAS Regulation X MiFID II: Transparency Calculations and DVC X Press Releases X Board of Supervisors X Joint Committee X Market Integrity X Q&A X CESR Document X SMSG Advice X Compliance table X Opinion X
Reset all filters

Pages

Date Ref. Title Section Type Download Info Summary Related Documents Translated versions
09/11/2018 ESMA35-36-1262 Technical Q&As on product intervention measures on CFDs and binary options Q&A PDF
147.84 KB
27/03/2014 2014/332 Structured Retail Products- Good practices for product governance arrangements , 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.
07/03/2017 ESMA22-106-140 SMSG advice on the Joint ESMA EBA guidelines on the Assessment of the Suitability , SMSG Advice PDF
150.61 KB

SMSG advice on the Joint ESMA EBA guidelines on the Assessment of the Suitability of Members of the Management Body and Key Function Holders

21/01/2020 ESMA22-106-2077 SMSG Advice on Joint Consultation Paper on PRIIPs KID , SMSG Advice PDF
426.62 KB
19/12/2016 2016/JCESA QA Questions and Answers on Big Data Q&A PDF
333.65 KB
19/11/2021 ESMA35-43-349 Q&As on MiFID II and MiFIR investor protection topics , Q&A PDF
1023.15 KB
31/03/2017 ESMA35-36-794 Q&A Relating to the provision of CFDs and other speculative products to retail investors under MiFID Q&A PDF
948.76 KB
06/08/2021 ESMA70-145-111 Q&A on the Market Abuse Regulation , Q&A PDF
475.69 KB

The purpose of this document is to promote common supervisory approaches and practices in the application of MAR and its implementing measures. It does this by providing responses to questions posed by the general public and competent authorities in relation to the practical application of the MAR framework

The content of this document is aimed at competent authorities to ensure that in their supervisory activities and their actions are converging along the lines of the responses adopted by ESMA and at helping issuers, investors and other market participants by providing clarity on the content of the market abuse rules, rather than creating an extra layer of requirements.

25/04/2017 ESMA70-145-76 Points for convergence in relation to MAR accepted market practices on liquidity contracts , Opinion PDF
166.37 KB
13/07/2017 ESMA35-43-762 Opinion to support supervisory convergence in the area of investment firms in the context of the United Kingdom withdrawing from the European Union , , Opinion PDF
236.23 KB
27/09/2017 ESMA70-145-171 Opinion on the intended accepted market practice on liquidity contracts notified by the CMVM Opinion PDF
364.69 KB

Link to the revised template describing the Portuguese AMP as established by a decision of the Portuguese CMVM of 9 November 2017 and published in accordance with Article 2 (3) of Commission Delegated Regulation  (EU) 2016/908: https://www.esma.europa.eu/sites/default/files/cmvm_annex_-_amp_on_liquidity_contracts.pdf

16/12/2016 2016/1663 Opinion on intended accepted market practice on liquidity contracts by the CNMV Opinion PDF
6.43 MB

Link to the revised template describing the Spanish AMP as established through a Circular and published by the CNMV in accordance with Article 2 (3) of Commission Delegated Regulation  (EU) 2016/908: https://www.esma.europa.eu/sites/default/files/cnmv_amp_-_revised_template_post_circular.pdf.

 

19/03/2020 ESMA70-155-9587 Opinion on HCMC emergency measure under the SSR , , Opinion PDF
260.22 KB
15/04/2020 ESMA70-155-9853 Opinion on HCMC emergency measure under the SSR , , Opinion PDF
308.38 KB
19/03/2020 ESMA70-155-9590 Opinion on FSMA emergency measure under the SSR , , Opinion PDF
260.27 KB
15/04/2020 ESMA70-155-9833 Opinion on FSMA emergency measure under the SSR , , Opinion PDF
306.36 KB
24/03/2020 ESMA70-155-9604 Opinion on FMA emergency measure under the SSR , , Opinion PDF
265.61 KB
15/04/2020 ESMA70-155-9848 Opinion on FMA emergency measure under the SSR , , Opinion PDF
432.15 KB
06/07/2016 2016/1078 Opinion on CONSOB emergency measure under the Short Selling Regulation , Opinion PDF
158.94 KB

OPINION OF THE EUROPEAN SECURITIES AND MARKETS AUTHORITY

of 6 July 2016

on a proposed emergency measure by CONSOB under Section 1 of Chapter V of Regulation (EU) No 236/2012

 

 

 

 

 

In accordance with Article 44(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1095/2010 the Board of Supervisors has adopted the following opinion:

  1. Legal basis

According to Article 27(2) of Regulation (EU) No 236/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2012 on short selling and certain aspects of credit default swaps[1], the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) shall within 24 hours of the notification made by a competent authority under Article 26 of that Regulation, issue an opinion on whether it considers the measure or proposed measure is necessary to address the exceptional circumstances.

  1. Background
    1. In accordance with Article 26 of Regulation (EU) No 236/2012, CONSOB notified ESMA on 5 July 2016 of its intention to make use of its powers of intervention in exceptional circumstances and to introduce an emergency measure under Article 20(2)(b) of that Regulation.
    2. The concerned emergency measure consists of a ban on net short positions on Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena spa (“BMPS” - ISIN IT0005092165) shares, either directly or through related instruments and irrespectively of the venue or market in which the transactions leading to those positions are conducted.
    3. The proposed measure will not apply to trading in index-related instruments.
    4. CONSOB has not exempted entities performing market making activities from the scope of the prohibition. CONSOB justifies the absence of an exemption for market makers on the fact that the definition of market makers is not convergent across different jurisdictions.
    5. The proposed measure is expected to enter into force on 7 July 2016 at 00:00:01 CET and to be applicable until 5 October 2016 at 24:00:00 CET.
    6. On 4 July 2016 BMPS published a press release whereby it informed the public of a draft regulatory request coming from the European Central Bank (“ECB”).
    7. In particular, the ECB has requested BMPS to reduce the amount of non-performing loans (“NPL”) by close to 15 billion euro by 2018 and provide the ECB, by 3 October 2016, with a credible plan outlining the measures to be taken by BMPS in order to reduce the NPL compared to the total loans (i.e. from an actual ratio NPL/total loans of 42% to a target ratio of 20% by 2018).
    8. BMPS should submit the above plan by Monday 3 October 2016.
    9. Following the publication of the press release, BMPS price fell by 13.99% in a single day (4 July 2016) in respect to the reference price of the day before. The drop in price continued, more intensely, the following day (-19.39% on 5 July 2016).
  1. On the adverse events or developments
    1. ESMA considers that the circumstances described above are adverse events or developments which constitute a serious threat to market confidence in Italy.
    2. More specifically, it should be noted that the BMPS share price already fell by 26.29% in the period starting from 24 June to 1 July 2016, following the results of the UK referendum. Overall, the price of BMPS shares has fallen by 50% in the last thirteen days, and a substantial selling pressure and unusual volatility in the price of shares issued by BMPS could be reasonably expected as market uncertainty remains. Moreover, BMPS is among the Italian issuers with the highest net short position (roughly equal to 6% of the share capital as at 1 July 2016).
    3. As a result, and at least until the abovementioned BMPS plan to reduce the amount of non-performing loans has been submitted to the ECB, a threat to market confidence persists regarding BMPS shares. If an abrupt decline in the price of BMPS shares continues, there is a risk of contagion effect to other shares of the Italian banking sector.
    4. In this respect, it should be considered that the ECB has requested BMPS to reduce the amount of NPL by close to 15 billion euro by 2018 and that BMPS net equity, according to the Consolidated Report on Operations as at 31 December 2015, was close to 9.5 billion euro. Therefore, the realisation of the plan may require significant adjustment.
    5. The combination of large short positions, severe decline movements in price in the last weeks and the impact of the actions that the bank will need to undertake in view of the relevance of the required measures constitutes in ESMA´s view a clearly adverse scenario for the stability of the bank and, given its relative size, of the Italian banking sector.
  1. On the appropriateness and proportionality of the measure
    1. ESMA considers that the emergency measure under Article 20(2)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 236/2012 in relation to BMPS shares is appropriate and proportionate to address the threat in the Italian financial markets.
    2. The measure is adequate to address the expected substantial selling pressures and the unusual volatility causing significant downward spirals in BMPS shares (adverse events and developments as indicated in letter c) of Article 24(1) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 918/2012), given that it limits the ability to enter into short positions, which may be a relevant factor behind the severe falls experienced in recent dates. In that sense, to the extent that the measure restricts the ability to adopt short positions, it may also indirectly reduce the risk of a contagion effect to other shares of the Italian banking sector.
    3. The measure is appropriate because it is the least stringent of all the measures that would sufficiently address the threat. A temporary restriction on short selling according to Article 23 of the Regulation (EU) No 236/2012 (which CONSOB also adopted on 5 July 2016) would not address the long period of risk as it may not be extended to the described period of three months. Similarly, a mere short sale prohibition would not cover activities through derivatives. Above that, a total ban including all products could have been considered, but CONSOB has decided to minimise possible detrimental effects on the efficiency of financial markets, and does not extend the restrictions to index-related instruments.
    4. As to the non-exemption for entities performing market making activities (market makers), ESMA notes that CONSOB considers that, given the broad dispersion of what is considered a market maker in different Member States, should the exemption be introduced, it would apply to a potentially very wide number of entities, affecting therefore the effectiveness of the prohibition. On the one hand, ESMA acknowledges that such a diversity exists and that the exemption for market makers could reach a wide number of entities compared to those that usually perform market making on a regular basis. On the other hand, ESMA considers that the non-application of the exemption to active market makers could dis-incentivise or make more complex the quoting of BMPS shares by market makers active in this specific share, which could detract additional liquidity from the market.
  1. On the duration of the measure
    1. ESMA considers that the duration of the measure, although it consumes the maximum period envisaged in the Regulation and is therefore a long-lasting measure, is justified, given the intention of covering the deadline BMPS was given by the ECB to deliver the plan to reduce the amount of non-performing loans (3 October 2016).
    2. Besides, the measure may be lifted before the end of the established period if circumstances that justified the imposition of the measure improve. ESMA recommends CONSOB to monitor closely the situation and to consider lifting the measure before the initial deadline if the situation so permits, to ensure that the restrictions remain in place for the shortest possible time.

This opinion will be published on ESMA’s website.

Done at Paris, 6 July 2016

 

[1] OJ L 86, 24.3.2012, p. 1–24.

17/03/2020 ESMA70-155-9565 Opinion on CONSOB emergency measure under SSR , , Opinion PDF
346.47 KB

Pages