ESMA LIBRARY

The ESMA Library contains all ESMA documents. Please use the search and filter options to find specific documents.
193
DOCUMENTS

REFINE YOUR SEARCH

Sections

Type of document

Your filters
Credit Rating Agencies X MiFID - Secondary Markets X MiFID - Investor Protection X Benchmarks X Procurement X Prospectus X Brexit 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
28/03/2011 2011/22 Report- ESMA Data on Prospectuses Approved and Passported- July 2010 to December 2010 , Final Report PDF
134.79 KB
22/03/2012 2012/207 ESMA’s Report on the Supervision of Credit Rating Agencies Final Report PDF
323.81 KB
This report provides an overview of ESMA’s supervisory activity on Credit Rating Agencies (CRAs) registered in the European Union and summarises the results of ESMA’s first examination of the three groups of registered CRAs (Fitch Ratings, Moody's Investors Services, and Standard & Poor's Rating Services). The examination referred to in this document is the first step in an ongoing supervisory process conducted by ESMA and therefore does not represent a full scope investigation. The observations set forth in this Report refer to common issues affecting CRAs activities. As of the date of this document, ESMA has not determined whether any observation highlighted below constitutes a breach of the provisions of the Regulation. ESMA is still progressing in its assessment of the areas discussed in this Report. This Report is not based on a decision by ESMA’s Board of Supervisors; therefore it is published without prejudice to the possibility of further investigations which could lead to enforcement or supervisory actions.
12/01/2012 2012/3 Annual report on the application of the Regulation on credit rating agencies as provided by Article 21(5) and Article 39a of the Regulation (EU) No 1060/2009 as amended by Regulation No 1095/2010 Final Report PDF
141.98 KB
This is the first report under the new CRA regulation, however, please note that CESR published a report about the application of the Regulation in the EU and, in particular, on the implementation of the requirements established in Annex I of the Regulation on 6 December 2010 (CESR/10-1424), according to Article 21(4) of the Regulation which was subsequently amended by Regulation No (EC) 513/2011. At the time of publication, 16 CRA's have been registered.
06/07/2012 2012/387 Final report Guidelines on certain aspects of the MiFID suitability requirements , Final Report PDF
444.15 KB
25/09/2012 2012/602 ESMA Data on Prospectuses Approved and Passported- January 2011 to December 2011 , Final Report PDF
573.49 KB
25/09/2012 2012/603 ESMA Data on Prospectuses Approved and Passported- January 2012 to June 2012 , Final Report PDF
431.12 KB
NOTE: This Report is an amended version of the Report published on 25 September 2012. The previously published Report was amended on 15 May 2013 following the discovery of factual errors in the statis-tical information in Section III.2.   Title ESMA Data on Prospectuses Approved and Passported - January 2012 to June 2012
02/12/2013 2013/1775 Sovereign ratings investigation- ESMA’s assessment of governance, conflicts of interest, resourcing adequacy and confidentiality controls Final Report PDF
302.99 KB
This report summarises the findings of the European Securities and Markets Authority’s (ESMA) general investigation into sovereign credit ratings issued by Fitch Ratings, Moody’s Investors Service and Standard & Poor’s which took place between February and October 2013, as indicated in its Credit Rating Agencies (CRAs) 2013 Supervision and Policy Work Plan. In this report ESMA describes the observed deficiencies and main concerns while also identifying a number of good practices in the following areas: • the role of senior management and other non-rating functions in the rating process and the actual or potential conflicts of interest which could arise; • the actual or potential conflicts of interests generated by the involvement of sovereign analysts in research and publication activities; • confidentiality of sovereign rating information and controls in place prior to publication of ratings (including IT and access controls to confidential information); • timing of publication of sovereign ratings, including timely disclosure of rating changes; • monitoring of the adequacy and expertise of resources dedicated to sovereign ratings; • preparation of rating committees; and • definitions of roles and responsibilities among different analytical functions. ESMA’s investigation revealed shortcomings in the sovereign ratings process which could pose risks to the quality, independence and integrity of the ratings and of the rating process. As of the date of this document, ESMA has not determined whether any of the observations made in this report constitute serious indications of the possible existence of facts liable to constitute one or more infringements of the CRA Regulation.
18/12/2013 2013/1943 ESMA Data on Prospectuses Approved and Passported—January 2013 to June 2013 , Final Report PDF
338.17 KB
18/12/2013 2013/1944 Format of the base prospectus and consistent application of Article 26(4) of the Prospectus Regulation , Opinion PDF
75.6 KB
18/03/2013 2013/308 Annual report on the application of the Regulation on credit rating agencies- 2012 Final Report PDF
601.08 KB
This is the second annual report on the application of the Credit Rating Agencies Regulation. 
20/03/2013 2013/317 Framework for the assessment of third country prospectuses under Article 20 of the Prospectus Directive , Opinion PDF
725.59 KB
10/06/2013 2013/619 Comparison of liability regimes in Member States in relation to the Prospectus Directive , Final Report PDF
596.91 KB
The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) has published a report on the Comparison of liability regimes in Member States in relation to the Prospectus Directive.   This is the first report of its kind and provides a comparison of liability regimes covering the EEA – comprising the 27 EU Member States along with Iceland and Norway and is aimed at providing clarity for market participants about the different regimes in place. The report contains an overview of the different arrangements and frameworks in place in  EEA States to address administrative, criminal, civil and governmental liability, and provides clarity to market participants about the different regimes in place. The report was compiled in response to a European Commission request of January 2011 for assistance in identifying and monitoring the different regimes in EEA states.   The report does not cover how the regimes, or sanctions, are applied.    Report Comparison of liability regimes in Member States in relation to the Prospectus Directive Annex II Comparative table of responses from EEA States Annex III Individual responses from EEA States
14/06/2013 2013/741 ESMA Data on Prospectuses Approved and Passported—January 2012 to December 2012 , Final Report PDF
457.11 KB
The report compiles statistical data regarding the number of prospectuses approved and passported by National Competent Authorities in the period from January 2012 to December 2012 (with a quarterly disclosure).
23/10/2014 2014/1276 ESMA Data on Prospectuses Approved and Passported – January 2013 to December 2013 , Final Report PDF
285.12 KB
The report compiles statistical data regarding the number of prospectuses approved and passported by National Competent Authorities in the period from January 2013 to December 2013 (with a quarterly disclosure).
23/10/2014 2014/1277 ESMA Data on Prospectuses Approved and Passported – January 2014 to June 2014 , Final Report PDF
211.96 KB
The report compiles statistical data regarding the number of prospectuses approved and passported by National Competent Authorities in the period from January 2014 to June 2014 (with a quarterly disclosure).
07/02/2014 2014/146 MiFID practices for firms selling complex products , Opinion PDF
122.37 KB
21/02/2014 2014/151 Credit Rating Agencies Annual Report 2013 Final Report PDF
507.61 KB
The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) has published its Annual Report 2013 (Report) on credit rating agencies (CRAs) in the European Union (EU). The Report also outlines ESMA’s supervisory work plan for this year. ESMA has found that CRAs continue to progress in how they comply with the CRA Regulation, including improved internal transparency and disclosure to the market on credit rating activities as well as empowerment of the compliance function. However, ESMA considers that improvements are still necessary, notably in the following areas: • validation of rating methodologies, to ensure that a credit rating assessment is a comprehensive risk assessment leading to high quality ratings; • internal governance, ensuring the full independence of the internal review function and thereby reducing the risk of potential conflict of interest; and • robust IT systems to support the rating process, including information security controls and protection of confidential rating information. These issues form the basis for much of ESMA’s supervision activities as outlined in its 2014 work plan. This includes the completion of the two on-going supervisory reviews into CRAs’ monitoring of structured finance ratings and into small and medium-sized CRAs. A new thematic investigation on how CRAs review and validate their rating methodologies will also be launched, as well as dedicated work on CRAs’ IT systems and controls. Following the entry into force of the amended CRA Regulation in June 2013, ESMA will also complete a specific assessment on CRAs’ compliance with the new regulatory requirements.
16/12/2014 2014/1524 ESMA’s investigation into structured finance ratings Final Report PDF
436.29 KB
The European Securities and Markets Authorities (ESMA) has published this report to inform of the outcome and findings of its general investigation in the way credit rating agencies (CRAs) conduct surveillance of structured finance credit ratings, as indicated in ESMA’s Credit Rating Agencies Annual Report 2013. The investigation took place between October 2013 and September 2014 and involved the four largest CRAs providing credit ratings on structured finance instruments in the EU, namely DBRS Ratings (DBRS), Fitch Ratings (Fitch), Moody’s Investors Service (MIS) and Standard & Poor’s (S&P). 
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.

Pages