REFINE YOUR SEARCH
Type of document
|Date||Ref.||Title||Section||Type||Download||Info||Summary||Related Documents||Translated versions|
|25/09/2000||00-064c||The regulation of Alternative Trading Systems in Europe. A paper for the EU Commission||MiFID - Secondary Markets||Final Report||PDF
|Alternative Trading Systems (ATS) offer electronic securities trading facilities outside the traditional trading channels. An expert group chaired by Howard Davies, Chairman of the UK FSA, has studied the impact of such systems in depth. The group has prepared a comprehensive report identifying and assessing the benefits and risks associated with the emergence of ATS and analysing the current regulatory treatment of such systems, within Europe and elsewhere. The report proposes both a short term and a long term option for a harmonised regulatory treatment of such systems in Europe.The paper was submitted to the European Commission as FESCO"s contribution to the preparation of the forthcoming Green Paper on possible amendments to the Investment Services Directive. The Green Paper will shortly be published as a basis for consultation with Member States, the financial services industry and other interested parties. However, the FESCO paper noted that, while the Green Paper on the ISD might be the catalyst for a far-reaching review of the regulatory approach to ATS, it would not provide a short-term solution. Accordingly, FESCO proposed that the short-term solution should take the form of a set of additional regulatory requirements for ATS operating as investment firms.FESCO will be working on proposals for what those additional regulatory requirements might be over the next six months, with a view to producing a consultation paper in the first half of 2001. This consultation paper will provide an opportunity for interested parties to comment in detail on the FESCO proposals. If, however, in the meantime interested parties have any specific comments on the possible additional regulatory requirements identified in paragraph 71 of the September paper, they should make these known to the Secretariat of FESCO via the following e-mail address: email@example.com|
|11/05/2005||05-274||Feedback Statement- Market Abuse Directive, Level 3 – first set of guidance and information on the common operation of the Directive||Market Abuse||Final Report||PDF
|22/11/2007||07-693||Report on Administrative Measures and Sanctions available in Member States under the Market Abuse Directive (MAD)||Market Abuse||Final Report||PDF
|28/02/2008||08-099||CESR Executive summary to the report on administrative measures and sanctions as well as the criminal sanctions available in Member States under the Market Abuse Directive||Market Abuse||Final Report||PDF
|15/05/2009||09-220||Feedback statement- MAD Level 3 – Third set of CESR guidance and information on the common operation of the Directive to the market||Market Abuse||CESR Document||PDF
|06/07/2012||2012/387||Final report Guidelines on certain aspects of the MiFID suitability requirements||Guidelines and Technical standards, MiFID - Investor Protection||Final Report||PDF
|01/07/2013||2013/805||Supervisory Practices under MAD- Peer review report and Good Practices||Market Abuse, Supervisory convergence||Final Report||PDF
|ESMA's peer review of the supervisory practices EEA national competent authorities (NCAs) covers how national authorities enforce the requirements of the Market Abuse Directive (MAD). The Directive deals with the prevention of the dissemination of misleading information, the breach of reporting obligations and market abuse.|
|01/07/2013||2013/806||Supervisory Practices under MAD- Mapping Report||Market Abuse, Supervisory convergence||Final Report||PDF
|ESMA's Mapping Report on Supervisory Practices under MAD sets out the situation in each Member State as regards their implementation of the various requirements of the Market Abuse Directive.|
|23/09/2014||2014/1164 Annex||Annex to the Statement by Steven Maijoor, Chair of ESMA to the ECON hearing, 23 September 2014||Corporate Information||Final Report||PDF
|19/12/2014||2014/1569||Technical Advice to the Commission on MiFID II and MiFIR||MiFID - Investor Protection, MiFID - Secondary Markets||Technical Advice||PDF
|Reasons for publication The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) received a formal request (mandate) from the European Commission (Commission) on 23 April 2014 to provide technical advice to assist the Commission on the possible content of the delegated acts required by several provisions of Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID II) and the Markets in Financial Instruments Regulation (MiFIR). The mandate focuses on technical issues which follow from MiFID II and MiFIR and is available on the European Commission website (here). ESMA was required to provide technical advice by no later than six months after the entry into force of MiFID II and MiFIR (2 July 2014). Contents This final report follows the same structure as the Consultation Paper (CP) published by ESMA on 22 May 2014 which is: (1) Introduction, (2) Investor protection, (3) Transparency, (4) Data publication, (5) Micro-structural issues, (6) Requirements applying on and to trading venues, (7) Commodity derivatives and (8) Portfolio compression. This paper also contains summaries of responses to the CP received by ESMA. The rationale of those items covered already in the CP for which no relevant changes have been introduced, is not developed again in this Final Report. ESMA recommends, therefore, to read this report together with the CP published on 22 May 2014 to have a complete vision of the rationale for ESMA’s technical advice. Next steps Delegated acts should be adopted by the Commission so that they enter into application by 30 months following the entry into force of the Directive and Regulation, taking into account the right of the European Parliament and Council to object to a delegated act within 3 months (which can be extended by a further 3 months).|
|28/09/2015||2015-ESMA-1464 Annex II||Annex II- CBA- draft RTS and ITS on MiFID II and MiFIR||MiFID - Secondary Markets||Final Report||PDF
|28/09/2015||2015/1455 CBA||Cost analysis for Final Report on MAR technical standards||Market Abuse||Final Report||PDF
|30/11/2015||2015/1783||Final Report on complex debt instruments and structured deposits||MiFID - Investor Protection||Final Report||PDF
|11/12/2015||2015/1858||Final Report- Draft ITS under MiFID II||MiFID - Secondary Markets||Final Report||PDF
|22/12/2015||2015/1861||Final report- Guidelines on cross-selling practices||MiFID - Investor Protection||Final Report||PDF
|17/12/2015||2015/1886||Final report on guidelines for the assessment of knowledge and competence||MiFID - Investor Protection||Final Report||PDF
Reasons for publication
1. Article 25(1) of Directive 2014/65/EU (MiFID II) states that Member States shall require investment firms to ensure and demonstrate to competent authorities on request that natural persons giving investment advice or providing information about financial instruments, investment services or ancillary services to clients on behalf of the investment firm possess the necessary knowledge and competence to fulfil their obligations under Article 24 and Article 25 .
2. The European Securities and Markets Authority is required by Article 25(9) of MiFID II to develop – by 3 January 2016 - guidelines specifying criteria for the assessment of knowledge and competence of investment firms’ personnel. The guidelines will come into effect on 3 January 2017.
3. In accordance with Article 16(2) of the ESMA Regulation, a consultation was launched on 23 April 2015. The Consultation Paper (CP) set out draft ESMA guidelines for the assessment of knowledge and competence of individuals in investment firms providing investment advice or information about financial instruments, investment services or ancillary services to clients on behalf of the investment firm. The consultation period closed on 10 July 2015.
4. ESMA received 80 responses. The answers received on the CP are available on ESMA’s website unless respondents requested otherwise.
5. As provided by Article 16 of the ESMA Regulation, ESMA also sought the advice of the Securities and Markets Stakeholder Group’s (SMSG).
6. This paper contains summaries of responses received and feedback statements provided by ESMA. ESMA recommends that this report should be read together with the CP published on 23 April 2015 to have a complete understanding of the rationale for the guidelines. The final guidelines presented in Annex VI take into account the comments and suggestions raised by respondents.
7. Section II briefly summarises the feedback to the CP and the main responses from ESMA.
8. Section III contains the Annexes: Annex I provides the Summary of questions, Annex II contains the legislative mandate, Annex III reports the cost-benefit analysis, Annex IV reports the Opinion of the Securities and Markets Stakeholder Group, Annex V details the feedback on the CP, Annex VI sets out the final text of the guidelines and Annex VII describes some illustrative examples of the application of certain aspects of the guidelines.
9. The final guidelines in Annex VI will be translated into the official EU languages and published on the ESMA website. The publication of the translations will trigger a two-month period during which National Competent Authorities (NCAs) must notify ESMA whether they comply or intend to comply with the guidelines.
|22/12/2015||2015/1905||MAD Supervisory Practices peer review follow-up||Market Abuse, Supervisory convergence||Final Report||PDF
|03/02/2015||2015/224||ESMA’s technical advice on possible delegated acts concerning the Market Abuse Regulation||Market Abuse||Technical Advice||PDF
|This advice:• specifies the MAR market manipulation indicators, by providing examples of practices that may constitute market manipulation as well as proposing “additional” indicators of market manipulation; • recommends to set the minimum thresholds that exempt certain market participants in the emission allowance market from publicly disclosing inside information at six million tonnes of CO2eq per year and at 2,430 MW rated thermal input;• suggests the way to determine to which regulator delays in disclosure of inside information needs to be notified. • provides clarifications on the enhanced disclosure of managers’ transactions. - ESMA recommends disclosing any acquisition, disposal, subscription or exchange of financial instruments of the relevant issuer or related financial instruments carried out by managers,, further illustrated through a non-exhaustive list of types of transactions subject to this obligation. . ESMA also clarifies the transactions that can be allowed by the issuer during a closed period when normally managers are prohibited to trade; and• proposes procedures and arrangements to ensure sound whistleblowing infrastructures – i.e. EU national regulators should allow the receipt of reports of infringements, including appropriate communication channels and guarantee the protection of reporting and reported persons, with respect to their identity and their personal data. Next steps ESMA has sent its technical advice to the European Commission for its consideration in drafting its implementing standards regarding MAR. ESMA’s regulatory technical standards regarding MAR will be delivered in July 2015.|
|25/02/2015||2015/494||Best Execution under MiFID||MiFID - Investor Protection, Supervisory convergence||Final Report||PDF
|The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) has conducted a peer review on how national regulators (national competent authorities or NCAs) supervise and enforce the MiFID provisions relating to investment firms’ obligation to provide best execution, or obtain the best possible result, for their clients when executing their orders. ESMA found that the level of implementation of best execution provisions, as well as the level of convergence of supervisory practices by NCAs, is relatively low. In order to address this situation a number of improvements were identified, including: • prioritisation of best execution as a key conduct of business supervisory issue; • the allocation of sufficient resources to best execution supervision; and • a more proactive supervisory approach to monitoring compliance with best execution requirements, both desk-based and onsite inspections. The review was conducted on the basis of information provided by 29 NCAs and complemented by on-site visits to the NCAs of France, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malta, Poland and Spain.|
|26/07/2016||2016/1171||Final Report Draft Implementing Technical Standards on sanctions and measures under MAR||Market Abuse, Market Integrity||Final Report||PDF