ESMA LIBRARY

The ESMA Library contains all ESMA documents. Please use the search and filter options to find specific documents.
147
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 Statement X
Reset all filters

Pages

Date Ref. Title Section Type Download Info Summary Related Documents Translated versions
05/02/2019 ESMA 70-155-7026 Use of UK data in ESMA databases in case of a no-deal Brexit , , Statement PDF
281.69 KB
07/10/2019 ESMA70-155-7658 Use of UK data in ESMA databases and performance of MiFID II calculations in case of a no-deal Brexit on 31 October 2019 , , Statement PDF
155.54 KB
07/10/2019 ESMA90-1-167 Update on the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union- preparations for a possible no-deal Brexit scenario on 31 October 2019 , , , Statement PDF
179.84 KB
05/12/2019 JC 2019 19 The introduction of fallbacks in OTC derivative contracts and the requirement to exchange collateral , Statement PDF
80.41 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.
12/10/2020 ESMA22-105-1248 Steven Maijoor Opening Statement for ECON Hearing 12 October 2020 , , , , , Statement PDF
134.36 KB
11/06/2020 ESMA70-156-3070 Statement_Access ETDs , , Statement PDF
112.54 KB
21/03/2017 JC1 Statement- ESAs welcome European Commission’s public consultation on their operation Statement PDF
206.55 KB
30/01/2020 ESMA71-99-1279 Statement on ESMA Standing Committee Chair appointments Jan 2020 , Statement PDF
89.15 KB
04/05/2020 ESMA71-99-1324 Statement on bilateral margin RTS amendments in response to Covid-19 , , , Statement PDF
101.16 KB
13/06/2016 2016/943 Statement by Verena Ross at ECON Public Hearing on Securitisation , Statement PDF
242.38 KB
23/09/2014 2014/1164 Statement by Steven Maijoor, Chair, European Securities and Markets Authority at the ECON Committee, European Parliament 23 September 2014 Statement PDF
109.53 KB
Dear Members of the European Parliament, Ladies and gentlemen, First of all, I would like to congratulate you on your election or re-election as a Member of the European Parliament and as a member of this important committee. Call it a “Single Capital Market” or “Capital Market Union”, the financial regulatory reform in the European Union (EU) in the last five years has made solid progress and is a decisive step towards the aim of completing the single market in financial services. This is not only a necessity to tackle failures exposed by the financial crisis, it is also a crucial part of realising the overriding objective of securing economic recovery in the EU. However, it will only reach its full potential if the single rule book is applied consistently and supervised adequately so that all stakeholders can benefit from it in daily practice. ESMA plays a key role in achieving this objective, by enhancing investor protection and by promoting stable and orderly financial markets in the EU. Since its inception three and a half years ago, ESMA has contributed to the creation of an EU single rulebook by developing technical standards and guidelines, and by assisting the European Institutions, and the European Commission in particular, in providing technical advice on such areas as: over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives, hedge funds and private equity, short selling, high frequency trading, Exchange-Traded Funds (ETFs), investment advice and financial information. In the last 12 months, ESMA finalised 22 technical standards and pieces of technical advice to the European Commission, as well as seven sets of guidelines, in order to complete the legal framework in areas such as Credit Rating Agencies, prospectuses, market infrastructures, European Social Entrepreneurship Funds and European Venture Capital Funds. We are currently translating the recently agreed MiFID II/MiFIR requirements into practically applicable rules. I will not run through all the work we have done on the single rulebook in that time as you can find an overview and some statistics in the Annex to my Statement which was distributed to you. I would like to stress that throughout the entire policy process we engage as much as possible with all relevant stakeholders – through hearings, direct meetings and consultations. We have – and will continue – to interact with many stakeholder associations representing consumers, investors and market participants - and solicit the views of ESMA’s Securities and Markets Stakeholders Group (SMSG). To mention two examples, right now we are assessing the almost 800 responses we have received to our MiFID II discussion and consultation papers and ESMA has received more than 1500 questions on the implementation of the European Market Infrastructure Regulation (EMIR). ESMA has successfully developed a regime of direct supervision at EU level. We supervise 23 credit rating agencies by conducting thematic investigations, on-site visits, analysing the information CRAs provide to the public and by monitoring the implementation of remedial action plans. In June this year, ESMA concluded its first enforcement action and issued a public notice censuring Standard & Poor’s Credit Market Services France SAS and Standard & Poor’s Credit Market Services Europe Limited (S&P) for failing to meet certain organisational requirements. EMIR brings more transparency to derivatives markets by introducing mandatory reporting to trade repositories (TRs). Since November 2013, six repositories have been registered and are now supervised by ESMA. Since reporting under EMIR went live, derivatives trade data has flowed into the repositories: as of 30 June 2014, more than 1 billion new trades have been reported to the TRs. Regulators now have access, or are in the process of establishing access, to derivatives data which should help in providing a clearer picture on the risks associated with those markets. On identifying risks to investor protection and stability, ESMA has substantially improved its data and intelligence gathering capabilities. Risks in securities markets are, for example regularly, identified and reported on in ESMA’s Trend, Risk and Vulnerabilities Report. Concerning the convergence of supervisory practices we have employed a range of instruments, including Q&As, opinions and peer reviews. Regarding peer reviews, we have strengthened our methodology, including the more frequent use of on-site visits. More generally, with the reform of financial markets moving from legislation to implementation, supervisory convergence will become a higher priority in ESMA’s activities and we will increase our resources allocated to this area. That brings me to the last topic I would like to raise, which I also brought to this Committee’s attention last year, the need for a stable budget. Today, our funding comes from a combination of the EU budget, levies on the financial market entities that we supervise directly, and the Member States’ national competent authorities. We are concerned that an increasing budget contribution from national competent authorities might pose undue difficulties to their functioning. This would run counter to the reinforcement of securities markets regulation and supervision at both EU and national level as envisaged in the regulatory reform programme. ESMA’s funding should guarantee its independence and not create potential undue influence. Therefore, we believe that the co-legislators should consider increasing the funding ESMA receives from financial market entities which require ESMA’s intervention and to increase the Union’s share in ESMA’s budget through an independent budget line directly adopted by the co-legislators. Thank you for your attention.
30/09/2013 ESMA/2013/1363 Statement by Steven Maijoor, Chair European Securities and Markets Authority, ECON Committee, European Parliament 30 September 2013 Statement PDF
113.71 KB
Annex to the Statement by Steven Maijoor, Chair of ESMA, to the ECON hearing, 30 September 2013 ESMA/2013/1350
28/01/2016 2016/102 Statement by Steven Maijoor on behalf of the ESAs , Statement PDF
107.74 KB

Statement at the ECON scrutiny hearing on behalf of the ESAs.

20/06/2016 2016/940 Statement by Steven Maijoor at ECON MiFID II/MiFIR Scrutiny Session, 21 June 2016 , Statement PDF
235.65 KB
26/03/2019 ESMA71-99-1136 SCSC Chair reappointed , Statement PDF
78.43 KB
29/05/2019 ESMA70-154-1204 Revised Public_ Statement_Trading_Obligation_Shares , Statement PDF
82.26 KB
02/02/2016 2016/165 Public Statement- Supervisory work on potential closet index tracking Statement PDF
258.17 KB

The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) is issuing this statement to inform stakeholders and especially investors about the potential for some European collective investment funds to be ‘closet index trackers’, and to give details on the work that ESMA has been doing in this context.

Introduction

  1. ESMA’s attention was drawn to an alleged practice in the European collective investment management industry whereby asset managers claim, according to their fund rules and investor information documentation, to manage their funds in an active manner while the funds are, in fact, staying very close to a benchmark and therefore implementing an investment strategy which requires less input from the investment manager. At the same time, it is alleged that these funds charge management fees in line with those of funds that are considered to be actively managed[1]. This practice is commonly referred to as ‘closet indexing’ or ‘index hugging’.
  2. In many EU Member States, NCAs have launched or are in the process of launching specific investigations, in addition to their regular monitoring and supervisory functions, to determine the potential extent of closet indexing in their jurisdictions, with a focus on equity funds at this stage. At the same time, the issue has been the subject of considerable attention by investor protection groups and the media throughout the European Union.

Reasons for issuing this statement

  1. The issues around ‘closet indexing’ form part of a broader issue on the effectiveness of investor disclosure and the legitimate expectations of investors in respect of the service provided by some asset managers. Nonetheless, the potential practice of closet indexing in Europe raises questions that merit closer analysis. The analysis carried out by ESMA (see paragraphs 9 to 16 for more details) indicates that there might be a small, but not insignificant number of funds in the EU equity fund sector that may be closet index trackers. If the existence of this practice were to be confirmed by further supervisory scrutiny carried out at national level, this could mean that:
  1. investors could be making investment decisions based on an expectation that they will be provided with a more active fund management service than they receive in practice and, therefore, may be paying higher management fees than that usually envisaged for a passive/not significantly active management service;
  2. investors may be exposed to a different risk/return profile than they expect; and
  3. some asset managers may not provide clear descriptions of how funds are managed in key disclosure documents such as the fund’s Prospectus and Key Investor Information Document (KIID).
  1. ESMA considers it important that fund managers take their commitments in disclosure documents seriously. Managers should expect supervisory consequences where evidence for incorrect disclosures is proven.
 

[1] ESMA recognises that management fees may depend on a number of factors.

28/09/2017 ESMA70-154-356 Public statement- Joint work plan of ESMA and NCAs for opinions on MiFID II pre-trade transparency waivers and position limits Statement PDF
165.66 KB
19/03/2019 ESMA70-155-7329 Public Statement Trading Obligation Shares , Statement PDF
134.02 KB

Pages