REFINE YOUR SEARCH
Type of document
|Date||Ref.||Title||Section||Type||Download||Info||Summary||Related Documents||Translated versions|
|14/04/2011||2011/112||Final report- Guidelines to competent authorities and UCITS management companies on risk meas-urement and the calculation of global exposure for certain types of structured UCITS||Fund Management||Final Report||PDF
|10/03/2011||2011/MB/3||Decision of the Management Board- Internal language arrangements||Management Board, Corporate Information||Decision||PDF
|10/03/2011||2011/MB/4||Decision of the Management Board- Professional secrecy||Management Board, Corporate Information||Decision||PDF
|31/05/2011||2011/MB/69||Decision of the Management Board- Access to documents||Management Board, Corporate Information||Decision||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
|25/07/2012||2012/474||Report and consultation paper on guidelines on ETFs and other UCITS issues||Fund Management||Final Report||PDF
|This paper sets out ESMA’s guidelines on ETFs and other UCITS issues. The guidelines are adapted to the type of UCITS, management technique or financial instrument in question and are detailed in Annex III of the documentThis document also sets out in Annex IV a public consultation on the treatment of repo and reverse repo arrangements on which ESMA is seeking feedback from stakeholders. The feedback to this further consultation will be used by ESMA to finalise its position on this specific issue, which will be incorporated into the rest of the guidelines already adopted by the Authority (cf. Annex III of this document).|
|04/12/2012||2012/722||Guidelines on repurchase and reverse repurchase agreements||Fund Management||Final Report||PDF
The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) has today published its final guidelines on repurchase and reverse repurchase agreements for UCITS funds. The guidelines state that UCITS should only enter into such agreements if they are able to recall at any time any assets or the full amount of cash.
|15/11/2013||2013/1339||Guidelines on reporting obligations under Articles 3(3)(d) and 24(1), (2) and (4) of the AIFMD (revised)||Fund Management||Final Report||PDF
|24/05/2013||2013/600||Guidelines on key concepts of the AIFMD||Fund Management||Final Report||PDF
Executive Summary Reasons for publication On 23 February 2012, ESMA published a discussion paper (DP) on key concepts of the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive and types of AIFM (2012/117), which was followed on 19 December 2012 by the publication of a consultation paper (CP) on guidelines on key concepts of the AIFMD (2012/845). The CP set out formal proposals for guidelines ensuring common, uniform and consistent application of the concepts in the definition of ‘AIF’ in Article 4(1)(a) of the AIFMD by providing clarification on each of these concepts. This final report sets out the final text of the guidelines on key concepts of the AIFMD.
|24/04/2014||2013/922||Compliance table- suitability guidelines||MiFID - Investor Protection, Guidelines and Technical standards||Compliance table||PDF
|24/04/2014||2013/923||Compliance table- compliance guidelines||Guidelines and Technical standards, MiFID - Investor Protection||Compliance table||PDF
|07/10/2014||2014-1213||Guidelines compliance table for Guidelines on remuneration policies and practices (MiFID)||MiFID - Investor Protection||Compliance table||PDF
|02/12/2014||2014/BOA/05||Decision by the ESA BoA concerning Investor Protection Europe sprl||Joint Committee, Board of Appeal||Decision||PDF
|The Joint Board of Appeal of the ESAs decides on the inadmissibility of an appeal brought by IPE sprl, a company based in Brussels, against a decision by ESMAThe Joint Board of Appeal of the European Supervisory Authorities published today its decision in an appeal brought by Investor Protection Europe (IPE) sprl, a company based in Brussels, against a decision of the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) of 10 June 2014 not to initiate an investigation under Article 17 of the ESMA Regulation regarding an alleged breach of Union law by the Commission de Surveillance du Secteur Financier of Luxembourg. The Board of Appeal unanimously decided that the appeal was inadmissible, and in the light of that decision, did not consider the substance of IPE’s complaint.|
|17/07/2014||2014/C1/02||Board of Appeal Decision||Joint Committee, Board of Appeal||Decision||PDF
|The Joint Board of Appeal of the European Supervisory Authorities (the European Banking Authority, the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority and the European Securities and Markets Authority) published its decision in an appeal brought by SV Capital OÜ, an Estonian company, against a decision of the EBA. This was the second appeal to be considered by the Board of Appeal in this matter between the same parties concerning the question whether the suitability of the managers of a significant branch of a bank raised a question of Union law. Following the Board of Appeal’s affirmative decision of 24 June 2013, the appellant requested the EBA to initiate an investigation against the Estonian and Finnish Financial Supervision Authorities because their alleged failure to take action in respect of individuals in the Estonian branch of Nordea Bank Finland PLC whom it was alleged were not fit and proper persons to be key function holders in the bank. The EBA decided that it would not initiate an investigation. The Board of Appeal decided that the EBA had been right to raise the matter with the national supervisors, but that having done so, it was entitled to take no further action in the light of their responses. The Board accordingly dismissed the appellant’s appeal against the EBA’s decision.|
|02/07/2014||2014/MB/38||Decision on the Financial Regulation of ESMA||Management Board||Decision||PDF
|02/07/2014||2014/MB/39||Decision on the Implementing Rules to the Financial Regulation of ESMA||Management Board||Decision||PDF
|30/11/2015||2015/1783||Final Report on complex debt instruments and structured deposits||MiFID - Investor Protection||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.
|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.|