ESMA LIBRARY

The ESMA Library contains all ESMA documents. Please use the search and filter options to find specific documents.
138
DOCUMENTS

REFINE YOUR SEARCH

Sections

Type of document

Your filters
MiFID - Secondary Markets X Corporate Information X Board of Supervisors X Fund Management X Joint Committee X Innovation and Products X Opinion X Final Report X
Reset all filters

Pages

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 Final Report PDF
84.28 KB
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: fdankers@europefesco.org
17/11/2017 ESMA34-49-103 Technical advice, draft implementing technical standards and guidelines under the MMF Regulation Final Report PDF
989.54 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.
09/03/2016 ESAs/2016/21 RTS on Risk Mitigation LegisWrite Final Report PDF
419.38 KB
02/04/2014 JC/2014/18 Report on risks and vulnerabilities in the EU financial system March 2014 Final Report PDF
1.28 MB
14/12/2015 EBA/Op/2015/20 Report on investment firms Final Report PDF
1.2 MB
25/07/2012 2012/474 Report and consultation paper on guidelines on ETFs and other UCITS issues Final Report PDF
728.1 KB
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).
08/11/2013 JC-2013-72 Preliminary report on anti-money laundering and counter financing of terrorism Risk Based Supervision Final Report PDF
636.21 KB
01/08/2013 2013/1072 Practical arrangements for the late transposition of the AIFMD 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.
20/06/2019 ESMA70-155-2925 Position limit on French Power Peak contracts Opinion PDF
235.2 KB
20/06/2019 ESMA70-155-2941 Position limit on French Power Base contracts Opinion PDF
232.18 KB
24/09/2019 ESMA70-155-5827 Position limit on EEX Italian Power Peak contracts Opinion PDF
234.36 KB
24/09/2019 ESMA70-155-2929 Position limit on EEX Italian Power Base contracts Opinion PDF
223.5 KB
20/06/2019 ESMA70-155-4451 Position limit on Czech PXE Power Base contract Opinion PDF
261.58 KB
20/03/2019 ESMA-70-155-5287 Position limit notification for Hungarian Future Opinion PDF
537.44 KB
31/07/2014 JC/2014/062 Placement of financial instruments with depositors, retail investors and policy holders ('Self placement') Final Report PDF
383.93 KB
Reminder to credit institutions and insurance undertakings about applicable regulatory requirements Executive summary As part of their respective mandates to protect investors, depositors and policy holders, the three European Supervisory Authorities, the EBA, ESMA and EIOPA are concerned about the practices used by some financial institutions to comply with enhanced prudential requirements under the CRD/R IV, the pending BRRD, and Solvency 2, as well as the ongoing EBA stress test and the ECB’s comprehensive assessment. These practices include financial institutions selling to their own client base financial instruments that they themselves have issued and that are eligible to comply with the above requirements. This practice may breach a number of rules governing the conduct of these institutions. However, the ‘loss bearing’ features of many of these products mean that consumers are exposed to significant risks that do not exist for other financial instruments. For example, investors are more likely to be subject to bail-in; and the absence of harmonised structures, trigger points and loss absorption makes it difficult for investors to understand and compare the products. Each product needs to be assessed as a unique offering, which may be particularly challenging for retail investors. The three authorities, within their remits, are reminding financial institutions that capitalisation pressures should not affect their ability to comply with existing and future requirements applicable in the European Union for the provision of services to consumers, including investors, depositors and policy holders. It is expected that due to regulatory and market developments, the risks of consumer detriment described here will further increase; this reminder is aimed at preventing this.
30/04/2019 ESMA70-155-2935 Phelix DEAT Power Peak Futures position limit opinion Opinion PDF
252.75 KB
30/04/2019 ESMA70-155-5289 Phelix DEAT OTF Base Futures position limit opinion Opinion PDF
217.88 KB
30/04/2019 ESMA70-155-6353 Phelix DE Power Peak Futures position limit opinion Opinion PDF
272.08 KB
13/10/2011 2011/342 Opinion- Practical arrangements for the late transposition of the UCITS IV Directive Opinion PDF
41.33 KB

Pages